Recently, four tribal warrior skulls of the indigenous Paiwan people were finally returned, having been in exile thousands of miles away for 150 years. This is yet another case of repatriation: the return of cultural property or indigenous remains to their original country that had been looted or obtained in wars through illicit means.
The return of the Paiwan warrior skulls from the University of Edinburgh in Scotland is an important page in the history of the indigenous people of Taiwan.
In May, before the coronation of King Charles III, indigenous leaders representing 12 Commonwealth nations demanded that the new king should apologize for the violence and brutality perpetrated by the British crown. They also called for the return of stolen cultural property and ancestral bones.
Repatriating indigenous remains to the country of origin is not unprecedented. In 1989, indigenous Australians successfully claimed a significant amount of indigenous bones from the US. Demands had also been made on the UK to repatriate remains stolen during the colonial era, back to Australia.
These cases demonstrate that the repatriation of indigenous bones is one way to redress historical wrongdoing and to restore international justice.
From the early 19th to the mid-20th century, Western hegemonic empires had done a number of outrageous things. They imprisoned peoples of different races, including Native Americans, Africans and indigenous Australians, who were then exhibited in the so-called “human museum.” Their brutality toward different races was despicable and disgraceful.
Today, a great number of Westerners do not want to talk about their dark past. The above is not exactly the same as the case of indigenous remains in exile. Yet we should remember that on the pretext of research, it was not unusual for Western powers to obtain indigenous skulls through means of waging wars.
The return of the Paiwan warrior skulls reminds us of the Japanese invasion of Taiwan in the 19th century. In 1874, Japan’s punitive expedition led to the attack of indigenous Taiwanese in southern Taiwan. Known as the Mudan Incident, the attack happened only 20 years before the First Sino-Japanese War. After the Meiji Restoration, Japan looked to militarily expand, and Taiwan — with its natural resources and strategic location — became a prime target.
Japan’s 1874 invasion of Taiwan was the first undertaken by Japan after the Meiji Restoration. In 1895, Japan and the Qing signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki, in which Taiwan was ceded to Japan.
In the past few years, the Council of Indigenous Peoples has facilitated the establishment of an indigenous knowledge system, based on which the subjectivity of the indigenous peoples can be affirmed. History is integral to such work, and with this project, the indigenous resistance against Japanese invasion can be explored more deeply.
The display of cultural property and historical objects should highlight the subjectivity of the indigenous peoples. For instance, a flag of surrender given by the Japanese army to some villages is preserved at the National Museum of Taiwan History in Tainan. The surrender flag is a powerful contrast to the sacrifice of the indigenous tribes. It must be emphasized that it is not the surrender flag that we should commemorate, but the warriors who defended their people and sacrificed their lives, including the four Paiwan warriors whose skulls just arrived home. The past must be revisited without bias and explored with care. Only in doing so can the truth be uncovered.
Chang Lien is a retired professor of the department of history at National Dong Hwa University.
Translated by Emma Liu
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several