「Cepo'戰役」為清代秀姑巒溪口一帶阿美族與國家之間發生的重大衝突，其最具代表性的事件舊址「Napololan」為當今阿美族重要的文化遺產，也是當地具有特殊文化意義與爭議性的禁忌空間。為建立「Napololan」具有法律效力的有形文化資產身分，主管機關花蓮縣文化局委託成大考古所進行評估研究。原計畫欲執行的考古試掘與調查項目在與當地社群取得諮商同意權的過程中不斷進行調整與修正。
　　台灣歷經不同外來政權的多層次殖民經驗，殖民、被殖民、去殖民等相關論述顯得更待釐清。考古學由於學科本身發展脈絡與殖民的歷史息息相關，運行在當代台灣文化資產保存的體系下，研究題材時常牽涉到原住民族的傳統領域與祖先的文化遺產。過去的論述與作為，往往以學術研究為名，忽視原住民族的多元的觀點與在地社群的權益。直到近年原住民考古學逐漸發展，考古學家嘗試與原住民社群建立對等的合作關係，才慢慢打破過去單方面話語權的知識輸出。
　　本文所論述的考古學去殖民化，是一種以考古學本身為對象的反身性實踐。在「Cepo'戰役」考古計畫執行期間，筆者駐點於港口與靜浦部落進行為期一年半的田野，並將參與計畫的過程以民族誌的方式記錄下來。考古工作的項目，包含社群諮商、口述歷史調查、考古地表調查與相關祭祀活動等。而對於在Napololan進行「考古發掘」的看法，有些族人認為會驚擾祖先，影響部落安寧，而有些族人則樂觀看待並支持考古研究，期待能為部落帶來更多資源和發展。在地社群對於考古學的進入所展現的不同態度，反映對於「Cepo'戰役」的多元觀點與認同。透過本研究的觀察，發現主管機關、考古學者與在地社群的對話，仍存在不對等的關係，原住民族主體性的展現仍顯不足。
　　台灣的去殖民論述尚在形成階段，考古學去殖民化當前仍面臨著一些挑戰：（一）文化資產保存制度中的結構性殖民遺緒；（二）學科內部對殖民議題的自省與討論仍不夠深入；（三）去殖民論述主體的模糊與未明確化。

The "Battle of Cepo'" was major historical conflict between the Pangcah people and the Qing state in the in eastern Taiwan. Its most representative site, Napololan, is today regarded as a significant cultural heritage location by the Pangcah and is also considered a taboo space with complex cultural meanings. In order to establish Napololan as a legally recognized tangible cultural asset, the Hualien County Cultural Affairs Bureau commissioned the Institute of Archaeology at National Cheng Kung University to conduct an evaluation and research project. However, the original archaeological excavation and survey plans were gradually modified through consultations with local Indigenous communities.
　　Taiwan’s complex colonial history under multiple regimes calls for more nuanced discussions on colonization, decolonization, and postcolonial processes. As a discipline historically intertwined with colonial power, archaeology in Taiwan often intersects with Indigenous ancestral heritage and traditional territories, yet has long operated under state-defined frameworks that tend to overlook Indigenous perspectives and community rights. It is only in recent years that Indigenous archaeology has begun to emerge, fostering more equitable collaborations between archaeologists and Indigenous communities and challenging the unidirectional production of archaeological knowledge.
　　This study approaches decolonizing archaeology as a reflexive practice directed toward the discipline itself. During the implementation of the Archaeological Project, the author conducted the ethnographic fieldwork in the Pangcah communities of Makotaay and Cawi villages, documenting the project through participant observation. Project components included community consultation, oral history interviews, surface surveys, and ritual activities. Community responses to potential excavations at Napololan were diverse—some saw it as disrespectful to ancestral spirits, while others hoped archaeological research could bring resources and recognition to the community. These differing attitudes reflect the diverse perspectives and Multiple voice of the “Battle of Cepo'” within local society.
　　Despite the project’s efforts, dialogues between the government agency, archaeologists, and Indigenous communities remained marked by unequal power dynamics, and the articulation of Indigenous subjectivity was limited. This research suggests that decolonizing archaeology in Taiwan continues to face structural challenges, including: (1) the colonial residues embedded in the cultural heritage system; (2) insufficient reflexivity within the discipline regarding colonial legacies; and (3) the lack of clarity and definition concerning the subjects of decolonial discourse.

