清代屏東平原鳳山八社地權制度變遷之研究

The Development of the Land Rights System at Feng-shan Eight Tribes in Ping-tung in the Ching Dynasty

10.7058/BAH.200503.0033

楊鴻謙(Hong-Chein Yong)；顏愛靜(Ai-Ching Yen)

鳳山八社 ； 社番 ； 分割地權 ； 業主權 ； 田主權 ； Feng-shan Eight Tribes ； Village Aborigines ； Split Ownership ； Large-rent Right ； Small-rent Right

國史館學術集刊

5期（2005 / 03 / 01）

33 - 83

繁體中文

從財產權的制度變遷得知，自然資源權屬是從開放性共用資源、共有財產以迄私有財產制度之形成，人類經濟活動從狩獵採集轉變為定居農業時，正式形成私有財產的產權型態。荷治以前，分布於臺灣南部屏東平原的鳳山八社，以狩獵、漁撈及游耕為其主要之經濟活動，土地是共有的，頗為類似「封閉的共用資源」，已略具排他性質。在清治以後，由於漢移民不斷湧入，荒埔地逐漸減少，為提高番地之生產效能及維持社番基本生計，鳳山八社傳統之經濟活動，當須配合改變，然而，生產型態及技術之改變，不僅形成水田稻作農業，亦導致番社土地由共有型態轉變為地權私有化。 清治時期，分割地權或一田二主制為屏東平原傳統地權制度之一，分割地權是將所有權區分為業主權（大租權）與田主權（小租權），清廷為保護社番之地權，禁止漢人私墾荒埔地，鼓勵社番自行墾耕番地，如社番不自墾，准許番社或社番將番地租與（給墾或佃批）漢人，漢人以「代番輸餉」方式合法取得番地小租權，而番社仍保有大租權，爾後並形成在同一番地上存有大租權與小租權，而且可以各自分別處分其權利。另者，部分番地大小租權皆屬社番所有，社番因乏銀費用而典賣小租權，番業主僅剩收租權。因社番在經濟上屬於弱勢者，如以番租做擔保，向漢銀主典押或借貸，當期限期滿時，社番常無法清償，番租則繼續歸漢銀主收租，形成社番「地權虛有化」，本文將以自行繪製之「清治時期鳳山八社番租分布圖」及「清朝晚期鳳山八社社番人口分布圖」予以驗證番業主地權虛有化的事實。

The property-rights configuration of natural resources had transited from open access common resources into closed access common property, and then from latter into private ownership from the view of institutional change of property rights. It had formed common property into private ownership, when people's livelihood changed from hunting and gathering into settled agriculture. Before Dutch occupying, Feng-Shan eight tribes' population spread in Ping-tung Plain of southern Taiwan. Hunting, fishing and farming were Siraya's livelihood mostly, land was used in common. As the land area was used only by village man, it was similar to ”the closed-access common resources” which had the feature of exclusive communal property. After Ching Dynasty, owing to Han Chinese had moved into the southwestern Taiwan, wild plains decreased gradually. To improve the productivity efficiency of tribal land and sustain basic needs of living, Feng-shan eight tribes' people must change their traditional livelihood. As rapid growth of Han Chinese and Siraya people, and the diffusion of technology for paddy rice f arming, the tribal land rights had transited from common property into private ownership. Split ownership or two tiers of owners was one of the traditional system of land tenure in Ping-tung Plain in Ching era, it distinguished what were called large-rent and small-rent rights. In order to protect tribal land rights and encourage village aborigines to plant their land, Ching Government prohibited Han Chinese from developing wild plains illegally. However, if aborigines did not need to develop the tribal land, Ching Government permitted Han Chinese to rent tribal land. Han Chinese obtained small-rent rights of tribal land by paying the tribal tax, the tribe only kept residual large-rent rights. Therefore, the tribal land rights were divided into split ownership which was called largerent and small-rent rights. Any owner of those rights could either manage them by themselves or sold them out. Otherwise, large-rent and small-rent rights of some tribal lands belong to village aborigines, some of them sale small-rent right for lack of money. Village aborigines had left nothing but right for collecting rent. Because village aborigines were very poor, they had to borrow some money from Han lender and mortgage their rent to lender. Village aborigines could not amortise the debt usually, if the appointed pay off date reached. As a result, the right of collecting rent belonged to Han lender continually. Formally village aborigines had the large-rent rights, but they were deprived gradually, the large-rent rights turned out empty. This research will prove that by the spread drawing of tribal rent in Ching era and spread drawing of tribes' population in late Ching period.

