文化建構視角下的Sakizaya正名運動

Sakizaya's Name Rectification Campaign under the Perspective of Cultural Construction

10.6152/jaa.2008.06.0003

黃宣衛(Shiun-Wey Huang)；蘇羿如(Yih-Ju Su)

撒奇萊雅 ； 正名運動 ； 族群 ； 文化建構 ； 傳統服飾 ； 火神祭 ； Sakizaya ； Name Rectification Campaign ； ethnie ； cultural construction ； 'traditional costumes' ； Palamal the Fire God Ritual

考古人類學刊

68期（2008 / 06 / 01）

79 - 108

繁體中文

沿襲日治時期的分類方式，一九四五無之後國民政府亦將臺灣原住民分成九個族。但是自從一九八○年代以來，臺灣原住民即展開一波波的正名運動。這個現象不但涉及大社會的政治環境變遷，也反映族群是臺灣當代社會的重要議題。就原住民要求正名運動的過程來說，一方面牽涉到具有權力的官方以怎樣的準則來認定族群，另一方面則涉及族群運動者如何作為，以符應官方的種種要求，來完成正名的目標。 本文以2007無獲得官方承認為獨立族群的Sakizaya為例，觀察文化建構在正名運動中扮演的角色。換言之，切入重點不是官方認定的層面，而是觀察族群運動者的所作所為。除了解釋文化建構為什麼在此例中那麼重要之外，也以「傳統服飾」與火神祭為分析焦點，討論其建構過程、內容與意義。

After the KMT succeeded the Japanese colonial government in Taiwan in 1945, officials continued to apply the then current method of categorizing Taiwanese aborigines into nine groups. Since the 1980's, though, many aboriginal groups have launched name rectification campaigns and have called for 'independence' from their originally designated groups. The occurrence of various name rectification campaigns not only sheds light on the inadequacies of the old system of categorization, but also reflects the rise of the aborigines' own awareness. The Sakizaya's Name Rectification Campaign can be observed in this context. Dutch records from the 17th century identify the Sakizaya as a distinct group different from the Amis people. The decline of the Sakizaya was initiated by the Jia-Li-Wan event in 1878. After defeat by Ching soldiers the Sakizaya obscured their identities by mixing themselves among the Amis. When the Japanese started their ethnographic research in the early 20th century, the Sakizaya had become relatively ”Amis-ized,” and were regarded as a sub-branch of the Amis for both academic and official purposes. The Sakizaya's new ethnic group movement was initiated in 1990. On January 17, 2007 the Sakizaya gained official recognition as an independent aboriginal group. Rather than focusing on the government's procedures of ethnic group identification, this paper intends to investigate the strategies of movement activists. It not only examines the concept of cultural construction but also explains why this concept is so important in understanding the case of Sakizaya. Furthermore it interprets two major constructions in this campaign. The first one is the so called 'traditional costumes', which were invented as a distinguishing ethnic symbol. The second one is Palamal (the Fire God Ritual). On the basis of using the symbol of fire, this ritual serves to recall participants' historical memory of ancestors who died in the Jia-Li-Wan event and reinforce their Sakizaya identity at the same time.

