考古學是一門以人類為研究對象的學科，受益於帝國主義與殖民體系，過去的研究者進行原住民族相關的研究時，並未考量到研究對象的主體性，加上種族主義與對科學知識的追求，在全球各地皆出現以科學研究為名目對原住民群體所產生的文化侵略和資源掠奪。1990年美國通過《美國原住民族墓葬保護暨返還法案》（Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act，NAGPRA）的頒布，該法案要求所有接受聯邦政府資助的機構與博物館需要在期限內清點機構內的藏品、建立庫存清單，同時按照法案規定區分品項並調查該藏品的收藏脈絡以及涉及的原住民群體，主動聯繫原住民部落、組織與各個群體共同協商討論，確立文物與遺骸跟當代群體之間的文化隸屬關係之後，基於原住民族群的意見與福祉，落實將文物歸還給部落或是將人體遺骸重新埋葬。
臺灣原住民族長期以來受到外來政權的壓迫與掠奪，日本時期考古學研究的出現，也導致臺灣的原住民族受到以科學研究、知識體系為由的文化侵略和資源掠奪，過往的臺灣考古學研究往往忽略與原住民族群體共同協商，尤其是受到殖民知識體系分類的西拉雅族。西拉雅族長期以來生活在臺南平原，在荷蘭、清帝國與日本殖民政權的歷史文獻中皆可證明族群長期存在的客觀事實，考古學研究中過去也討論到史前蔦松文化與西拉雅族的關聯性，即便存在著考古學、歷史文獻與口述傳統上的隸屬關係，卻因為當代的政治制度而缺乏對於文化資產相關權利的保障。在西拉雅族蕭壠舊社的考古發掘與培力計畫中，透過與西拉雅族人共同執行考古學調查與研究，近一步研擬考古遺存返還的法案，實踐原住民族對於文化資產的管理權利。

Archaeology is a subject which refer to human, benefiting from imperialism and colonial system, the researcher always ignored the subjectivity of indigenous groups. There are lots of cultural invasion and resource plunder happened due to the racism and scientific research. USA passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, asking all the government institute and museum which found by federal should make an inventory, and classified the collection. After making inventory, the institute and museum should inform indigenous groups to discuss the cultural affiliation, and repatriate artefacts or human remains back to indigenous groups. The issue of repatriation and reburial also comes from Canada, Australia, Africa, Nordic also South America.
Taiwanese indigenous were also dominated by colonial regime for a long time. There was archaeological research came up to indigenous people during Japanese colonial period, which bring the cultural invasion and oppression. There is less of negotiation with indigenous groups when Taiwanese archaeology doing indigenous research, especially Siraya people during the past. Even though there are historical documents from, Netherland, Qing dynasty and Taiwan Soutokufu proving the Siraya’s existence, also archaeological evidence discuss about the affiliation between Niaosong Culture and Siraya people, the social system didn’t give the cultural rights to Siraya people. By doing Siraya Indigenous Archaeological, archaeology research groups cooperation with Siraya groups discussing how to make legislative about repatriation and reburial to indigenous groups, and to implement indigenous people’s cultural rights.

西文書目
American Anthropological Association 1998 Code of Ethics of the American Anthropological Association. https://americananthro.org/about/anthropological-ethics/ accessed August 19th, 2025.
Anyon, Roger and Thornton, Russell 2002 “Implementing Repatriation in the United States: Issues Raised and Lessons Learned.” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 190-198.
Australian Archaeological Association 1994 “Code of Ethics.” Australian Archaeology 39:129.
Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists 1980 Code of Ethics. https://www.aacai.com.au/about-aacai/code-of-ethics/, accessed May 23th, 2025.
Barbosa, Rodolfo M. 2002 “One Hundred and Sixty Years of Exile: Vaimaca Pirú and the Campaign to Repatriate his Remains to Uruguay.” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 218-222.
Barker, Alex W. 2003 “Archaeological Ethnics: Museums and Collections.” In Ethnical Issues in Archaeology, edited by Larry J. Zimmerman, Karen D. Vitelli, and Julie Hollowell-Zimmer. California: AltaMira Press, pp. 71-83.
Barth, Fredrik 1969 “Introduciton.” In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference, edited by Fredrik Barth. Boston: Little Brown and Company, pp. 9-38.
Bentley, G. Carter 1987 “Ethnicity and Practice.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 29(1): 24-55.
