"Spirits Fly Slow" (Pahapahad no Anito): Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Cultural Revivalism in Lan-Yu

「如祖靈慢慢飛翔」(pahapahad no anito)：傳統生態知識與蘭嶼文化復振

10.6152/jaa.2008.12.0003

胡正恆(Jackson Hu)

傳統生態知識 ； 祖性 ； 地景 ； 文化復振 ； 地名 ； 環境經驗 ； 蝴蝶保育 ； 雅美族 ； 蘭嶼 ； traditional ecological knowledge ； ancestry ； landscape ； cultural revival ； place names ； environmental experience ； butterfly conservation ； Yami ； Lan-Yu Orchid Island

考古人類學刊

69期（2008 / 12 / 01）

45 - 107

英文

本研究嘗試補充台灣原住民族傳統生態知識的以往研究，在原有的制度管理面向之外，利用當地物種和地方知識的語料推論其關係性論述的一面。此一社會文化分析同時也闡明了蘭嶼雅美族人的當代環境實作深受文化核心觀念anito的影響：作為南島語族原住民，雅美人利用多樣的動植物知識記憶以彰顯文化主位觀點對於祖先靈力的想像，深刻地連接上當地的靈物象徵系統。雅美傳統生態知識常常一方面透過物與景的名字記憶指涉祖先所有權和家族權利以遂行世襲制度管理，另一方面更強調透過祖傳物種和地點追憶，以體驗過往行動和相關靈物之威動傳承。然而上一世紀當國家計畫的引進衝撞擠壓了傳統山海收成，導致雅美族人當代的文化失落威、怨懟和懷舊。特別是在最近，族人面對退化地景而要重返自主豐饒生產的欲求日益熱切。村人在追撫昔日黃金時代的神聖農園記憶時，總是感懷逝去的山海樹石及過去的親密互動。這襯托出當前族人所提倡的傳統生態知識，籍由部落保育行動與祖先靈力的連結，更像是對大地療傷止痛的作為。從2000年以後蘭嶼生態文化保育協會開始復育濫捕殆盡的珠光鳳蝶，即便在國家補助經費中斷多無後族人自主復育依然持續。以往族人生活周邊不起眼的鳳蝶，籍由當地文化復振重新彰顯出祖物「如祖靈慢慢飛翔」（原語直譯）的親近感懷，而不只是為順應發展計畫項目所提出的折衷妥協。鳳蝶山林圈所隱喻的自主地景管理，更被視為一種社區發展的新策略，而且對環境經營的土地感情更勝科學保育社群。對雅美族人來說，多無來全球經濟整合的潮流雖然邊緣化了傳統社會的生計體系，而傳統生態知識復振既是社區發展的特色策略、也是原住民族文化奮戰之終極目的，企圖讓當代環境行動重新體驗祖物的感懷，也讓現代地景實踐煥發出對全球化過程的積極回應。

This paper attempts to widen the relational discourse regime of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) research in Taiwan, and deepen the socio-cultural analysis using local narratives of species and places to illuminate the contemporary environmental practices that result from emic cultural insights of ancestry. The Yami people on the island of Lan-Yu employ various plants and animals, via an association with spiritual symbolism, to manifest their visualizations of an ancestral power. Past Yami TEK referred to ancestral ownership or group privilege through landscape remembrance in a sense of the genealogical institution regime, and expressed the intimate feelings that occurred when they encountered the diverse species and places of the island, especially those which served as remembrances of ancestral acts and/or the manifestations of spiritual beings. After the introduction of many national projects during the last century, the once fertile traditional harvest of the forest and ocean vanished for decades, resulting in cultural schism between generations, as exemplified by the frustration, melancholy, and a sense of loss pervading the Yami elders in their effort to convey a cultural heritage to the younger generation, a heritage that remains based on an environment that is no longer visible. Villagers mourn their sacred groves where vanishing species and barren rock indicate the long-term absence of intimate interactions with ancestry once found in the ”golden days of old”. The revival of interests in TEK among the islanders is considered a desirable and venerable tool in their efforts to combat landscape degradation. Moreover, the re-focused TEK discourse in the tribal conservation was persistently used by Yami to ”heal” landscape through the reconnection of ancestor-offspring relations. After commercial exploitation of an endemic species, the Golden Butterfly, a recovery project was initiated in the 2000s, and serves to demonstrate how the Yami TEK of a culturally trivialized species has been successfully over-emphasized in a contemporary tribal revitalization of ancestral ecological views as means to preserve an endangered species. Although governmental funding stopped since 2004 due to the tight budget, the indigenous self-sustaining landscape management employed by the Yami operates autonomously until now. It has greatly encouraged local Iranmeylek villagers that their landscape care is as good or better than those of the scientifically minded professionals representing the Taiwan's conservation bureaucracy. Moreover, it exemplifies a spiritually empowered community development strategy that may prove to be widely applicable in the indigenous societies. Although global economic integration has significantly marginalized the locally subsistent Yami communities, recent tribal highlights of ancestry follow the ethos of TEK, articulating the global conservation paradigm with the ancestral embodiments embedded on the landscape. Contemporary TEK unveil a renewing strategy, also as an ultimate goal of cultural struggle, to experience ancestry at large which exemplifies how local Yami interact with the globalization process through their landscape practice.

