Atayal
AsiahorticulturalistsMei-hsia Wang
Tayal
The indigenous peoples of Taiwan, of which the Atayal are one, are related to the Austronesian peoples of Southeast Asia. Basically, “Atayal” means “people,” although there is phonetic variation in the word in different areas.
Taiwan’s indigenous people are located in the central mountains and the eastern plains of the island. The Atayal originally resided mostly in the northern part of the central mountains over 1000 meters above sea level. The Japanese government forced the Atayal communities to move from the mountains to lower ground and nearer the coast where they could be more easily controlled. In some situations, the members of a community were separated and dispersed to different places; in other situations, several communities were combined together to form one community. The Japanese government used this strategy to undermine community solidarity.
Scholars’ classification of indigenes is different from the locals’ concepts of defining ethnic groups. In the 1990s, the East Sediq and West Sediq sub-ethnic groups, which were traditionally classified as the Atayal ethnic group, launched a name rectification campaign; in 2004, the Truku ethnic group, and four years later the Sediq, became independent from the Atayal (Wang 2008).
In Taiwan, indigenous peoples are divided into sixteen main ethnic groups that make up less than three percent of the total population of the country but are scattered over forty-five percent of the total land area. The Atayal rank third among the sixteen groups by population, but first in the area of land occupied. In 2015, the total indigenous population in Taiwan was 544,369 and the population of the Atayal was 86,640.
With regard to language, scholars divided the Atayal into three major branches: Secolek, Zelozia, and Sediq. Each major branch is further divided into several smaller branches.
Major changes in politics, economy, and religion that have taken place since World War II have affected all indigenous people in Taiwan. Since 1945, the Chinese Nationalist government (Kuomintang) has incorporated the indigenous peoples into the national administrative system, erasing the original social and political boundaries. Also, the introduction of civil law influenced by the norms of Japanese and Chinese patrilineal society affected the Atayal kinship system.
The community is called alang in the Atayal language, which means “a place where many people live together.” The community is defined differently in different historical periods. Before Japanese colonization, all community activities took place within homes, with no real division between private and public. Under the Japanese government, community-based irrigation systems were constructed; later, under the Chinese government, a public road system was built. Both projects defined a public sphere separate from a private sphere, and a center distinct from its periphery. In addition, churches have become independent public spaces and centers for public activities.
Every community had its hunting district, and it was strictly prohibited to encroach into the hunting area of another community. The hunting district was further separated into two areas: the area near the community and the area removed from the community. In the area near the community the hunters should distribute the catch to every household or every member of the community. Hunting in preparation for the sowing ritual or for the harvest ritual took place in this area, and the meat was distributed to every household and shared by all members of the community. In the hunting area removed from the community the catch was distributed only between the hunters. [ocm][/ocm] The fields for growing millet and upland rice were located in the hunting area of the community, so outsiders were not allowed to cultivate in these areas. A person, however, could easily join a community. The collectivity of the community was emphasized in the sowing and harvest rituals.
Around 1939, during the Japanese occupation, land was levied by the government for planting paddy rice. The government distributed paddy fields equally to each household in the community. The work of ploughing, threshing grain and sifting rice was done by the household itself, but households exchanged labor for the work of transplanting the seedlings, weeding, and harvesting. In order to construct the irrigation system for rice fields the collective labor of the community was mobilized. Unlike the collective ritual that took place during the planting of millet, some households held a sowing ritual individually when planting paddy rice, while others did not.
By 1945 most indigenous swidden agriculture had been replaced by wet rice cultivation, which became the dominant form of production. Since the 1960s, commercialized agriculture has begun to replace subsistence agriculture. Nevertheless, traditional social relationships continued to influence the exchange of labor and the lending of land. The use of money, like the choice of new crops and exchange of labor, reflects the fact that the Atayal have not been alienated from each other and from their products by commodification.
In 1963, the Chinese government completed a land survey and established private ownership of land. Each household could decide for itself what kind of crop to plant. The Atayal soon began to grow cash crops (ginger, kidney beans, cabbage, etc.) and were incorporated into the capitalist market system. In deciding whether to become involved in growing new crops, they were not solely influenced by questions of market price and stability, but also took into account how new crops fit into their traditional values and understanding of work. On the one hand, the Atayal’s key cultural concept gaga (communal norms and practices) still influenced their acceptance of new crops and the transfer of new agricultural technology. On the other hand, a person’s identity and social relationships changed when the community was drawn into the capitalist system and cash crop production (Wang 2014 “Exploring the transformation…”).
