原住民新都鄉文化之形成： 桃園大漢溪阿美族的河川與城市共構脈絡

Abstract

臺灣人類學對原住民的研究，多半固守傳統典範，田野地以山區或海邊傳統部落為主。1960年以降，原住民大量移往都市，並集中居住於大城市，都市人類學也注意到了此一現象。然而，對於移居都市的原住民研究，立論基點仍多為強調原鄉主導的「起點論」與遷動適應的「過程論」。本論文跳脫此一框架，以「終點論」思維來理解作為新家的移居都市，關注臺灣原住民在都市生活的生活狀態，從而提出山區、海岸的原鄉，不再成為新文化生成要素之論。都市原住民人數已逾原住民總人口半數，不應被繼續忽視，或只視為是原鄉研究的外溢、附屬領域，它應可自為主體。 立基於移動終點的都市，從山區或海邊的原住民與都市逢遇共構而生的新都鄉文化，如同桃李嫁接。都市是李子樹幹，提供如桃枝的原住民養分，經由嫁接，結出的桃子，長出更多樣貎，但不再是原鄉的桃子。族群是否因而有了新的狀態？本論文以桃園市大漢溪流相鄰不遠的瑞興、崁津與撒烏瓦知等三個部落，嘗試回答這樣的問題。並從移民日常生活實踐，食物、樂舞、信仰與觀光四個面相，剖析河岸與部落的共構景象，闡述阿美族創造文化的能動性。 阿美族為了維持採集與捕撈傳統生活，取得族群食譜中的食材，深被大漢溪流所吸引，進到河岸，以集居國宅、建置田園新部落等不同方式居住河畔，也藉由傳統的pakelang(脫聖返俗、潔淨、結束、感謝、慶祝、檢討)、patawsi(小喝、小聊、打牙祭)、mipacok(殺豬)、sakaahon(愛餐、風味餐)等共食行為，凝聚族群情感，強化與連結人際關係。都市中食材的取得，呈現食空穿越的現象，形構出不同層次的人群網絡。除了食物連結人群之外，信仰亦具安定心靈的力量，族人進入都市找教會，實則找族人，教會發揮了跨區域、跨族群連結人群的作用。豐年祭展演，具有宗教、政治、經濟、族群等要素同時作用的複合體，由於傳統文化在都市情境被刻意強調，宗教因而逐漸鬆開原來拒斥的手，轉而支持族人參與，族群與宗教，在新都鄉文化中朝向多元混融的方向發展。 阿美族以能歌善舞的天賦，在都市傳唱部落之歌，與國家對話，並確立居住河岸的正當性，藉此宣稱是河岸的主人。他們組成舞團、樂團，將傳統注入流行音樂及融入其他族群，混搭、展演於都市舞臺。樂舞是顯形文化，在觀光場域中最具吸引力，豐年祭展現的是否為傳統的原汁原味，觀光客並不挑剔，也不執著看到百分百的文化真實性。族人敞開雙臂，熱情歡迎觀光客的凝視，容許儀式與成員有更多的開放性，這樣的不純粹性，正是都市阿美族的真實性。 移居桃園市的阿美族，多數居住在都市公寓建築內，而這三個都市部落，之所以引起筆者注意，因係位居大漢溪畔，形塑出都市與河川共構的人文自然景象。其生成、發展樣貎各有差異，本論文以「市造」、「自造」及「時造」分別稱之。族人活動範圍有傳統的田園，有部落建築，也有公寓大樓但張貼宣示著族群圖騰。有的曾非法佔用河川地，其後經社會運動抗爭，成功建置新都鄉。他們展現族群文化的能動性，讓部落文化改造了自然生態，使移民族群重新定義了都市河岸。河岸因而新生，獲致新生養分，部落從此在都市新生，族群更具備了新生活世界的存在樣貌。 從田野現場觀察到阿美族群文化的變異、新生，他們發揮創意將傳統轉化，筆者發現其間有一核心概念與精神價值，即阿美族語的sasulut或臺語的tawtaw，意義為「分享、湊和」，支撐著這一切變化。於是，新都鄉文化呈現的是一種開放隨和、廣義拼湊式的外貌，其本質即是自由自在、歡喜快樂。 過去都市人類學所理解的原住民在都市中的狀態，多認為是適應困難、族群文化遭壓抑扭曲，本論文案例所顯現的則是成功地運用自身族群文化能動性，翻轉了都市弱勢處境，同時也善於結合都市菁英與社會同情，乃至輕鬆駕馭社會運動抗爭手段，確認自我在都市的定位，並為其帶來新的價值與內涵。 都市部落與河川共生共構，對族群自身的影響，以及對臺灣原住民研究的意義與啟發，也是本論文關注思考的重點。 傳統人類學對於部落、村寨小型社會的研究，多行面對面接觸、近身觀察的田野調查。但，這樣的模式，進到更大群又異質的都市生活場景時，難以完全施展。本論文從桃園大漢溪的「城市與河川的共構」脈絡，探討河岸三部落與城市互動形塑的新都鄉文化樣貎，即採多點田野，以真實掌握全貎。以人類學全貎觀(holistic view)視之，新的都市人類學把都市當成一個整體，城市做為活力交織的內在實體( city is context)，而不僅僅是一種形式或背景。以實證田野修正過去學術研究的都市定義，並對社會學總是看到病灶的前提與假設提出反省，不只關注都市的人文景象，也注意到空間狀態。 本論文以遷徙「終點論」的立論基點，探究「新都鄉文化」的形成，以都市做為整體進行研究。人類學者必須追隨原住民人群移動的腳步，不只是生活現場的部落，也包含與大城市的互動，甚至是移出的原鄉，均需納入研究範疇。因此，「多點田野」的研究，是為必要的研究途徑。筆者在至少六年的時間裡，與族人結織、談天、嘻笑、請益、交心，以及更多的聆聽，才有這本與河岸阿美族人共同完成的論文。 筆者為非阿美族的臺灣原住民，進入陌生的田野地，常引來好奇的眼光並詢問：妳是泰雅族，為什麼不做泰雅族而來做阿美族的研究？面對疑問，即不斷自問與反思，而今能夠在三部落穿越自如，與族人打成一片，即是「用心入戲」的田野過程。用一份誠懇的心交朋友，從原本的外部陌生人，日久轉化為局內親朋好友，不僅參與族人的部落大型活動、教會跨區域活動、家族婚喪喜慶或旅遊，也多次受邀融入日常戶外小聚。見證了活生生田野，得到真情友誼。這是深刻的人文田野，也是紮實觀察人類日常生活實踐的社會科學田野。

In the past nearly a whole century the majority of academic researches on indigenous people has been focused on matters related to tradition. That means most of fieldworks that researchers conducted were either in mountainous areas or along seaside tiny plains where the indigenous original homeland located. Although many urban anthropologists began to pay attentions to the phenomena of indigenous migration since the 1960’s to them the homeland in remote areas were still in significant position for interpreting any anthropological issue on the people. Urban life of them were considered as temporary, passing-by, or even not real because everyone was still anxious to returning to mountainous or seaside real home someday under the viewpoints of anthropological researchers. However in this dissertation I argue that the traditional methodology of doing fieldwork in