Bergman, Christopher A. and Doershuk, John F. 2003 “Cultural Resource Management and the Business of Archaeology.” In Ethnical Issues in Archaeology, edited by Larry J. Zimmerman, Karen D. Vitelli, and Julie Hollowell-Zimmer. California: AltaMira Press, pp. 85-97.
Binford, Lewis R. 1965 “Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process.’ American Antiquity 31:203-10.
Birkhold, Matthew H. 2011 “Note: Tipping NAGPAR's Balancing Act: The Inequitable Disposition of "Culturally Unidentified" Human Remains Under NAGPAR's New Provision.” William Mitchell Law Review 37(4): 2046-2096.
Boas, Franz 1938 The Mind of Primitive Man. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Bourdieu, Pierre 1990 “Structures, Habitus, Practices.” In The Logic of Pracitce, edited by Pieerre Bourdieu. California: Stanford University Press, pp. 52-65.
Chari, Sangita and Lavallee, Jaime M.N. 2013 Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Oregon: Oregon State University Press.
Chung, Kuo-Feng and Akatuang, Alak 2024 “Heritage and Identity: Returning to Ancestral Pathways of the Siraya Indigenous Archaeology.” Archaeology in Oceania 59: 387-404.
Curta, Florin 2014 “Ethnic Identity and Archaeology.” In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith. Switzerland: Springer Cham, pp.2507-2514.
Daehnke Jon and Lonetree, Amy J. 2011 “Repatriation in the United States: The Current State of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 35(1): 87-97.
Dongoske, Kurt E. 2000 “NAGPRA: A New Beginning, Not the End, for Osteological Analysis—A Hopi Perspective.” In Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains?, edited by Devon A. Mihesuah. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 282-293.
Endere, María L. 2002 “The Reburial Issue in Argentina: A Growing Conflict.” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 266-283.
Engelbrecht, Martin L. 2002 “The Connection Between Archaeological Treasures and the Khoisan People.” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 242-244.
Fforde, Cressida 2002a “Collection, Repatriation and Identity.” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 25-46.
Fforde, Cressida 2002b “Yagan.” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 229-241.
Fforde, Cressida 2014 “Vermillion Accord on Human Remains (1989) (Indigenous Archaeology).” In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith. Switzerland: Springer Cham, pp. 7612-7615.
Fine-Dare, Kathleen S. 2002 Grave Injustice: the American Indian Repatriation Movement and NAGPRA. Nebraska: University of Nebraska.
Fish, Warren S. 2002 “’Ndi Nnyi Ane A Do Dzhia Marambo?’ – ‘Who Will Take the Bones?’: Excavations at Matoks, Northern Province, South Africa.” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in Principle,Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 261-265.
Geertz, Clifford 1963 “Primordial Sentiments and Civil Politics in the New States.” In Old Societies and New States: The Quest for Modernity in Asia and Africa, edited by Clifford Geertz. New York: The Free Press, pp. 105-157.
Gould, D. Rae 2014 “Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGRPA), USA.” In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith. Switzerland: Springer Cham, pp. 5161-5163.
Hanchant, Deanne 2002 “Practicalities in the Return of Remains: the Importance of Provenance and the Question of Unprovenanced Remains.” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 312-316.
Hegmon, Michelle 1998 “Technology, Style and Social Practice: Archaeological Approaches.” In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by M. Stark. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 264-279.
Hemenway, Eric 2013 “Finding Our Way Home.” In Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, edited by Sangita Chari and Jaime M.N. Lavallee. Oregon: Oregon State University Press, pp. 83-98.
Hodder, Ian 1982 Symbols in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Isaacs, Barbara 2002 “Implementation of NAGPRA: the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard.” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 160-170.
Jones, Siân 1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing identities in the Past and Present. London: Routledge.
Joyce, Rosemary A. 2002 “Academic Freedom, Stewardship and Cultural Heritage Weighing the Interests of Stakeholders in Crafting Repatriation Approaches.” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 99-107.
Liebmann, Matthew 2014 “Repatriation Acts: NAGPRA Repatriation in Tribal Practice.” In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith. Switzerland: Springer Cham, pp. 6303-6306.
Lightfoot, Kent G. 2012 “Lost in Transition: A Retrospective.” In Decolonizing Indigenous Histories: Exploring Prehistoric/Colonial Transitions in Archaeology, edited by Maxine Oland, Siobhan M. Hart and Liam Frink. Arizona: University of Arizona, pp. 282-298.