Various crops have been used to symbolize Atayal relationships with the spirits, different societal relationships, and relationships with the outside world. Before 1945, when cultivating millet or upland rice was still practiced, the cultivator stuck a branch into the ground where they planned to cultivate and then, depending on a dream, decided whether or not to cultivate that particular plot of land. After it was cultivated, others could not use that plot unless the original cultivator and the new planter talked and drank to the utux (spirits) with wine prepared by the new planter; the ritual served as a contract permitting the new planter to use the land.
In the cultural arts industry, Atayal culture is deconstructed, reconstructed, and represented in new forms. Several case studies of weaving workshops in Atayal shows that learning and teaching weaving provides chances for constructing social networks and sociality. As community members construct social relations through shared activities, a person’s identity is woven into a fabric reflecting those relationships and activities.
Gifts and barter both play important roles in Atayal society and economy. Barter involves the exchange of items of equivalent value, requiring both parties to communicate what constitutes equal value and, in some cases, may require a ritual to establish a social relationship between the two parties. As such, barter is neither a pure exchange of gifts nor of commodities. Documents regarding the Atayal dating from the early years of Japanese colonial rule show that barter was the main form of interaction between the Atayal and the Han Chinese, as well as with the Japanese. Before entering mountain regions to harvest camphor, fell timber or plant crops, Han or Japanese immigrants would invariably present the Atayal with cows, pigs and/or silver coins to establish relationships analogous to those established between the Atayal themselves when settlements borrowed land from each other or entered into alliances. A secondary form of interaction was the exchange of mountain products with the Han or the Japanese for goods from the outside world. These exchanges also were sealed with the Atayal sbalay, a ceremony normally used to resolve conflicts or establish alliances wherein a type of plant was exchanged between the parties and a rock buried under the watchful eye of the utux (spirits) before goods could be exchanged. From this we can see that such barter exchanges must be understood from the perspective of Atayal cosmology. Once the exchange was completed, all the goods received through barter would be redistributed among members of the community, reconfirming group membership. Goods such as beads, red cloth, and knives obtained from the outside world through barter exchanges (m’iyu) were infused with new meanings in Atayal society and used in sharing exchanges (mpbay). The introduction of currency created additional buying/selling exchanges (mtbazi), with money becoming important symbolic items in marriage exchanges and healing rituals capable of transforming social relations and renewing the order of the universe. From the above we can see how local people used different forms of exchange to become agents in historical processes and re-inscribe the political and economic orders imposed on them from the outside, so as to open up the possibility for a more dynamic Atayal society and culture within (Wang 2009).
Concerning the division of labor, the basic unit of planting millet or upland rice involved one or two households, although people exchanged labor quite often in the process of sowing, weeding and harvesting. Males and females cooperated in these processes, though males tended to excel in the preparation of land and females were faster at weeding.
In Atayal society, land and related economic sources are not owned by a single social unit but are controlled by various social units. Cases of land inheritance suggest that land might be divided in accordance with each person’s contribution to the land. Generally speaking, the fishing area belongs to the fishing group, the hunting area belongs to the hunting group, and the farming area belongs to the gaga (community). Studies done by Wei (1958) and Li et al. (1963-64) show that the fishing, hunting and farming groups do not necessarily overlap, and the rules govern the ownership of farming areas are more complex and vary among different branches of the Atayal (Koizumi 1933:143; Li, et al. 1963-64; Wei et al. 1972): (a) all land belongs to gaga as shown by Meiyuan branch; (b) uncultivated land belongs to all gaga members, but cultivated land is owned by the cultivator and his descendants, as shown by Wushe branch; (c) not only is the cultivated land owned privately, but a person also has the right to claim a piece of uncultivated land if it had previously been discovered by his ancestors, as shown by Nanao branch. These situations represent different stages in political development, and should be understood from the perspective of historical events and processes.
For the Atayal, kinship categories can be defined in terms of practice, as in fulfilling the obligations of fostering, holding a meti yurak (“give something to the utux” [spirits]) ritual, distributing meat, or sharing a meal. These categories are concerned with the transfer of a person's attributes (gaga or “character,” in the sense of adherence to a community and its norms). A person learns gaga from his or her father's qutux nekis (literally, “one ancestor”; lineage), and therefore belongs to it. Gaga however, does not exclusively flow among qutux nekis; it is possible to receive gaga from other community members or from people outside the community. Flexibility in the reckoning of qutux nekis reflects the multiple possibilities of the flow of gaga, kinship, and community organization—in practice, it may be the holding or sharing of gaga that defines qutux nekis rather than the other way round.
