臺灣汀州客二次移民研究：以苗栗縣造橋鄉平興村謝姓家族為例

Abstract

本研究追蹤福建汀州謝姓移民來台拓墾及二次移民的過程，這段兩百餘年的歷史顯示，相對少數的汀州人群散入廣東移民之後，仍然保持其宗族團體的界限，但是其族群認同則最終與廣東人群合流而成為客家。 苗栗地區的謝姓人以遠祖申伯公的名義為號召，集結苗栗地區來自閩、粵兩省的謝姓人建立嘗會，這些不同宗支的人，運用擬血緣的關係，在苗栗建立宗族。經由反覆進行的祭祖儀式，維持謝姓人對家族的認同，就在謝姓家族進行血緣在地化的同時，一群來自閩籍的謝姓人，他們的方言群也同步進行在地化。來自汀州的謝屋在這過程中，最終遺忘其「汀州」身分轉而認同「苗栗」。 維持謝屋客家認同的除了宗祠和固定時間的祭祀活動之外，還有一個重要因素就是這群汀州謝屋人居住的環境是在以四縣客家人為主的苗栗地區，因為四周相處的人大都是客家人，語言、信仰與祭祀活動都客家化，因此這群汀州人就一直留在客家認同的概念裡，也就是因為在地化所以謝屋的客家認同因而存在；反之如果這群汀州人若不是在苗栗發展，很可能這些客家認同就不會存在了。 在祖籍認同層次談客家是沒意義的，重點應該是汀、潮、嘉、惠最後合起來透過認同回溯，而成為「客家」。汀州是客家？還是福佬？取決於他們所在的場域，汀州認同會因為其在台灣的處境不同，可以是福佬，也可以是客家。謝屋由「汀州」到「客家」的認同轉換，打破了過去「粵＝客家」、「福＝福佬」的刻板印象。 關鍵字：汀州、認同、客家、造橋、家族

This study traced the process of reclamation in Taiwan of the immigrants surnamed Hsieh from Fujian Tingzhou and their second immigration. This history which has spanned over two hundred years indicates that after the relative minority, the immigrants from Tingzhou integrated into the immigrants of Guangdong, their boundary of clans still remained; however, their ethnic identification ultimately The people surnamed Hsieh in Miaoli area aggregated those with the same surname in Miaoli area from Fujian and Guangdong provinces to establish the clan association. These people of different ancestral branches used their blood relationships to establish their own clan in Miaoli, and maintained the family identification through the repeating ancestor worship rites. At the same time, when the Hsieh family tried to localize their blood relationship, they also localized their dialect. In the process of localization, they ultimately forgot their “Tingzhou” identification and changed to “Miaoli.” Except for the ancestral shrine and the regular worship activities, the Hakka identification of those surnamed Hsieh was maintained by an important factor, which is that they lived in Miaoli area, an environment mainly surrounded by the Hakkas of four counties. Since the neighboring communities were mostly Hakkas, thus, their languages, beliefs, and worship activities also assimilated Hakkas. Therefore, they always kept their concept of Hakka identification, which infers that the localization contributes to their Hakka identification. On the contrary, if not for the reclamation of these Tingzhou people in Miaoli, the Hakka identification may be lost. It is meaningless to discuss the Hakka in the aspect of origin identification since the emphasis should be put on the backtracking of the ultimately aggregated “Hakka” identification of Tingzhou, Chaozhou, Jiazhou, and Huizhou. Whether the people from Tingzhou belong to the “Hakka” or “Hoklo” depends on where they reside in. The identification of the people from Tingzhou may vary with the differences of their situation in Taiwan; hence, they can be the Hoklo or the Hakka. Their transformation of identification from “Tingzhou” to “Hakka” broke through the past stereotypes of “the Cantonese equals to the Hakka” and “the Fukien people equals to the Hoklo.” Keywords: Tingzhou, identification, Hakka, Zaociao, families