McKeown, C. Timothy 2002 “Implementing A ‘True Compromise’: the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act After Ten Years.” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in principle, Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 108-132.
Merryman, John H. 2006 “Intorduction.” In Imperialism, Art and Restitution, edited by John Henry Merryman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-14.
Muringaniza, Joseph S. 2002 “Cecil John Rhodes in the Matopos National Park, Zimbabwe.” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 317-325.
Muyard, Frank 2016 “Taiwan Archaeology and Indigenous Peoples: Cross-perspectives on Indigenous Archaeology and Interactions Between Archaeologists and Indigenous Communities in Taiwan.” In Archaeology, History, and Indigenous People: New Perspective on the Ethnic Relations of Taiwan, edited by Li-Wan Hung. Taipei: Shung Ye Museum of Formosan Aborigines, pp. 195-262.
Nash, Stephen E. and Colwell, Chip 2020 “NAGPRA at 30: The Effects of Repatriation.” Annual Review of Anthropology 49(1):225-239
Nemaheni, Tshimangadzo I. 2002 “The Reburial of Human Remains at Thulamela, Kruger National Park, South Africa.” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 256-260.
Palm Island, Walter 2002 “Tombo.” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 222-228.
Parsons, Neil and Segobye, Alinah K. 2002 “Missing Persons and Stolen Bodies: the Repatriation of ‘El Negro’ to Bostwana.” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 245-255.
Pierce-McManamon, Francis 2002 “Repatriation in the USA: A Decade of Federal Agency Activities under NAGPRA.” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 133-148.
Quijano, Aníbal 2007 “Coloniality and Modernity/ Rationality.” Cultural Studies 21(2-3): 168-178.
Renold, Caroline, Chechi, Alessandro and Renold, Marc-André 2017 “Case Inakayal Human Remains – Argentina, Museo de La Plata and Tehuelche People.” Art Themis, pp. 1-6. https://plone.unige.ch/art-adr/cases-affaires/inakayal-human-remains-2013-argentina-museo-de-la-plata-and-tehuelche-people, accessed May 23th, 2025.
Schanche, Audhild 2002 “Saami Skulls, Anthropological Race Research and the Repatriation Question in Norway.” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 47-58.
Schillaci, Michael A. and Bustard, Wendy J. 2010 “Controversy and Conflict: NAGPRA and the Role of Biological Anthropology in Determining Cultural Affiliation.” Political and Legal Anthropology Review 33(2): 352-373.
Scott, George M. 1990 “A Resynthesis of the Primordial and Circumstantial Approaches to Ethnic Group Solidarity: Towards an Explanatory Model.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 13(2): 147-171.
Sellevold, Berit J. 2002 “Skeletal Remains of the Norwegian Saami.” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 59-62.
Simpson, Moira G. 1996 Making Representations: Museums in the Post-Colonial Era. London: Routledge Press.
Smith, Claire and Burke, Heather 2003 “In the Spirit of the Code.” In Ethical Issue in Archaeology, edited by Larry J. Zimmerman, Karen D. Vitelli and Julie Hollowell-Zimmer. CA: AltaMira Press, pp. 177-197.
Society for American Archaeology 2024 Principles of Archaeological Ethics.https://www.saa.org/careerpractice/ethics-in-archaeology accessed at 9th, June 2025.
Sweeney, Naoíse M. 2014 “Ethnicity and Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean World.” In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith. Switzerland: Springer Cham, pp.2514-2523.
Thomas, David H. 2000 Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology, And The Battle For Native American Identity. New York: Basic Books.
Trimble, Micheal K. and Marino, Eugene A. 2003 “Archaeological Curation: An Ethical Imperative For the Twenty-First Century.” In Ethnical Issues in Archaeology, edited by Larry J. Zimmerman, Karen D. Vitelli, and Julie Hollowell-Zimmer. California: AltaMira Press, pp. 99-112.
Trope, Jack F. 2013 “The Case for NAGPRA.” In Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, edited by Sangita Chari and Jaime M.N. Lavallee. Oregon: Oregon State University Press, pp. 19-54.
Trope, Jack F. and Echo-Hawk, Walter R. 1992 “The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act- Background and Legislative History.” Arizona State Law Journal 24: 35-77.
Trope, Jack F. and Echo-Hawk, Walter R. 2000 “The Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act: Background and Legislative History.” In Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains?, edited by Devon A. Mihesuah. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 123-168.
Turnbull, Paul 2002 “Indigenous Australian People, their Defence of the Dead and Native Title.” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 63-86.