Atayal terms designating kin include kalu (“relatives”), valu (the category within which marriage is prohibited), qutux gamin (“one root”), qutux nekis (“one ancestor”; lineage), and sali (“house” or “household”). The category of kalu includes lineal and collateral relatives, as well as those related by consanguinity and by marriage. Valu includes the descendants of FFFF and MFF; in general, it is prohibited to marry a person who comes from either his/her father's qutux nekis or from his/her mother's qutux nekis. Marital prohibition, however, can be lifted if they are not as close as valu and a meti yurak (“give something to the utux” [ancestral spirits]) ritual takes place to separate one qutux nekis into two.
Kinship categories are interpreted differently according to contexts. Qutux gamin (exogamous group) is sometimes related to the total Atayal population or to one community, or groups within a community. Qutux nekis (lineage) includes the offspring of the same ancestor who lived three, four or five generations ago, but it is possible for people to call non-unilineal relatives qutux nekis when they meet in non-Atayal communities. Sali can refer to one household or include separate households established by brothers or their children.
The Atayal do not use unilineal principles in reckoning descent, but still use descent as one of the qualifying or necessary principles to claim rights to membership, inheritance or succession. Ritual plays an essential role in delineating the Atayal’s qutux nekis (lineage), and the qutux nekis could be redefined by meti yurak (“give something to the utux” [ancestral spirits]) rituals, which separate one qutux nekis into two.
Affines have more complex terminology than other relations. Affines are emphasized and distinguished by sex and age.
The whole process of marriage arrangements may take several years. The different phases of marriage arrangements include proposal, engagement, escorting the bride to the groom's home, and being guests in the wife’s natal family. Gift exchanges between the groom’s side and the bride’s side may take ten years or more, until the couple’s children are grown up. These processes take place not only between the groom’s family and the bride’s family, but also between respective members of the groom’s and bride’s communities.
Affinal relationships are very important in Atayal society, and there are many rules that regulate them. Relationships between brothers-in-law are both tense and cooperative. Sexual words are strictly prohibited between sister and brother, and between brothers-in-law, otherwise pasani (“impurity” of a minor order) will be caused. When proposing a marriage, the marriage must not be mentioned to the future bride’s brothers. Upon engagement, the groom should send a knife to the bride’s brother, which symbolizes the binding of a contract. In the case of pasani, the sister or her husband who used sexual words in the presence of her brother should compensate her brother with wine. Similarly, when a child is born, the child’s father should send an offering of wine to his brothers-in-law to inform them of the child’s birth. Afterwards, the new father should send his brothers-in-law pigs or cattle every a few years until the child reaches adulthood.
To initiate a proposal, four men and two women of the groom’s community who are good speakers are asked to represent the groom and propose marriage to the bride's parents. It is extremely important that the two sides are not within the prohibited category. If someone breaks this gaga (community) regulation, tsgabin (“impurity” of a major order) will be caused, and the meti yurak (“give something to the [ancestral] spirits”, or purification) ritual should be held. If the couple does not belong to the category which is prohibited from getting married but can be traced back to the same ancestor, the marriage is allowed but it is still necessary to hold the meti yurak ritual to divide one qutux nekis (lineage) into two.
The positions about residence, exchange of labor, and borrowing of land show that brothers-in-law and maternal kin play a more important role than paternal kin in these matters. Another attribute of a person, ubuy (roughly translated, “inherited characteristics from parents”), is related to affinal relations. Exchange of labor takes place quite often between brothers-in-law is because a man’s brothers-in-law have the same ubuy of work as his own wife and children. During marriage arrangements, women are not only objects of exchange, but also subjects, because they still keep their ubuy and transfer it to their children. In Atayal society descent should be considered in its historical context, and affinity can be further understood from their concepts of relationships between people's attributes, or ubuy. After an agreement of marriage the future groom begins to help and cooperate with the bride’s family, especially her brothers, for several years—in effect, a form of bride service. From this cooperation between brothers-in-law, we can see that women play the role of labor-provider for their brothers. Before she gets married, she works with her brothers; after she gets married, she and her husband help or exchange labor with her brothers. For the Atayal, a woman is thought of as a tie through which brothers-in-laws establish social relationships and exchanges.
