簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 彭程
Peng, Chen
論文名稱： 原住民考古學的當代設計實踐：以支亞干遺址玉器為例
Contemporary Product Design of Ciyakang Nephritic Artifacts Indigenous Archaeology
指導教授： 陳璽任
Chen, Hsi-Jen
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 規劃與設計學院 - 工業設計學系
Department of Industrial Design
論文出版年： 2022
畢業學年度： 111
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 78
中文關鍵詞： 原住民考古學 、南島玉器 、支亞干遺址 、文化商品設計 、文化復振
外文關鍵詞： Indigenous archaeology, Austronesian nephritic artifacts, Ciyakang heritage site, cultural product design, cultural revitalization
相關次數： 點閱：202  下載：22 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 支亞干遺址是台灣史前玉器最重要的製作據點，距今2300-2000年前為台灣玉器製作技術最先進的地區，同時也是南島語族玉器製造的原點。以文化復振的概念出發，起於歷史學者Hobsbawm所提出「被發明的傳統」，回顧撒奇萊雅族以創發為關鍵手段達成正名，與太魯閣族如何因日治政策造成族群歷史離散，並從土地權利運動中現身正名。從鍾國風等人的考古行動，看見當地太魯閣族人對於土下遺產，因過去政府政策限制土地權利而產生排斥心態，與台灣原住民族普遍所面臨的歷史斷裂現況，筆者提出以設計者角色連接台灣原民歷史延續性的研究方向。
    據考古學家多年的調查，支亞干遺址史前居民以當時最精湛的技術——直線切鋸法、旋截法，與整個聚落的製造規模，生產各式玉器(包含斧鋤型器、玉錛、玉環、箭簇……等)並貿易至南海各地，而在支亞干留下大量製造過程中剩下的廢料。
    從考古學者Hodder的「糾纏」理論，筆者理解人類與器物從遠古至今纏綿成複雜的互相依賴關係。筆者歸納人類學者Bauer所解析，考古工作中最重要的能力——語境化(entextualize)，與設計學專業能力有相似之處。若參考社會學者班雅明《譯作者的任務》角度，亦能解釋考古學者、設計者兩方作為對於純粹語言的兩種詮釋。回顧符號再現的案例，設計師Riemerschmid以機械化木工再現德國木藝精神，為我們展示再現性是提升大眾性格的關鍵。以文化為主題的設計，參考了近年針對博物館商品設計的研究，幫助釐清文化商品設計之思維，應放在「經驗的創造」，而不被想傳達的知識所束縛，且須拉近大眾與原文化脈絡的距離……等挑戰。
    筆者藉遺址知識推廣工作進入部落，進而深入了解當代族群生活文化，並且藉工作經驗梳理創作理念。最後創作台灣在地文化遺產品牌Sbiyaw，以支亞干地區為敘述主體，結合史前工法特色、遺址內涵與當代太魯閣族生活文化，以文化復振觀點設計一系列包含Takaday禮盤、Qhuni家飾、Tumum玉環、Pung Pung髮飾的玉器產品。本研究以理論研究與設計實踐並行，嘗試建構新傳統，喚起居民關注土地歷史與遺址文化內涵；活化考古遺址，重申台灣原住民族南島的歷史連續性。

    The Ciyakang heritage site is considered the most iconic site of prehistoric nephritic artifacts production in Taiwan. It was the most advanced area for nephrite production in Taiwan between 2300 to 2000 B.P., also the origin of the Austronesian nephritic artifacts. Starting with "invented tradition" proposed by Hobsbawm, we review how the Sakizaya, who used invented tradition as the key means to rectify their name, as well as the Truku, who were divided culturally by the Japanese colonial government, redeemed their identity through revealing themselves in land rights movements. From the archaeological activities of Kuo-Feng Chung and others, we can see the rejection of current Truku residents against the heritage under their land, due to past land-rights-unfriendly policies. The historical disconnection has been faced generally by Taiwan indigenous, the author proposes a research aim to connect the historical continuity with design.
    The prehistoric inhabitants of Ciyakang developed the most exquisite technology at the time - the vertical sawing method, and rotary cutting method. They manufactured various kinds of nephritic artifacts (hoe-axes, ground stone tools with cutting edge, arrow pendant, bracelets……, etc.) for trading between the Austronesian regions, which led to numerous remaining parts found on Ciyakang site.
    From Hodder's "entanglement" theory, the author understands that humans and artifacts have emerged into a complex interdependence since ancient times. Referring Bauer's work, the author finds common between archaeology and design’s profession in “entextualization”. If we refer to sociologist Benjamin's The Task of the Translator, we can also understand the works of archaeologists and designers as two interpretations to pure language. In the case of symbolic reproduction, designer Riemerschmid's mechanized woodworking reproduces the spirit of German traditional woodworking, showing us that reproducibility is the key to enhancing the aesthetic taste of the mass. Then we take museum merchandise research in reference of designing cultural products.
    The author entered the tribe through heritage knowledge promoting projects, furthered his understanding of contemporary community lifestyle and culture. Finally, he created Sbiyaw, which combines the characteristics of prehistoric workmanship and the contemporary Truku culture, and displays a series of nephritic products including Takaday gift plates, Qhuni home decoration, Tumum bracelet, and Pung Pung hair accessories.
    This study integrates theoretical study and design practice, attempting to construct new traditions, to arouse residents' attention to the history of their land. We hope to revitalize the heritage site, and to reaffirm the historical continuity between the Austronesian and Taiwan indigenous.