Turnbull, Paul 2014 “Vermillion Accord on Human Remains.” In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith. Switzerland: Springer Cham, pp.7615-7617.
United Nations 2007a General Assembly. 107th plenary meeting. New York.
United Nations 2007b General Assembly. 108th plenary meeting. New York.
Watkins, Joe 2014 “Repatriation Acts: The Politics of Repatriation in North America.” In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith. Switzerland: Springer Cham, pp. 6306-6312.
Wiessner, Polly W. 1983 “Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points.” American Antiquity 48(2): 253-276.
World Archaeological Congress 1989 Vermillion Accord on Human Remains. https://worldarchaeologicalcongress.com/code-of-ethics/, accessed May 23, 2025.
World Archaeological Congress 1990 First Code of Ethics. https://worldarchaeologicalcongress.com/code-of-ethics/, accessed at May 23th, 2025.
Zimmerman, Larry J. 2002 “A Decade After the Vermillion Accord: What Has Changed and What Has Not?” In The Dead and their Possession: Repatriation in principle, policy and practice, edited by Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull. London: Routledge, pp. 91-98.
Zimmerman, Larry J. 2014 “Repatriation Arts: Before NAGPRA.” In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith. Switzerland: Springer Cham, pp. 6298-6303.
 
中文書目
Mignolo, Walter D.著，王嘉蘭、周俊男、唐慧宇、黃杰譯 2021 《解殖：全球殖民性與世界失序》，新竹：國立陽明交通大學出版社。
石萬壽 1990 《台灣的拜壺民族》，臺北：臺原。
行政院原住民族委員會 2007 《聯合國原住民族權利宣言》，臺北：行政院原住民族委員會。
何傳坤 2003 〈考古遺址的文化權爭議〉，《博物館學季刊》17(3)：53-58。
李匡悌 2004 《三舍暨社內遺址受相關水利工程影響範圍搶救考古發掘工作計畫期末報告》，臺南縣政府委託中央研究院歷史語言研究所。
李抒敏 2018 〈考古學文化與早期族群：台南市許秀才遺址發掘與研究〉，臺北：國立臺灣大學人類學研究所碩士論文。
沈佳瑾 2012 〈文化的傳續與斷裂：試論南科考古遺址與西拉雅文化之間的關係〉，南投：國立暨南大學人類學研究所碩士論文。
林秀容 2007 〈西拉雅族目加溜灣社史研究〉，臺南：國立臺南大學臺灣文化研究所碩士論文。
林俊霖 2009 〈佳里鎮的開發與社會變遷（1623-1945）〉，臺南：長榮大學臺灣研究所碩士論文。
段洪坤 2025 《穿越400年認識西拉雅（文化篇）》，臺南：臺南市政府文化局。
馬耀．基朗 2012 〈從考古遺址看西拉雅的歷史－以南科地區為例〉，《台灣原住民研究論叢》11：89-107。
馬耀．基朗 2022 〈看見西拉雅族──南科園區祈福儀式〉，《發現》史前館電子報第428期。https://icloud.nmp.gov.tw/Library/EPaperContent?a=212&id=71&nid=231，2025年06月09日上線。
國立成功大學考古學研究所 2020 〈善化．社內遺址發掘報告書〉。課程報告（未發表）。
張慧端 2012 〈博物館館藏原住民文物之保存與歸還議題探究〉，《博物館學季刊》26(3)：133-149。
陳玉美 2004 〈臺灣是南島語族的原鄉嗎？－器物、文化與人：以南島語族的討論為例〉，《歷史月刊》(199)：34-40。