Members of the groom’s community are all involved in the preparation for the wedding feast. In the past, men went hunting and gave the game to the groom’s family. Every household in the community prepared millet cake and millet wine. In today’s market economy, cash gifts are presented if the community members are unable to go hunting or prepare millet cake and millet wine. The groom’s family themselves should prepare cattle or pigs. The bride’s relatives and all the community members of the bride’s side come to the groom’s community to attend the feast. The feast and dancing last for two or three days, and then the groom’s side brings wine to send off the bride’s relatives and community members. Several days after the wedding, the bride accompanied by the groom and his relatives visits her natal family and brings some farm implements and cooking utensils back to her new home. The bride’s and the groom’s families continue to send millet cakes to each other.
Sharing food is an important indicator defining the category of people who belong to the same household. The division of one household is termed maki nanak (literally, “live there,” meaning “live separate”). Household division requires “building a kitchen” (babuyan), that is, to cook and eat separately. If there are too many people in one household, married sons will establish a new household, and take talakis (millet), which is their portion from the old household. Parents prepare a stove for the new household, and nowadays parents may prepare furniture for the new household. It is necessary to practice a meti yurak (“give something to the spirits”) ritual when a household is divided.
Holding a common ritual also plays an important role in defining the boundary of a household. In addition to sali, the Atayal also call each household qutux buni (“one fire”) or qutux gaga, meaning that each household can be defined by practicing gaga, e.g., the communal regulations of sowing and harvest rituals. Following the division of the household, each household had separate obligations of preparing millet wine and millet cake for sowing and harvest rituals, and observed the taboos of each household. However, brothers’ households can afterwards decide to hold rituals together and regard themselves as the same household. Sali (house or household) can be redefined according to different contexts (Wang 2014 “Emotion as flowing stream”).
The Atayal term sali is loosely translated as “household” but can be related to one household or include several households which are established by brothers or their children. This category is flexible because the Atayal have different definitions concerning the division of the household. It is easy to divide and reunite the households because the household can be redefined in terms of sharing meals and ritual practice.
According to government law, both sons and daughters have the right to inherit their father’s land. In Atayal society, however, daughters are not allowed to inherit their father’s land because they will marry out. Women are only allowed to inherit their husbands’ land if they are capable of farming and have made a contribution to the land. The principle of dividing land is to divide it between parents and every child equally, but men who have fulfilled their kinship obligation might inherit more land. One child may get more land than the others if he does more work on the land than other children. Normally, the youngest son lives with parents after his elder brothers get married and establish new households; then he can get his parent’s part of the land after his parents die because he has taken care of them. The rule of land inheritance reflects the idea of descent and the importance of individual effort.
There was no Atayal term for “property” because they had no concept of private ownership. The term used today to refer to property, samaka ivuwau, is literally translated as “separate article” but originally meant “to do work separately.” The division of one household is termed maki nanak (literally, “live there,” meaning to live separate). However, samaka ivuwau (meaning “separate property” in the modern context) and samaka haya (“separate land”) does not necessarily accompany household division. Land for planting millet was located in the hunting district of the community and belonged to all members of the community. Only after the institution of private ownership of land was established by the Chinese government did land become owned privately and distributed among family members to work on their own.
Anthropological studies since 1990 (Wang 1990, 2001, 2003, 2006) tried to resolve the gaga question by clarifying the nature of gaga from the Atayal’s own viewpoint and ritual practice. These studies demonstrate that the meaning of gaga is not really a term identifying a special form of social organization as previous scholars believed, but rather a term related to cultural norms and supernatural beliefs. Gaga can have multiple meanings, including norms, regulations and taboos of ritual, words spoken to utux (spirits), a person’s ability or good luck, some customs in everyday life, and historical contracts. In ritual practice, gaga may refer to several kinds of cultural categories, including the community, qutux nekis (lineage), household, or person. With respect to ritual, the gaga of sowing and harvest rituals are practiced by members of an individual community. By following ritual regulations and learning the words spoken to ancestral spirits (utux), a person may obtain ability, which is also called gaga. A person shares this ability mainly with members of their own lineage (qutux nekis) or their own household, although they can also learn it from another community. Therefore, gaga applies to both kinship and to religious practices and situations. In addition, through obeying norms and rituals, the relationship between gaga and community are dynamically built. For example, two communities can practice rituals together and appear as one gaga; later on they can practice rituals separately and appear as two different gaga. An individual person can choose to obey the norms of a gaga, but is free later to withdraw from that gaga.