1. 台邦·撒沙勒(2008)。傳統的裂解與重構：kucapungae人地圖譜與空間變遷的再檢視。考古人類學刊，69，9-44。
   連結：
2. 官大偉、林益仁(2008)。什麼傳統？誰的領域？：從泰雅族馬里光流域傳統領域調查經驗談空間知識的轉譯。考古人類學刊，69，109-141。
   連結：
3. 胡正恆(2004)。蘭嶼始祖遷移記憶中的卜運磋商。東台灣研究，9，1-105。
   連結：
4. 郭佩宜(2008)。當地景遇到法律：試論所羅門群島土地的法律化及其困境。考古人類學刊，69，143-182。
   連結：
5. 鍾京佑(2003)。全球治理與公民社會：臺灣非政府組織參與國際社會的觀點。政治科學論叢，18，23-52。
   連結：
6. Antweiler, C.(1998).Local Knowledge and Local Knowing-An Anthropological Analysis of Contested "Cultural Products" in the Context of Development.Anthropos,93(4-6),469-494.
7. Asai、 Erin(1936).Leiden University.
8. Barrows, David Prescott(1900).The Ethno-Botany of the Coahuilla Indians of Southern California.AMS Press.
9. Benedek、 Dezso(1987).The Pennsylvania State University.
10. Berkes, F.,Colding, J.,Folke, C.(1999).Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management.Ecological Applications,10(5),1251-1262.
11. Berkes, Fikret(1999).Role and Significance of "Tradition" in Indigenous Knowledge.Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor,7(1),19.
12. Berkes, Fikret(1999).Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management.Philadelphia, PA:Taylor & Francis, USA.
13. Conklin, Groff(1955).Invaders of Earth: The Greatest Tertian.Pocket Books.
14. Fox, James J. (ed.)(1996).Origins, Ancestry and Alliance: Explorations in Austronesian Ethnography. Canberra.Australia:Department of Anthropology in Association with the Comparative Austronesian Project, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.
15. Fox, James J. (eds.),Clifford Sather (eds.)(1996).Origins, Ancestry and Alliance: Explorations in Austronesian Ethnography.Canberra:Department of Anthropology, Australian National University.
16. Guo、 Pei-yi(2001).Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh.
17. Hsü, Ying-chou(1982)。Yami Fishing Practices-Migratory Fish。Taipei=台北:Southern Materials Center=南天。
18. Hu、 Cheng-heng(2007).The Articulation of Modern Fetishisms and Indigenous Species.Taiwan Journal of Anthropology,5(1),19-62.
19. Ingold, Tim(2000).The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill.London:Routledge.
20. Johnson, M. (ed.)(1992).Lore: Capturing Traditional Environmental Knowledge.Ottawa:The Dene Cultural Institute and the International Development Research Centre.
21. Johnson, M.,Ruttan, R.(1991).Dene Traditional Environmental Knowledge: Pilot Project. Hay River, NWT.Canada:Dene Cultural Institute.
22. Kano、 Tadao,Segawa, Kokichi(1956).An Illustrated Ethnography of Formosan Aborigines, Vol. 1: The Yami.Tokyo:Mazuren Company.
23. Leenhardt, Maurice,Basia Miller Gulati (Translated/tran.)(1979).Do Kamo: Person and Myth in the Melanesian World.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
24. Levy-Bruhl, Lucien,Brian Elliott (tran.)(1983).Primitive Mythology: The Mythic World of the Australian and Papuan Natives.St. Lucia:University of Queensland Press.
25. Lin, Yih-ren(2007)。The Chief Seattlization of Nature Conservation in Taiwan: A Radical Perspective on Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge。Chung Wai Literary Quarterly，36(3)，15-62。