1. (1987)。臺灣文獻史料叢刊：清會典臺灣事例。臺北:大通書局。
2. 現藏臺灣總督府公文類纂。
3. 臺灣公私藏古文書影本。
4. Daniel W. Bromley(1989).Economic Interests and Institutions.Great Britain by Bookcraft. (Bath) Ltd..
5. Douglas C. North(1981).Structure and Change in Economic History.New York:W.W. Norton.
6. Eirik G. Furuboth,Rudole Richter(2000).Institutions and Economic Theory.The University of Michigan Press.
7. John Robert Shepherd(1995).Statecraft and Political-Economy on the Taiwan Frontier 1600-1800.Stanford University Press.
8. Ostrom, E.(1990).Governing the Commons-the evolution of institutions for collective action.New York:Cambridge University Press.
9. Schmid A. Allan(1987).Property, Power and Public Choice-an inquiry into law and economics.New York:Praeger.
10. Yujiro Hayami(1997).Development Economics-from the poverty to the wealth of nations.New York:Oxford University.
11. 王瑛曾(1984)。臺灣文獻史料叢刊：重修鳳山縣志。臺北:大通書局。
12. 江樹生譯註(2002)。熱蘭遮城日誌。
13. 江樹生譯註(2002)。熱蘭遮城日誌。
14. 江樹生譯註(2002)。熱蘭遮城日誌。臺北:臺南市政府。
15. 李壬癸(1992)。臺灣平埔族的種類及其相互關係。臺灣風物，42(1)
16. 村上直次郎日譯、郭輝中譯(1970)。巴達維亞城日記。南投:臺灣省文獻委員會。
17. 岡松參太郎、陳金田譯(1990)。臺灣私法第l、2卷－臨時臺灣舊慣調查會第一部調查第三回報告書。南投:臺灣省文獻委員會。
18. 林英彥(2000)。不動產估價。臺北:文笙書局。
19. 施添福(1990)。清代臺灣「番黎不諳耕作的緣由」：以竹塹地區爲例。中央研究院民族學研究所集刊，69
20. 施添福(2001)。平埔族群與臺灣歷史文化論文集。臺北:中央研究院臺灣史研究所籌備處。
21. 柯志明(2001)。番頭家：清代臺灣族群政治與熟番地權。臺北:中央研究院社會學研究所。
22. 洪英聖(1999)。畫說乾隆臺灣輿圖。南投:行政院文建會中部辦公室。
23. 范咸(1961)。臺灣文獻叢刊：重修臺灣府志。臺北:臺灣銀行經濟研究室。
24. 高拱乾(1993)。臺灣府志。南投:臺灣省文獻委員會。
25. 陳文達(1961)。臺灣文獻叢刊：鳳山縣志。臺北:臺灣銀行經濟研究室。
26. 陳秋坤(1997)。清代臺灣土著地權(1700-1895)。臺北:中央研究院近代史研究所。
27. 陳倫炯(1983)。海國聞見錄（全）。臺北:成文出版社。
28. 曾振名、童元昭主編(1999)。噶瑪蘭西拉雅古文書。臺北:國立臺灣大學人類學系。
29. 黃叔璥(1987)。臺灣文獻史料叢刊：臺海使搓錄。臺北:大通書局。
30. 黃富三(1981)。清代臺灣之移民的耕地取得問題及其對土著的影響。食貨月刊，11(2)
31. 臺北帝國大學理農學部。新港文書。臺北:株式會社臺灣日日新報社。
32. 臺灣銀行經濟研究室編(1994)。福建通志·臺灣府。南投:臺灣省文獻會。
33. 潘英海(1996)。臺灣平埔族史。臺北:南天書局有限公司。
34. 盧德嘉(1960)。臺灣文獻叢刊：鳳山縣采訪冊。臺灣銀行經濟研究室。
35. 戴炎輝(1969)。中國法制史。臺北:三民書局。
36. 株式會社臺灣日日新報
37. 臨時臺灣土地調查局(1904)。大租取調書附屬參考書。臺北:株式會社臺灣日日新報社。
38. 臨時臺灣土地調查局(1904)。大租取調書附屬參考書。臺北:株式會社臺灣日日新報社。
39. 臨時臺灣土地調查局(1904)。大租取調書附屬參考書。臺北:株式會社臺灣日日新報社。
40. 簡炯仁(2001)。屏東平原開發與族群關係。屏東縣政府文化局。
41. 簡炯仁(1999)。屏東平原先人的足跡。屏東縣立文化中心。
42. 藍鼎元。臺灣文獻叢刊：平臺紀略。臺北:臺灣銀行經濟研究室。
43. 顏月珠(1992)。現代統計學。臺北:三民書局。

1. 蔡淑真、李素馨(2014)。從地方建構區域：以東港為核心的新區域地理觀點。地理研究，60，63-86。
2. (2019)。探尋臺灣財產法秩序的變遷— 臺灣財產法史研究的現狀與課題。中研院法學期刊，2019特刊1，199-251。