For the Atayal, rituals are especially important for defining the boundaries and membership of a community. In terms of ritual practice, community membership is defined by the sharing of a particular gaga, or norms. According to the ethnographies resulting from early Japanese investigations (Rinji Taiwan Kyukan Chosakai 1915; Mori 1917; Koizumi 1933) and anthropological studies in the period from 1950 to 1990 (Lin 1950; Ruey 1955; Wei 1958, 1963; Wei et al. 1972; Li et al. 1963-64; Kim 1980; Yu 1979, 1981; Chen 1986), gaga was recognized as the most important form of social organization in Atayal society. However, scholars argued whether gaga was a form of kinship or a religious grouping. The meaning of gaga is wide and varying, and a concept still not fully explained and explored. For example, one community can include several or only one gaga, and several communities can together form one gaga. Moreover, it is possible for all these conditions to appear in succession in one locality: for example, one gaga can split off to form its own gaga or join with another gaga. Membership in a gaga is fluid; an individual can freely choose to join or withdraw from a gaga.
Because the Atayal community is represented in terms of practicing gaga (normative behavior), and membership in the community is defined by conformity with that practice, the community is not a bounded entity and can easily incorporate outsiders. Attending community rituals, attending community meetings, hunting in community hunting areas, and planting crops in the fields located in the hunting area all worked as important criteria for defining membership of the community. More importantly, the Atayal do not set up an opposition between the individual and society but rather see the members of a community as those who share common attributes, also referred to as gaga. By means of sharing attributes with each other, social relationships are established which are viewed as internal parts of a person’s identity. Through learning and sharing gaga, a person’s identity is changed and redefined in the process. Relationships between the sacred and the secular, between society and its individuals, are therefore not in opposition but instead are defined by each other. In addition, some gaga were constructed at particular historical junctures; for example, Christian churches have been defined as new kinds of gaga.
The power of the Atayal headman should be understood from the Atayal concept of a person. His power comes from some of his attributes, including gaga (literally meaning “norm”; the extended meaning is “a person’s ability” which comes from obeying gaga) and ubuy (roughly translated as “inherited characteristics”). The Atayal community presents itself as a collective person in which all males “carry” each other's gaga and are thereby in a relationship of equivalence to each other. For example, every man has the opportunity to take charge as officiant of the sowing ritual, and give his gaga to others. However, males are unequal in that they have different ubuy (inherited attributes from parents) such as for hunting or raising good hunting dogs. The headman of the community is equal to other members as a joint carrier of members’ gaga; however, he is unequal to others because he has the ubuy of headman. In addition, the Atayal consider that a capable person should help others, and should pay more when exchanging things with others. The value of objects is judged by the holder’s relative ability. For example, two units of a capable person are equal to one unit of another.
The headman is entitled to make a decision in the community meeting, but he does not necessarily have authority in economic or ritual matters. Hunting depends on people who can raise good hunting dogs and who are familiar with the topography of the area. The two representatives of the sowing ritual are chosen from people who had a good harvest the previous year. The officiants of the meti yurak (purification) ritual, which takes place when a person violates gaga (communal norms), are chosen from local personalities who are good at speaking, but people are reluctant to serve as officiants for fear of the utux’s (spirits’) punishment.
The community meeting, called pinkyalan or pinsliyan, takes place to decide the date of the sowing and harvest rituals, and to settle disputes. Only a male is eligible to represent his household and to attend pinkyalan. If the representative of a household is absent too many times from pinkyalan, the community has the right to expel the household. This demonstrates how people define the community in terms of activities and ritual, rather than by residence.
Atayal society lacks a hierarchical social organization. It emphasizes a person’s ability instead. The headman is elected because of his ability. His power comes from his personal influence rather than a legitimized use of force. Lacking bureaucratic institutions, the headman rules the community members face-to-face. The system, therefore, cannot easily be used in large communities.
The headman, called nukis or mrho, speaks first at the community meeting, followed by the vice-headman, local dignitaries, and other community members. Everyone present has the opportunity to express their opinion. Afterwards, the headman makes a judgement. As the headman has the obligation to settle disputes and make a judgement, he should be good at speaking and fair-minded. In addition, the headman should be familiar with gaga (community norms and practices), the boundaries of hunting areas, and how his community and other communities settled disputes in the past. When dealing with disputes, the headman normally follows examples from other communities. The headman often uses metaphors when making a speech.