中央研究院 2022 〈1904日治台灣堡圖（明治版）〉。「中央研究院 WMTS 服務」，https://gis.sinica.edu.tw/tileserver/wmts，2022年5月6日上線。
以撒克•阿復 2008 〈紀念作為文化抵抗─大港口事件作為「危險記憶」的解放意涵〉，《台灣原住民研究論叢》3：187-206。
江芝華 2019 〈佳平舊社（Kaviyangan）的原住民考古學實踐：一場合作的開始〉，郭素秋主編，《舊社考古學與族群溯源學術研討會》，臺北：中央研究院民族學研究所，頁269-288。。
宋文薰、連照美翻譯、編輯 1998 《我的台灣紀行－宮本延人口述》，台北：南天書局出版社。
李宜憲 2005 〈大港口事件：晚清國家體制與原住民部落的衝突〉，《東台灣研究》10：5-36。
李宜憲、莊雅仲 2020《大港口事件1877-1878 O lalood i Cepo'》，新北市：原住民族委員會。
李威宜 2014 〈族群展示的反思：後威權臺灣的觀察〉，《考古人類學刊》80：221-249。
阮昌銳 1964 〈港口阿美調查簡報〉，《考古人類學刊》 23/24 : 53-66 。
阮昌銳 1969 《大港口的阿美族》，南港：中央研究院民族學研究所。
孟祥瀚 2014 〈東台灣國家與族群之歷史研究的回顧〉，《東台灣研究》21：55-74。
官大偉 2021 《臺灣原住民族重大歷史事件紀念碑設置研究計畫期末果報告書》，文化部委託政治大學原住民族研究中心。
林玉茹 2007 《殖民地的邊區：東臺灣的政治經濟發展》，台北市：遠流。
林素珍 2008 〈大港口事件歷史意義探討〉，《台灣原住民研究論叢》3：207-220。
社區資源手冊 2001 〈社區發展始末—跨世紀的 社區營造課題〉。https://921.yam.org.tw/community/history/history_03.htm，2025年6月1日上線。
紀駿傑 2005 〈原住民研究與原漢關係－後殖民觀點之回顧〉，《國家政策季刊》4(3)：5-28。
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》，台北縣：稻香。
張育銓 2016 〈花蓮豐田社區史的後殖民論述與遺產論述〉，《真理大學人文學報》18：23-42。
陳玉美 1990 〈研究者與其研究對象的關係──以考古學為例〉，《田野考古》1(1)：9-23。
陳玉美 2003 〈考古學中人與環境關係的研究：以site catchment為例〉，《考古人類學刊》60：97-114。
陳玉美 2012 〈台灣的歷史考古學的研究〉，《田野考古》15(1)：1-17。
陳瑪玲 2020 〈從考古學的視角談「與人類研究匯聚」從考古學的視角談「與人類研究匯聚」：回應〈聚落：一個考古學與人類研究的匯合點〉〉，考古人類學刊，（92）：25-30。
黃士強、劉益昌 1980《全省重要史蹟勘查與整修建議一考古遺址與舊社部》，交通部觀光局委託國立台灣大學考古人類學系。
黃士強、張慧端、陳維新、朱正宜、陳有貝 1989《東部海岸陸域資源調查及分析：人文史蹟調查及分析》，台灣省住都局市鄉規劃處委託中華民國戶外遊憩學會。
黃宣衛 2008 《阿美族》，台北市：三民。
黃宣衛（主編） 2011《人類學家的足跡──台灣人類學百年特展》，台北：中央研究院民族學研究所博物館。
葉美珍 2001《台十一縣東部演海公路改善花蓮縣境史前遺跡保護監測作業港口遺址試掘工作報告》，交通部公路局第四區工程處委託國立台灣史前文化博物館籌備處。
詹素娟 2019 《典藏台灣史（二）台灣原住民史》，台北市：玉山社。
劉益昌 2006 〈台灣考古學與原住民研究〉，《國立臺灣大學考古人類學刊》66：70-93。
劉益昌 2001《花蓮港口遺址考古試掘暨口述歷史調查研究》，台南：國立歷史博物館。
劉益昌 2011 《臺灣全志‧卷三住民志‧考古篇》，南投：國史館臺灣文獻館。
劉益昌、劉得京、林俊全 1993 《史前文化》，台東：交通部觀光局東部海岸國家風景區管理處。
劉益昌、陳俊男、鐘國風、宋文增、鄭瑞端 2004 《臺閩地區考古遺址普查研究計畫報告：宜蘭縣、花蓮縣》，內政部委託中央研究院歷史語言研究所執行研究。
歐陽泰著，鄭維中譯 2019[2008] 《福爾摩沙如何變成臺灣府?》，台北市：遠流。
蔡中涵 2001 《原住民重大歷史事件—大港口事件》，行政院委託財團法人台灣原住民文教基金會。
蔡中涵 2022 《Ono' Amis a pinengneng to “Lalood I Cepo'” 大港口戰役的阿美族觀點》，台北：財團法人台灣原住民文教基金會。
蔡美倩主編 2011 《享和三年癸亥漂流臺灣チョプラン島之記編譯本》，新北市：國立中央圖書館臺灣分館。
總統府新聞 2016 〈總統代表政府向原住民族道歉〉。「中華民國總統府」，https://www.president.gov.tw/news/20603，2025年6月1日上線。
謝世忠 2017[1987] 《認同的污名：台灣原住民族群的變遷》。重新出版。台北市：玉山社。
鍾國風 2019《原住民族重大歷史文化事件空間紀念－O lalood i Cepo'（大港口戰爭）發生地文化資產價值評估暨在地社群培力計畫》，花蓮縣政府文化局委託國立成功大學考古學研究所之研究計畫。
鍾國風 2023《花蓮縣港口列冊考古遺址（秀山段520 地號）試掘評估計畫》，花蓮縣政府文化局委託國立成功大學考古學研究所之計畫。
顧恒湛 2016 〈被扼殺的原運火苗：1970年代「臺灣山地獨立運動案」始末〉，薛化元、川島真、洪郁如主編，《跨域青年學者台灣與東亞近代史研究論集，新北市：稻鄉出版社，頁127-170。