indigenous communities is not persuasive any more due to the fact that my data strongly support that the indigenous urbanites have established their permanent new home in the metropolitan area without hesitation about thinking of the so-called original homeland. In other words the indigenous migrants now have totally become urban inhabitants or more correctly the members of major cities of the country. I study three tribal communities alongside the Ta-han(Dahan) River nearby Ta-his(Daxi) District of Taoyuan City, they are Juei-hsing(Ruixing), Kan-chin(Kanjin), and Sa’owac(Saerwazi). The major residents of them are Amis who moved from either Hualien or Taitung Counties of east Taiwan in previous half a century. Juei-hsing is apartment compound approved by the government as a legal residential location. Both Kan-chin and Sa’owac were two illegal dwelling areas owing to the threat of flooding during the raining season. But the Amis immigrants loved to stay there on the account of using the riverbank for collecting natural vegetables and planting domestic crops easily that the situation was similar to the place they left. Those two unlawful settlements in the long run received legal status right after intensive protest under general supports from the main society. I have described the situational developments of food culture, expressive performances, religious belief, and tourism in three communities for the purposes of confirming my points of the newly-formulated Amis culture of urban hometown. The Amis had been developing impressed relationships to the ecological environment of Ta-han River when they found out this place as a suitable location to set up a new village. Both Juei-hsing and Sa’owac established their communities through such an experience and finally reaching the goal of stay permanently. As regards Juei-hsing apartments a river around was one of the attractive reasons for the people to collect funds and apply permission from the government to found it. At present all residents of three communities continue to enjoy preferred food which is different from cuisine of Han-Taiwanese. People danced and sang whenever typical ethnic festivals came. Christianity is still the most important religion for most of the Amis. They had tried hard to look for church members when arriving in city and it drove them to get together for facing new challenges. Residents of Sa’owac among others matched up the policy of developing riverbank leisure life of the local government and gained evident welcome from the tourists from domestic cities and international countries. Pakelang, patawsi, sasulut, and tawtaw are four key folk concepts to the Amis living these three riverbank communities for creating their daily life. People enjoy having food together anytime any place since they have motivation to do it and this is patawsi. Usually a small group of local residents invite each other after returning to the community for eat and drink and sing as well through the night. Pakelang refers to a banquet after formal public ritual or ceremony ordinarily. It emphasizes people joining together and eat. The activity of food sharing by all of members of community symbolizes one heart