China’s “Fujian Origin Theory” Is an Exercise in Soft Power, Not Science

At the recent Straits Forum in Fujian, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) revived one of its more curious narratives: the claim that the Austronesian peoples—including Taiwan’s Indigenous populations—originate from China’s southeastern province of Fujian. Presented through exhibitions and speeches, and even attributed to top-level diplomacy by Xi Jinping himself, this so-called “Fujian Origin Theory” is part of a broader campaign to culturally bind Taiwan—and even the Pacific Islands—into a singular Chinese civilizational arc.

Behind the veneer of archaeology and anthropology lies a clear strategic aim: to bolster Beijing’s political claim over Taiwan and extend its influence among Pacific Island nations through a contrived notion of shared ancestry. It is a textbook case of soft power being weaponized as political mythology.

Rewriting Origins to Serve the State

The theory itself dates back to 1999, when Chinese authorities claimed fishermen had retrieved early human fossils from the Taiwan Strait. Dubbed “Strait Man,” these remains were later used as a foundation to argue that Taiwan’s early inhabitants—and by extension, the Austronesian language family—came from Fujian.

This narrative has since been given political weight. In April 2023, Chinese President Xi Jinping told Micronesian President Wesley Simina that he felt a familial bond with Pacific Islanders because “the Austronesian peoples originated in Fujian.” This line has since been enshrined in official exhibitions, including at the Pingtan Museum in Fujian, and prominently featured at this year’s Straits Forum.

But outside of China’s borders, this theory lacks credibility. There is no consensus in the international academic community to support it. On the contrary, the dominant view in archaeology, linguistics, and genetics is that Taiwan—not Fujian—is the most likely homeland of the Austronesian peoples.

Taiwan as the Austronesian Homeland

According to mainstream scholarship, the Austronesian expansion likely began in Taiwan around 3000 BCE. From there, maritime migrations spread southward through the Philippines and Indonesia, eventually reaching as far as Madagascar in the west and Easter Island in the east. This “Out of Taiwan” model is supported by a broad body of linguistic, archaeological, and genetic evidence.

Linguistically, Taiwan is home to at least 16 officially recognized Indigenous peoples, speaking around 30 distinct Austronesian languages. Many of these languages preserve archaic features lost elsewhere, which is one reason Taiwan is often described by linguists as the Austronesian “Urheimat,” or point of origin.

Genetic and archaeological data further support this conclusion. Even the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook states that Taiwan is one of the origins of Austronesian dispersal across the Pacific.

The Politics of Cultural Origin Stories

In China, where politics guides academic narratives, the “Fujian Origin Theory” is less about scholarly discovery and more about ideological utility. Its deployment serves multiple purposes: to assert a shared identity between Taiwan and China; to foster cultural bonds with Pacific Island nations amid rising U.S.-China rivalry; and to mask coercive state behavior beneath the language of kinship and heritage.

This fits a broader pattern. In 2023, Beijing drew international criticism after releasing a new “standard map” that incorporated disputed territories into Chinese borders. More subtly, China frequently pressures corporations, airlines, and even academic institutions to label Taiwan as “a province of China,” enforcing its “One China Principle” by distorting maps, language, and now, human history.

The logic is consistent, if circular: Taiwan is part of China because its people come from China, and its people come from China because China says so.

But as Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council spokesperson Liang Wen-jie wryly observed, “If all humans originated in Africa, does that mean we must all return there to trace our roots?” His point underscores the absurdity of letting political power define scientific truth.

Cultural Pluralism Versus Civilizational Monism

Taiwan’s modern identity is the product of centuries of cultural interaction. While non-Austronesian settlers from today's southeast coastal China make up the demographic majority, the island has also been shaped by Austronesian traditions, Dutch and Spanish colonial legacies, Qing-era administration, Japanese colonial rule, and postwar globalization. No single narrative can contain that history.

President Lai Ching-te recently echoed this view in a national address, emphasizing that Taiwan had its own distinct ecosystems, cultures, and inhabitants long before any Chinese imperial rule. His remarks align with archaeological evidence from sites such as Zuozhen and Dapenkeng, which predate Chinese contact by millennia.

Such acknowledgments are crucial in an era where history itself is increasingly politicized. China’s “Fujian Origin Theory” is not simply bad science—it is part of an effort to rewrite cultural identities in service of geopolitical ambitions.

Conclusion

Cultural diplomacy can foster genuine mutual understanding. But when it is built on revisionism and coercion, it risks doing the opposite: alienating the very peoples it claims to embrace. Beijing’s efforts to recast the Austronesian world as an extension of so-called "Han civilization" may find a domestic audience, but they will not withstand international academic scrutiny—nor will they rewrite the lived histories of Taiwan’s Indigenous peoples and their Austronesian kin.