Alexander, Jeffrey C.2004 “Toward a Theory of Cultural Trauma” In Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 1-30.
Alexander, Rani T. 1998 “Afterword: Toward an Archaeological Theory of Culture Contact” In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, edited by James G. Cusick. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, pp. 476–495.
Atalay, Sonya 2006 “Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice.” Special issue, Decolonizing Archaeology, American Indian Quarterly 30(3): 280-310.
Beck,Wendy, and Margaret Jean Somerville 2005 “Conversations between disciplines: historical archaeology and oral history at Yarrawarra.” World Archaeology 37(3): 468-483.
Brave Heart, Maria 2000 “Wakiksuyapi: Carrying the historical trauma of the Lakota.” Tulane Studies in Social Welfare 21: 245-266.
Bruchac, Margaret 2014 “Decolonization in Archaeological Theory” In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith. New York: Springer, pp. 2069-2077.
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.
Curtoni, Rafael, Axel Lazzari, and Marisa Lazzari 2003 “Middle of nowhere: A place of war memories, commemoration, and aboriginal re-emergence (La Pampa, Argentina).” World Archaeology 35: 61-78.
Edgeworth, Matt 2006 “Multiple Origins, Development, and Potential of Ethnographies of Archaeology.” In Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice - Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations, edited by Matt Edgeworth. Lanham: AltaMira Press e, pp. 1-19.
Gonzalez, Sara L., and Lee M. Panich 2021 “Situating Archaeological Approaches To Indigenous-Colonial Interaction In The Americas: An introduction.” In The Routledge Handbook of the Archaeology of Indigenous-Colonial Interaction in the Americas, edited by Lee M. Panich and Sara L. Gonzalez. London: Routledge, pp. 3-13.
Greenlee, Joseph 2023 “The American Tradition of Self-Made Arms.”, ST. Mary’s Law Journal 54: 35-50.
Hamilakis, Yannis 2011 “Archaeological Ethnography: A Multitemporal Meeting Ground for Archaeology and Anthropology”, Annual Review of Anthropology 40: 399-414.
Hamilakis, Yannis 2016 “Decolonial archaeologies: from ethnoarchaeology to archaeological ethnography”, World Archaeology 48(5): 678-682.
Hamilakis, Yannis, and Aris Anagnostopoulos 2009 “What Is Archaeological Ethnography?”, Public Archaeology 8(2): 65-87.