of the group. The definition of pakelang is more loosen for these three riverbank villages. People held such an activity based on a particular reason for confirming unity. Sharing food is a crucial thing no matter what it is formal or informal situation and it makes the people forming a common belonging consciousness to the community. Pakelang and Patawsi thus connect residents together and the “we group” is new for the peoples who actually migrated from different tribal villages of original hometown. Sasulut means mutual-sharing which the Amis always keeps in minds and talk to next generations very often because it is one of core values of the people. As for tawtaw it is in fact a term borrowed from Han-Taiwanese language to relate to pooling together all different thing to reach a sharing goal. In other words people should not argue over trivial matters, and let tawtaw bring many individuals from dissimilar born places, sects, professions, local dialects to be here for organizing a cooperated daily life. The Amis settled down in urban area and established three tribal communities. They practiced pakelang and patawsi to call kin groups and friends to form much and more intimate relationships for pursuing safety and we people identity. But to make a living in metropolitan setting is always difficult and probably uncertain because most of the indigenous immigrants felt strange and anxious when arriving there. Therefore to emphasize sasulut or sharing with people who were short of resources and declare tawtaw or making up with all potential participants were two typical cultural principles formulated in urban setting among the Amis. It is not necessary to keep connection with the original homeland in east Taiwan for the Amis in Ta-han River area. Because the indigenous urbanites have identified themselves as true members of this particular new home base. They do not feel that the Amis out of original town are only temporary passing visitors and must return some day in the future. The Amis are exactly metropolitans and sharers of the pride of Taoyuan City. Daily life of the people are definitely parts of Taoyuan’s days and nights. In short the methodological approach to define indigenous cultural change should not take phenomena appeared in original homeland as object for analysis. The subjectivity of urban Amis is the key role of directing and creating people’s way of life. People arranged their new life in urban situation following one’s active ideas of performing local culture in three communities along the Ta-han River. In this dissertation I encourage re-thinking theoretical construction of urban anthropology on indigenous immigrants and contend that we should take the newly-formed local culture of the people in urban communities to interpret such a group who have fully participate in metropolitan life. The indigenous people have departed from so-called “tribal” sphere and jumped into the main dwelling location of a modern nation-state. This is exactly story of ethnic and cultural change among the indigenous people in Taiwan and I believe we can bring it to re-interpret indigenous migration in other countries whose situation is worthy to make a comparison.