The sense of gaga as the norm is conceived of by all Atayal as the strictest aspect of gaga including: “do not commit murder,” “do not commit adultery,” “do not marry within the prohibited category,” “do not steal,” “do not cheat,” “do not fight or use abusive words at others,” and “show filial obedience to parents.” These gaga are thought of as law. From one point of view, all Atayal have the same gaga. From another point of view, every community has its own gaga, as it is said “qutux alang qutux gaga” (“one community one gaga”). Gaga can refer to both the commandments themselves and the community itself.
If a person violates gaga (communal norms), every member of the community is exposed to the risk of punishment by utux (spirits), and one or two members (not necessarily the perpetrator) may be punished by illness. Then, a healing ritual must take place to cure the illness. In the case of violating the strictest gaga (e.g. committing murder or adultery) the headman is incapable of rendering a cure, because all community members have become polluted, including himself. In such cases another community’s headman is asked to hold a purification ritual, meti yurak (“give something to the utux”). The violator must offer the community a pig, which all members (except children) consume beside a river in order to purify themselves; it should be eaten outside the community and no meat is allowed to be brought back into the community. According to Atayal tradition, the unit of punishment was the community. However, because of social change, more people than ever violate gaga and bring impurity to the community, but only the person or his household is responsible for the violation.
Basically, balanced relationships between people and utux (spirits) are maintained by obeying gaga (communal norms). The symbolic order implied in gaga and utux involves the pure and the impure. Different levels of impurity are all concerned with destroying gaga or being captured by utux. Like gaga, utux is an ambiguous term that has different meanings in different contexts. Before the influence of Christianity, utux referred to gods, ancestors, or ghosts.
In addition to the multiple definitions, people have different attitudes to utux (spirits) when they hold different rituals. People’s different attitudes to utux can be understood in terms of the offerings used in rituals. In sowing and harvesting, the officiant pours some wine for the utux, then drinks some himself. In this ritual the relationships between people and utux are reciprocal and equal: people ask utux for help and promise utux some offerings in return, but with the understanding that the result depends on their own ability. In situations in which people establish this sort of relationship with utux, they simultaneously establish a parallel relationship with other people. However, in the meti yurak (“give something to utux”) ritual, offerings such as the snout and liver of a pig or the comb and liver of a chicken are made. The aim of the ritual is to remove the impurity, reestablish the balanced relationship between people and the utux, and restore community order. When such offerings are made, the officiant is not allowed to eat them, but leaves them on the ground. The officiant faces utux with caution or fear.
Since the end of World War II, Christianity has been widely adopted by the indigenous peoples. In general, traditional chiefdoms or hierarchical indigenous societies have tended to accept the Catholic Church, and the “big man” or “great men” societies have tended to accept the Presbyterian Church or other churches with similar internal structure, e.g. the True Jesus Church. Although Atayal society is characterized by the “great men” system, the Catholic, Presbyterian, and True Jesus churches have all influenced and been accommodated by Atayal cosmology and traditional beliefs. Traditional political factions have become reflected in the adopted denominational divisions.
Under the influence of Christian ideas of Heaven and Hell, the Atayal began to distinguish good from bad utux (ancestral spirits, ghosts) according to a person’s behavior in his/her lifetime. The idea that the good and bad utux go to Heaven and Hell, respectively, further illustrate how hierarchical relationships between people and utux introduced by Christianity and its God was a new idea for the Atayal, who had multiple understandings of “God” during different historical periods.
Face tattoos, called ptasan, were a sign of coming of age among Atayal people. The Atayal were the only Taiwanese indigenous people to practice tattooing. Tattooing is explained as inscribing the ancestors’ gaga (communal belonging) or the “eyes of the ancestors” on one’s face. According to relevant documents, men would have to complete a successful headhunting mission and women would have to learn to weave cloth before either could be tattooed and have teeth removed, both of which were prerequisites for marriage. The Atayal thought that they would return to the embrace of their ancestors upon death, and that only those with face tattoos would be able to pass over the spirit bridge (hongu-utux) and reach the place where their ancestors reside (utuxan). Tattooing brings together the Atayal cosmological view, serves as a symbol of social position, and typifies the way of the true Atayal.