1. 消失的奇萊族
2. Barth, F.(1969).Introduction, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Differences.London:George Allen & Unwin.
3. Barth, F.(2000).Signifying Identities: Anthropological Perspectives on Boundaries and Contested Values.London:Routledge. Borao, Jose Eugenio.
4. Barth, F.(1993)。The Aborigines of Northern Taiwan According to 17th Century Spanish Sources。Newsletter of Taiwan History Field Research，27，98-120。
5. Barth, F.,Hans Vermeulen(eds.),Cora Govers(eds.)(1994).The Anthropology of Ethnicity-Beyond Ethnic Groups and Boundaries.The Netherlands:Het Spinhuis.
6. Borao, Jose Eugenio Mateo(ed.)(2001).Spaniards in Taiwan, vol. 1(1582-1641).Taipei:SMC Publishing Ing..
7. Brubaker, Rogers(2004).Ethnicity without Groups.Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
8. Brubaker, Rogers, Mara Loveman,Peter Stamatov(2004).Ethnicity as Cognition.Theory and Society,33,31-64.
9. Cohen, Anthony P.(ed.)(1994).Self Consciousness :An Alternative Anthropology of Identity.London:Routledge.
10. Cohen, Anthony P.(ed.)(2000).Signifying Identities: Anthropological Perspectives on Boundaries and Contested Values.London:Routledge.
11. Connerton, Paul、納日碧力戈譯(2000)。社會如何記憶。上海:上海人民。
12. Gil-White, Francisco(1999).How Thick Is Blood? The Plot Thickens: If Ethnic Actors are Primordialists, What Remains of the Circumstantist/ Primordialist Controversy?.Ethnic and Racial Studies,22,789-820.
13. Gil-White, Francisco(2005).The Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism Needs Better Categories: Clearing up the Confusions that Result from Blurring Analytic and Lay Concepts.Journal of Bioeconomics,7,239-270.
14. Hobsbawm, E. J.,E. Hobsbawm(eds.),T. Ranger(eds.)(1982).The Invention of Tradition.New York:Cambridge University Press.
15. Leach, Edmond(1954).Political Systems of Highland Burma.London:London School of Economics and Political Science.
16. Levine, Hal B.(1999).Reconstructing Ethnicity.The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute,5(2),165-180.
17. McKay, James(1982).An Exploratory Synthesis of Primordial and Mobilizationist Approaches to Ethnic Phenomena.Ethnic and Racial Studies,5(4),395-420.
18. Moerman, Michael(1965).Ethnic Identification in a Complex Civilization: Who are the Lue?.American Anthropologist,67,1215-1230.
19. Negel, Joane(1994).Constructing Ethnicity: Creating and Recreating Ethnic Identity and Culture.Social Problems,41(1),152-176.
20. Norton, Robert(1993).Culture and Identity in the South Pacific: A Comparative Analysis.Man,28(4),741-759.
21. Roosens, Eugeen,Hans Vermeulen(eds.),Cora Govers(eds.)(1994).The Anthropology of Ethnicity-Beyond Ethnic Groups and Boundaries.Amsterdam:Het Spinhuis.
22. Scott, George M.(1990).Resynthesis of the Primordial and Circumstantial Approaches to Ethnic Group Solidarity: Towards an Explanatory Model.Ethnic and Racial Studies,13(2),147-171.
23. Turner, Victor、黃劍波譯、柳博斌譯(2006)。儀式過程：結構與反結構。北京:中國人民大學。
24. Vermeulen, Hans(eds.),Coro Govers(eds.)(1994).The Anthropology of Ethnicity: Beyond "Ethnic Groups and Boundaries".Amsterdam:Het Spinhuis.
25. 王甫昌(2003)。當代臺灣社會的族群想像。臺北:群學。
26. 王明珂(1997)。華夏邊緣：歷史記憶與族群認同。臺北:允晨。
27. 李來旺、林白涓(1996)。臺窩灣人與奇萊平原的撒基拉雅人。原住民國小校長李來旺（帝瓦伊‧撒耘）族群教育觀之孕育、發展與實踐。
28. 李來旺、林白涓(1996)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立花蓮教育大學。
29. 林修澈(2006)。Sakizaya族的民族認定期末報告。
30. 花蓮縣政府(2007)。撒奇萊雅族簡介。花蓮:花蓮縣政府。
31. 康培德(1999)。殖民接觸與帝國邊陲－花蓮地區原住民十七至十九世紀的歷史變遷。臺北:稻鄉。
32. 康培德(1997)。南勢阿美聚落、人口初探：十七到十九世紀。臺灣史研究，4(1)，5-48。
33. 移川子之藏、宮本延人、馬淵東一(1935)。臺灣高砂族系統所屬の研究。臺北:臺北帝國大學土俗人種學研究室。
34. 許木柱(2003)。花蓮市原住民部落歷史重建。花蓮市公所委託慈濟大學人類發展學系暨研究所。
35. 陳俊男(1999)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立政治大學民族學系。
36. 詹素娟(1998)。博士論文(博士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學歷史研究所。
37. 潘繼道(2008)。國家、區域與族群：臺灣後山奇萊地區原住民族群歷史變遷之研究(1874-1945)。臺東:東臺灣研究會。
38. 潘繼道(2001)。清代臺灣後山平埔族移民之研究。臺北:稻香。
39. 潘繼道(2002)。晚清「開山撫番」下臺灣後山奇萊平原地區原住民族群勢力消長之研究。臺灣風物，52(4)，39-94。
40. 潘繼道(1992)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。東海大學歷史學研究所。
41. 謝世忠、蘇裕玲(1997)。傳統、出演、與外資－日月潭德化社卲族豐年節慶的社會文化複象。國立臺灣大學考古人類學刊，53，145-172。

1. 督固．撒耘(2020)。撒奇萊雅族祭禮人的終身學習模式：文化實踐與舉措中的建構。民族學界，46，67-97。
2. 督固．撒耘,王佳涵(2020)。撒奇萊雅族火神祭「Sakizaya Palamal」祭儀之重建意義與內涵。民族學界，46，37-66。
3. 黃宣衛、呂理哲(2012)。近十年臺灣南島民族宗教研究的人類學回顧1999-2010。漢學研究通訊，31(3)，15-24。
4. 羅素玫(2018)。是傳統還是創新？儀式、性別階序與規範實踐之間的阿美族都蘭婦女組militepuray。民俗曲藝，200，25-101。
5. (2010)。文化的發現與發明：撒奇萊雅族群建構的歷程與難題。臺灣人類學刊，8(3)，119-161。
6. (2011)。從祖靈祭到Mgay Bari：當代太魯閣「傳統」祭儀的建構與詮釋。臺灣人類學刊，9(2)，19-54。
7. (2014)。從人群到族群：論Sakizaya的消失與生成。臺灣文獻，65(4)，33-76。