陳光祖 2000 〈試論考古學家的工作倫理〉，《田野考古》7(1/2)：117-134。
陳光祖 2015 〈考古遺產保存的國際趨勢及其對國內法制的借鑑〉，《文化資產保存學刊》(34)：7-35。
陳叔倬 2024a 〈國內原住民族典藏文物的轉型正義與返還〉，《博物館學季刊》38(1)： 59-75。
陳叔倬 2024b 〈臺灣原住民人骨採集與典藏的歷史考察〉，《博物館學季刊》38(4)：69-97。
彭佳鴻 2010 〈從植物遺留談古環境重建與植物利用-以台南縣石橋遺址之蔦松文化為例〉，臺北：國立臺灣大學人類學研究所碩士論文。
黃之棟 2019 〈帶祖先回家的法律？美國原住民族墓葬保護暨返還法的困境與啟示〉，《政治科學論叢》79：60-98。
黃台香 1982 〈台南永康鄉蔦松遺址〉，臺北：國立臺灣大學考古人類學研究所碩士論文。
詹素娟 2019 《台灣原住民史（典藏台灣史：2）》，臺北：玉山社。
臧振華、李匡悌 2009 《台南科學工業園區搶救出土考古遺存整理分析計畫（第一期第二年）研究成果報告》。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
臧振華、李匡悌 2011 《台南科學工業園區搶救出土考古遺存整理分析計畫（第二期第一年）研究成果報告。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
臧振華、李匡悌 2014 《台南科學工業園區搶救出土考古遺存整理分析計畫（第三期第一年）研究成果報告》。科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告。
臧振華 2016 〈臺灣原住民的源流：考古學證據與觀點〉，洪麗完編，《考古、歷史與原住民：臺灣族群關係研究新視野》，臺北：順益臺灣原住民博物館，頁33-71。
臺北高等行政法院第三庭 2022 111年憲判字第17號【西拉雅族原住民身分案】。https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/docdata.aspx?fid=38&id=310021，2025年05月23日上線。
臺灣考古學會 2021〈臺灣考古學會研究與工作倫理規範（Principle of Ethics）（稿）〉。「臺灣考古學會」，http://www.ast.org.tw/archives/1，2025年8月9日上線。
劉克竑 1986 〈從考古遺物看蔦松文化的信仰〉，《人類與文化》22：20-29。
劉益昌 1995 〈史前文化與原住民關係初步討論〉，《臺灣風物》45(3)：75-98。
劉益昌 2008 〈蔦松文化與西拉雅關係考古學研究的檢討〉，林玉茹、Fiorella Allio（艾茉莉）主編，《南瀛的歷史、社會與文化》，臺南縣：臺南縣政府，頁389-407。
劉益昌 2014 〈考古遺址所見的宗教儀式行為：以西寮遺址出土遺跡為例〉，葉春榮主編，《南瀛的歷史、社會與文化III，變遷中的南瀛宗教》，臺南市：臺南市政府文化局，頁295-316。
劉益昌 2016 〈從史前文化發展過程談原住民分佈與構成〉，洪麗完編，《考古、歷史與原住民：臺灣族群關係研究新視野》，臺北：順益臺灣原住民博物館，頁73-107。
劉益昌、許清保、顏廷伃 2008 《臺南縣考古遺址調查與研究計畫第一期溪北地區》，臺南市政府委託臺灣打里摺文化協會。
劉益昌、段洪坤、鍾國風、熊仲卿 2018《臺南市西拉雅族文化資產第一期先期調查研究與保存可行性評估計畫-成果報告》，臺南市政府委託國立成功大學考古學研究所。
劉益昌、顏廷伃 2012 〈台南市麻豆區前班遺址試掘報告〉，《田野考古》15(1)：81-118。
劉益昌、顏廷伃、吳佩秦 2010 《臺南縣考古遺址調查與研究計畫第二期溪南地區11鄉鎮》，臺南市政府委託臺灣打里摺文化協會。
蔡志偉Awi Mona 2023 《原住民族權利手冊》，新北：原住民族委員會、國家人權委員會。
樹谷文化基金會 2009 《臺南縣考古遺址調查與研究計畫第二期溪南地區新市鄉、善化鄉、安定鄉》。臺南：臺南市政府文化局。
盧嘉興 1956 〈臺南縣下番社地名考〉，《南瀛文獻》4(1)：1-13。「台南文史研究資料庫」。https://tainanstudy.nmth.gov.tw/article/detail/1070/read?highlightQuery=，2021年12月01日上線。
鍾國風、段洪坤、許靜慧 2024 《西拉雅族考古發掘調查研究暨社區培力計畫成果報告書》，臺南市文化資產管理處委託國立成功大學考古學研究所。
鍾國風、段洪坤、許靜慧2025 〈走向「蕭壠」的西拉雅族原住民考古〉，陳玉女、陳文松主編，《成究臺南：Formosa偎海e所在》，臺南市：成大出版社。
顏廷伃 2014 〈從鳥頭狀器到祀壺信仰：臺灣西南平原蔦松文化及西拉雅族的宗教變遷過程〉，葉春榮主編，《南瀛的歷史、社會與文化III，變遷中的南瀛宗教》，臺南市：臺南市政府文化局，頁317-346。