For women, there were tattoos for the cheeks (patas) as well as the forehead (liyang); men were marked on the forehead (liyang, tliyangan) and the chin (tbayan). Before a person could be tattooed, they would be asked if they had violated gaga (communal norms). If the person had committed a violation, the person giving the tattoo would perform a traditional ritual of purification and making of amends, and conduct a divination to ask the utux (spirits) for approval before proceeding.
For the Atayal, weaving is a field in which women can practice gaga (normative behavior) and communicate with utux (spirits). It may be viewed as a female ritual wherein women participate in the regeneration of cosmic order through weaving. Weavers’ various interpretations regarding weaving patterns show the industry in the twenty-first century as a process of cultural reinvention. The woven cloth embodies multiple images that combine different meanings in different contexts. Local weavers redefine their culture to fulfill their basic needs and transform themselves within, a process related to wider colonial and national projects. Hence, cultural representation and recognition is a dynamic process within fields of power such as capitalism, Western churches, and government departments, presenting possibilities for negotiation, competition, and a re-creation of individual cultural practices and features (Wang 2012).
Among the Atayal, only women are eligible to be ritual healers, and are trained to diagnose the causes of illness. While ritual healers may be religious practitioners, they are not found in any position of political or social leadership. The ritual healer diagnoses various illnesses caused by different types of utux (spirits). The healing ritual is based on the idea that someone's violation of gaga (communal norms) causes shagup or tsgabin (“impurity” of a major order) and, consequently, every member of the same gaga (community) is vulnerable to punishment by utux and one or two are punished by illness. Therefore, the first step of the healing ritual (hamagup) is to find the person who has violated gaga and is responsible for the other's sickness.
During the hamagup (healing ritual), the healer selects the name of a possible violator and put it to the test with a dream oracle and a bamboo oracle. For a dream oracle, the ritual healer wraps a little rice and meat in a leaf, and offers it to the utux (spirits) to ask for a dream oracle. As the dream is often ambiguous, it gives rise to different explanations both for the ritual healer and for the patient. The ritual healer then uses the bamboo oracle to clarify the reason for the illness. For the bamboo oracle, the ritual healer places a bead on top of a piece of bamboo held between her knees and shakes her knees while positing reasons for the illness; if the bead stays on the bamboo the cause is found. The ritual healer then offers the utux rice and meat for the utux’s forgiveness. If the offering is not enough, the ritual meti yurak (“give something to the utux”) must be held by a male in the hope of removing the impurity.
The ritual healer constructs a relationship with the utux (spirits) on the behalf of the patient. The characteristics of the utux are diverse, and different illnesses are caused by different types of utux. Relationships between the ritual healer and the utux in healing rituals can be persuasive, sympathetic, or combative (Wang 2010).
It is generally believed that a person becomes one of the utux (ancestral spirits) after they die. For the Atayal, the human world and the place where ancestors reside (utuxan) are in contrast to each other. In the healing ritual, it is said that humans eat glutinous rice here, utux eat frog there; we eat japonica rice here, they eat skink there; we eat sorghum here, they eat snake there. Some people say that utux are collective beings and make no distinction between good and bad utux. Others distinguish good from bad utux in terms of a good or bad death. A good death is to die in one's own home and be buried in one's own house; a person who dies a bad death must be buried in the wild. They say that utux who had good deaths live together in the place where they are buried; utux who had bad deaths live alone in the place where they died and were buried.
After the colonization by Japan, burial of the dead indoors was prohibited. The dead have since been buried in a public cemetery outside the community. The space of the living and the utux’s (ancestral spirits’) space therefore no longer overlap within the household. Nevertheless, it is still believed that people and utux may work in the same field, although at different times of the day. Under the influence of the Christian churches, some people believe that utux go to heaven or hell. But some argue that traditionally there is no heaven or hell, asserting that a person’s behavior is judged when they are alive, and that bad deeds must be resolved through meti yurak (purification) rituals rather than being judged after death. According to tradition, utux share the same world with people and participate in people’s lives; people must obey gaga (community norms) in order not to destroy the balanced relationships with the utux. The cosmological relationships between people and utux were horizontal rather than vertical.
The culture summary was written by Mei-hsia Wang in July, 2016.
Lin, H.L. (1950). A Report of a Preliminary Ethnological Research in Juiyen Village. The Committee for the Study on Taiwanese Recorded Materials.
