關於中國人畫的平埔族群的風俗圖像資料，我見過九種十六帖，有的一種一帖， 有的一種多帖。多帖指同一人而作不同的畫冊，或是甲完全摹寫乙者，這類都屬於一種多帖 ；有的雖然有所沿襲，但畫作本身完整自足者，仍自為一種一帖。 本文先考訂九種風俗圖像的年代，其中五種可以相當地肯定，所推斷年代之誤差不超過一兩 年，即一七一五年的《諸羅縣志》〈番俗圖〉，一七四五或一七四六年的六十七《番社采風 圖》，一七五二年的謝遂《皇清職貢圖》，一八二○年的徐澍《臺灣番社圖》和一八七五年 的張斯桂《清人臺灣風俗圖冊》。其餘四種：傳黃叔璥《臺灣番社圖》推測在一七○○年左 右，陳必琛《東寧陳氏番俗圖》在一七七○年代，北京故宮《臺灣內番地風俗圖》在一七八 ○年代，北京歷博《臺灣風俗圖》在一八四○年代，其年代之推定大概不會有二十年的誤差。 這九種的內容，《諸羅縣志》最質樸近真，《番社采風圖》近真且較充實，陳必琛《東寧陳 氏番俗圖》稍涉文飾，以上三種的史料價值是比較高的。從母題與構圖分析，陳必琛顯然看 過《番社采風圖》，可能也受《諸羅縣志》一些影響；《臺灣內山番地風俗圖》與徐澍《臺 灣番社圖》則多因襲陳必琛。歷博《臺灣風俗圖》的作者可能看過六十七的文字《番社采風 圖考》，但其圖像與《番社采風圖》的距離較遠，或許是愈傳摹愈失真之故。這些都是平埔 族群的珍貴史料。 另外，傳黃叔璥的《臺灣番社圖》以地圖為主，風俗畫的成分相對地少；《皇清職貢圖》多 想像，不符合史實；張斯桂圖則以高山族為主，關於平埔族只有少數幾幅，而且也已經漢化 。對平埔族群社會文化之重建，這幾種風俗圖像史料價值較低；不過，黃圖可以看出十七世 紀下半平埔聚落的分佈，張圖則可用來討論十九世紀中葉以後平埔族群消失的情況。

　　　　　I have looked at sixteen leaves including nine varieties of Taiwan Plains aboriginal folk paintings. Some leaves were painted by different painters of different periods, some of which most likely imitated paintings of earlier periods. Accordiing to my study, four leaves may have been painted by the same painter. This essay first investigates the time-period of these nine varieties of folk paintings. Of the nine, the time-period of five types can definitely be confirmed with a margin of error of no more than one or two years. These are: Chu-luo hsieh-chih (Gazetteer of Chu-luo county, 1715), Fan-she ts'ai-feng t'u (The Genre Paintings of Taiwan's Aboriginal Peoples, 1745 or 1746), Hsieh Sui's Huang-ch'ing chih-kung t'u (1752), Hsu Shu's Tai-wan fan-she t'u (1820), and Chang Ch'i-kui's Ch'ing-jen Tai-wan feng-su t'u-ts'e(1875). The remaining four varieties include: Huang Shu-ching Tai-wan fan-su t'u (circa 1700), Chen Pi-chen Tung-ning Chen-shih fan-su t'u(1770's), Beijing's Palace Museum's Tai-wan nei- shan fan-ti feng-su t'u(1780's), and the Chinese Historical Museum of Peking's Tai-wan feng-su t'u (circa 1840's). The above four varieties have a temporal margin of error of less than twenty years. Among the nine varieties, the unadorned Chu-luo hsieh-chih, densely rich Fan-she ts'ai-feng t'u, and Chen Pi-chen's work, have considerable historical value. In analyzing the paintings it is clear that Chen Pi-chen had seen Fan-she ts'ai- feng t'u and perhaps was also influenced by Chu-luo hsieh-chih. Both Nei-shan fan-t'i and Hsu Shu's Tai-wan fan-she t'u may well be initations of Chen Pi- chen's work. The painter of Tai-wan feng-su t'u collected in the Chinese Historical Museum of Peking, in all likelihood had seen the Fan-she ts'ai-feng t'u k'ao, but this painting style differs considerably from that variety. All these paintings constitute great treasures of the Taiwan Plains aboriginal people. Huang Shu-ching's Tai-wan fan-she t'u makes use of maps, whereas the many imaginative elements of Huang-ch'ing chih-kung t'u do not necessarily conform to historical realities; Chang Ch'i -kui's Ch'ing-jen Tai-wan feng-su t'u-ts'e focuses on aboriginal groups of the high mountains. From Huang's paintings we get a sense of the distribution of Taiwan Plains aboriginal settlements during the seventeenth century, and in looking at Chang's paintings, we see disappearing elements of the Taiwan Plains aborigines as these occurred during the mid-nineteenth century.