26. Lin、 Yih-ren,Lahuy Icyh,Da-wei Kwan(2007).Indigenous Language-Informed Participatory Policy in Taiwan: A Socio-Political Perspective.Language Documentation and Conservation,1,134-161.
27. Milton, Kay(1996).Environmental Experience and Cultural Theory: Exploring the Role of Anthropology in Environmental Discourse.London:Routledge.
28. Snively, G.,Corsiglia, J.(2001).Discovering Indigenous Science: Implications for Science Education.Science Education,85,6-34.
29. Steward, Julian H.(1955).Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution.Urbana:University of Illinois Press.
30. Stewart, Pamela J.,Strathern, Andrew(2000).Naming Places: Duna Evocations of Landscape in Papua New Guinea.People and Culture in Oceania,16,87-107.
31. Taiban、 Sasala(2006).Department of Anthropology, University of Washington.
32. Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt(1993).The Realm of the Diamond Queen Marginality in an Out-of-the-Way Place.Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press.
33. Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt(2005).Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection.Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press.
34. Yu、 Guang-hong(1991).Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan.
35. 何德華、董瑪婦女(2006)。達悟語：語料、參考語法、及詞彙。Taipei=台北:中央研究院語言學研究所=Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica。
36. 余光弘(2004)。雅美族。台北=Taipei:三民=Shanmin。
37. 余光弘、董森永(1998)。臺灣原住民史，雅美族篇。南投=Nantou:臺灣省文獻委員會=Taiwan Archive Committee。
38. 呂鈺秀、郭建平(2007)。蘭嶼音樂夜宴：達悟族的拍手歌會。台北=Taipei:南天=Southern Materials Cente。
39. 李亦園(1960)。Anito的社會功能－雅美族靈魂信仰的社會心理學研究。中央研究院民族學研究所集刊，10，41-56。
40. 林益仁(2004)。泰雅族生態智慧之探討以雪見為例。內政部營建署雪霸國家公園管理處委託研究報告。
41. 紀駿傑(1998)。蘭嶼國家公園－新環境殖民或新契機？。守望東台灣研討會論文集，台北=Taipei:
42. 胡正恆、余光弘(2007)。蘭嶼的地名－蘭嶼地誌資料庫介紹。中央研究院民族學研究所資料彙編，20，185-244。
43. 胡正恆、林美容、郭佩宜、黃智慧(2007)。寬容的人類學精神：劉斌雄先生紀念論文集。台北=Taipei:中央研究院民族學研究所=Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica-。
44. 高信傑(2004)。雅美族「魚的分類問題」的再思考。中央研究院民族學研究所資料彙編，18，93-147。
45. 陳玉美、黃應貴(1995)。空間、力與社會。台北=Taipei:中央研究院民族學研究所=Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica。
46. 陳敏慧(1987)。從敘事形式看蘭嶼紅頭始祖傳說中的蛻變觀。中央研究院民族學研究所集刊，63，133-193。
47. 董森永(1997)。雅美族漁人部落歲時祭儀。南投=Nantou:臺灣省文獻委員會=Literature Committee of Taiwan Province。
48. 裴家騏、羅方明(1996)。魯凱族的永續狩獵機制。野生動物保育彙報及通訊，4(4)，5-10。
49. 劉烔錫(2000)。東台灣原住民民族生態學論文集。台東=Taitung:東台灣研究會=East Taiwan Study Association。
50. 劉斌雄(1980)。蘭嶼漁人社大船落成禮歌。中央研究院民族學研究所集刊，50，111-169。
51. 衛惠林、劉斌雄(1962)。中央研究院民族學研究所專刊之一。台北=Taipei:中央研究院民族學研究所=Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica。
52. 鄭漢文(2004)。國立東華大學族群關係與文化研究所=Institute of Ethnic Relations and Culture, National Dong Hwa University。
53. 盧道傑(2004)。台灣社區保育的發展－近年來國內三個個案的分析。地理學報，37，1-25。
54. 盧道傑Lu, Dau-jye、吳雯菁、裴家騏、台邦·撒沙勒(2006)。建構社區保育、原住民狩獵與野生動物經營管理間的連結。地理學報，46，1-29。
55. 關華山(1989)。雅美族的生活實質環境與宗教理念。中央研究院民族學研究所集刊，67，143-175。

1. 郭佩宜(2008)。當地景遇到法律：試論所羅門群島土地的法律化及其困境。考古人類學刊，69，143-182。
2. 黃郁茜(2010)。蘭嶼Tao族「交換」的再思考。東臺灣研究，14，3-52。
3. 林益仁、官大偉(2008)。什麼傳統？誰的領域？：從泰雅族馬里光流域傳統領域調查經驗談空間知識的轉譯。考古人類學刊，69，109-141。
4. 羅素玫(2010)。文化認同、生態衝突與族群關係：由阿美族都蘭部落的傳統領域論述談起。考古人類學刊，72，1-33。
5. 台邦·撒沙勒(2008)。傳統領域的裂解與重構：kucapungane人地圖譜與空間變遷的再檢視。考古人類學刊，69，9-44。