Wei, H.L., Chin-chuan Yu, and Heng-li Lin (1972). Historiography of Taiwan: the Atayal. Taichung: Taiwan Provincial Committee of Historiography.
Mori, U. (1917). Ethnography of Taiwanese Savage Tribes. Taipei: The Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica.
Wei, H.L. (1958). “Lineage System among the Formosa Tribes.” Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica 67: 143-175.
Rinji Taiwan Kyukan Chosakai (1915). Reports of investigation on Customs of Savage Tribes. Taipei: The Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica.
Wei, H.L. (1963). “Patrilineal Groups and Bilateral Cognate Groups of Dayan.” The Bulletin of Taiwanese Recorded Materials 14(3), 20-27.
Chen, M.T. (1986) From Dry Land to an Orchard: the Adaptation of Agricultural Farming Economic Change in Daotse and Kamuchieh. In Essays on the Study of Taiwanese Aboriginal Societies, Y.K. Huang, ed. Taipei: Lien Ching.
Ruey, Y.F. (1955). “Report on the Atayal in Chinsui Village.” Bulletin of the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology (5), 29-43.
Yu, G.H. (1979). “Gender Relations of East Sediq.” Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica 48: 31- 53.
Hsu, M. (1985). From colored-bead to squatter resettlement: Cultural heritage and adaptation to modern society among the Taiwanese Aborigines. Thought and Word 23: 1-8.
Wang, Mei-hsia (1990). “Norms, Belief and Practice: A Study of a Dayan community.” MA thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
Yu, G.H. (1981). “Tribal Organizations of East Sediq.” Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica 50: 91-110.
Hsu, M. (1991). Culture, Self, and Adaption: The Psychological Anthropology of Two Malayo-Polynesian Groups in Taiwan. Taipei: Institute of Ethnology Academia Sinica.
Wang, Mei-hsia (2001). “Community and Identity in a Dayan Village, Taiwan.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Hsu, M. and Y.Y. Li (1989). Paradise in Change: The Dilemma of Taiwanese Aborigines in Modernization. In Anthropological Studies of the Taiwan Area: Accomplishments and Prospects, K.C. Li, ed. Taipei: National Taiwan University.
Wang, Mei-hsia (2003). “Exploring the Social Characteristics of Dayan from the Aspects of Multiple Meanings of Gaga: a Study of a Dayan Community. Taiwan Journal of Anthropology 1(1): 77-104.
Kim, K. (1980). “The Taruko and their Belief System.” PhD dissertation, Oxford University.
Wang, Mei-hsia (2006). The Atayal. Taipei: Sanmin.
Koizumi, T. (1933). A Study of Taiwanese Folk Custom. Taipei: The Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica.
Wang, Mei-hsia (2008). “The Reinvention of Ethnicity and Culture: a Comparative Study on the Atayal and the Truku in Taiwan.” Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology 68: 1-44.
Li, Y.Y., L. Shih, C.R. Yuan and F.F. Yang (1963-1964). The Atayal of Nan-ao. Taipei: The Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica.
Wang, Mei-hsia (2009). “Exploring Ethnic Interaction and Culture Reinvention from Perspectives of Exchange: a Study of Miaoli Atayal in the Early Japanese Colonial Period.” Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology 71:93-144.
Wang, Mei-hsia (2010). “From Healing Ritual to Emotional Performance: A Comparative Study of the Atayal and the Truku in Taiwan.” In Shamans and Ritual Performances of the Indigenous Peoples in Taiwan, Tai-li Hu and Pi-chen Liu, eds. Taipei: The Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica.
Wang, Mei-hsia (2012). “‘Activating the Sediq Culture’: a Study of Cultural Industry in a Sediq Community.” Journal of Chinese Ritual, Theatre and Folklore 176: 233-268.
Wang, Mei-hsia (2014). “Emotion as Flowing Stream: Family in a Truku Community.” In Family in the 21st Century: Where is the Taiwanese Family Headed?, Y.K. Huang, ed. Taipei: Socio.
Wang, Mei-hsia (2014). “Exploring the Transformation of Capitalism from Perspectives of Waya: Economic Changes in a Sediq Community.” Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology 80: 53-102.
Wang, S.H. (1986). “A study of non-unilineal Societies: A case Study of Dayan and Yami in Taiwan.” In Essays on the Study of Taiwanese Aboriginal Societies, Y.K. Huang, ed. Taipei: Lien Ching.