Hart, Siobhan M., Maxine Oland, and Liam Frink 2012 “Finding Transitions: Global Pathways to Decolonizing Indigenous Histories in Archaeology.” In Decolonizing Indigenous Histories: Exploring Prehistoric/Colonial Transitions in Archaeology, edited by Siobhan M. Hart, Maxine Oland, and Liam Frink. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 1-16.
Hendon, Julia 2020 “Social Memory in Archaeological Theory.” In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Smith, C. Cham: Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30018-0_1285.
Hodder, Ian 1977 “Always momentary, fluid and flexible’: towards a reflexive excavation methodology.” Antiquity 71(273): 691–700.
Hodder, Ian 2000 Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Example at Çatalhöyük, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.
Jordan, Kurt A. 2009 “Colonies, Colonialism, and Cultural Entanglement: The Archaeology of Postcolumbian Intercultural Relations” In International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, edited by David Gaimster and Teresita Majewski. New York: Springer, pp. 31-49.
Küchler, Susanne 1993 “Landscape as memory: the mapping of process and its representation in a Melanesian society.” In Landscapes. Politics and Perspectives, edited by Barbara Bender. Oxford: Berg, pp. 85–106.
Leone, Mark P. 1982 “Some Opinions about Recovering Mind.”, American Antiquity 47(4): 742-760.
McGhee, Robert 2008 “Aboriginalism and the Problems of Indigenous Archaeology”, American Antiquity 73(4): 579-597.
Mcniven, Ian 2016 “Theoretical Challenges of Indigenous Archaeology: Setting an Agend”, American Antiquity 81(1): 27-41.
Muyard, Frank 2016 “Taiwan Archaeology and Indigenous Peoples: Cross-perspectives on Indigenous Archaeology and Interactions between Archaeologists and Indigenous Communities” In Archaeology, History and Indigenous Peoples: New Perspectives on the Ethnic Relations of Taiwan, edited by Li-wan Hung, Taipei: Shung Ye Museum of Formosan Aborigines, pp. 195-262.
Nicholas, George P. 1997 “Education and Empowerment: Archaeology With, For, and By the Shuswap Nation.” In At A Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada, edited by George P. Nicholas and Thomas D. Andrews, Burnaby: Simon Fraser University, pp. 85-104.
Nicholas, George P. 2006 “Decolonizing the Archaeological Landscape: The Practice and Politics of Archaeology in British Columbia” Special Issue, Decolonizing Archaeology, American Indian Quarterly 30(3-4): 350-380.
Nicholas, George, and Julie Hollowell 2007 “Ethical Challenges to a Postcolonial Archaeology: The Legacy of Scientific Colonialism” In Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics, edited by Yannis Hamilakas and Phil Duke. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, pp. 59-82.
Reinhard, Wolfgang 2001 “Colonization and Colonialism, History of” In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, edited by Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes. New York: Elsevier, pp. 2240-2245.
Scott, Douglas D. 2003 “Oral Tradition and Archaeology: Conflict and Concordance Examples from Two Indian War Sites”, theme issue, Remembering Landscapes of Conflict, Historical Archaeology, 37(3): 55-65.
Scott, Douglas D., Richard A. Fox, Melissa A. Connor, and Dick Harmon 1989 Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Norman: University of Oklahoma.
Scott, Douglas D. and Andrew P. McFeaters 2010 “The Archaeology of Historic Battlefields: A History and Theoretical Development in Conflict Archaeology”, Journal of Archaeological Research 19(1): 103-132.
Silliman, Stephen W. 2010 “Writing New Archaeological Narratives: Indigenous North America” In Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology, edited by Jane Lydon and Uzma Z. Rizvi. New York: Routledge, pp. 145-163.
Stein, Gil J. 2002“Colonies without Colonialism: A Trade Diaspora Model of 4th Millennium BC Mesopotamian Enclaves in Anatolia” In The Archaeology of Colonialism , edited by Claire L. Lyons and John K. Papadopoulos. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum Publications, pp. 26-64.
Wylie, Alison 2017 “From the Ground Up: Philosophy and Archaeology.”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association 91 (2017): 118-136.
Zimmerman, Larry J. 2001“Usurping Native American Voice” In The Future of the Past: Archaeologists, Native Americans and Repatriation , edited by Tamara Bray. New York: Garland Publishing, pp. 169-184.