    摘要 ii SUMMARY iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v TABLE OF CONTENTS vi LIST OF FIGURES viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Research Background 1 1.2 Purpose of Research 3 1.3 Research Method 4 CHAPTER 2 OBJECTS AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MATERIAL CULTURE：CULTURAL REVITALIZATION 6 2.1 The Invention of Tradition 6 2.2 Cultural Revitalization of Taiwan Indigenous People 7 2.2.1 Rectification Movement of the Sakizaya 7 2.2.2 The Historical Division and Rectification of the Truku 10 2.3 Historical Continuity of Taiwan Aboriginals 11 CHAPTER 3 MATERIAL CULTURE OF CIYAKANG HERITAGE SITE 14 3.1 Archaeology Progress of Ciyakang 14 3.2 Excavated Nephritic Scrap and Artifacts 16 3.2.1 Overview of Nephrite Manufacture Process 17 3.2.2 Vertical Sawing Method 18 3.2.3 Rotary Cutting Method 20 3.2.4 Polishing 22 3.3 Functions and the Social Meanings of Nephritic Artifacts 22 3.3.1 Tools 23 3.3.2 Accessories 25 3.3.3 Ritualistic, Memorial or Grave Goods 26 3.3.4 Conclusions for Ciyakang Heritage Site Content 26 CHAPTER 4 CULTURE AND DESIGN 28 4.1 Entanglement Between Human and Objects: Prehistory to Contemporary 28 4.2 Where Archaeology Meets Design: Semiotics 32 4.3 Social Practice of Cultural Translation 35 4.4 Symbol Representation in Cultural Revitalization 38 4.5 Reflect on Contemporary Culture-based Product Design 41 CHAPTER 5 FIELD RESEARCH 44 5.1 Heritage Education Projects 44 5.2 A Modern Lifestyle with Vibrant Traditions 47 CHAPTER 6 DESIGN PRACTICE 51 6.1 Reproduction of Prehistoric Brand Identity 51 6.2 Sbyiaw: A Localized Heritage Brand 52 6.3 Contemporary Design Practice of Indigenous Archaeology 55 6.3.1 Takaday Tray 56 6.3.2 Qhuni Home Accessory 58 6.3.3 Tumum Bracelet 60 6.3.4 Pung Pung Hair Clip 61 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION 64 REFERENCES 65 Appendix A ALBUM OF CIYAKANG CULTURAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL LAND 69 Appendix B DAPIL TAKADAY PICTURE BOOK PROJECT 73

    Anon. 1913. Nürnberg – Albrecht Dürer Zimmer I (Mit Fensterpartie).
    Anon. 2007. “撒奇萊雅族簡介.”
    Bauer, Alexander A. 2002. “Is What You See All You Get?: Recognizing Meaning in Archaeology.” Journal of Social Archaeology 2(1):37–52. doi: 10.1177/1469605302002001596.
    Bauer, Alexander A., and R. W. Preucel. 2000. “The Meaning of Meaning: A Semiotic Approach to Archaeological Interpretation.” European Association of Archaeologists, Lisbon.
    Benjamin, Walter. 2012. “譯作者的任務.” Pp. 100–117 in 啟迪：本雅明文選. Oxford.
    Bourdieu, Pierre. 2016. “對理解的理解.” Pp. 431–88 in 藝術的法則：文學場域的生成與結構.
    Byrne, Denis. 1995. “Buddist Stupa and Thai Social Practice.” World Archaeology 2(27):266–81.
    Chandra Kruse, Leona, Stefan Seidel, and Jan vom Brocke. 2019. “Design Archaeology: Generating Design Knowledge from Real-World Artifact Design.” Pp. 32–45 in Extending the Boundaries of Design Science Theory and Practice, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, edited by B. Tulu, S. Djamasbi, and G. Leroy. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
    Direktorium der Ausstellung, ed. 1906. Das Deutsche Kunstgewerbe 1906: Die Dritte Kunstgewerbe Ausstellung Dresden 1906. Verlagsanstalt F. Bruckmann.
    Gatti, Piero, Cesare Paolini, and Franco Teodoro. 1968. Sacco.
    Gottdeiner, Mark. 1995. Postmodern Semiotics: Material Culture and the Forms of Postmodern Life. Oxford: BLACKWELL PUBLISHING.
    Hartzell, Freyja. 2021. “Dürer, Goethe, and the Poetics of Richard Riemerschmid’s Modern Wooden Furniture.” Pp. 125–39 in Design and Heritage: The Construction of Identity and Belonging. Routledge.
    Hirth, Georg. 1880. Das Deutsche Zimmer Der Renaissance: Anregungen Zu Häuslicher Kunstpflege. Munich: G. Hirth Verlag.
    Hobsbawm, Eric, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Prys Morgan, David Cannadine, Bernard Cohn, and Terence Ranger. 2002. 被發明的傳統 The Invention of Tradition. 台灣: 貓頭鷹.
    Hodder, Ian. 1992. “Material Practice, Symbolism and Ideology.” Pp. 174–83 in Theory and Practice in Archaeology, edited by I. Hodder. London: Routledge.
    Hodder, Ian. 2006. Çatalhöyük: The Leopard’s Tale. London: Thames and Hudson.
    Hodder, Ian, and 陳國鵬. 2022. 糾纏小史：人與物的演化 Where Are We Heading?: The Evolution of Humans and Things. 上海: 文匯.
    Iizuka, Y., and H. C. Hung. 2005. “Archaeomineralogy of Taiwan Nephrite: Sourcing Study of Nephritic Artifacts from the Philippines.” Journal of Austronesian Studies 1(1):33–79.
    Lees-Maffei, Grace, and Rebecca Houze, eds. 2021. Design and Heritage: The Construction of Identity and Belonging. Routledge.
    Marcuse, Herbert. 1987. 美學的面向：藝術與革命. 台北市: 南方叢書.
    Mills, Mark P. 2013. The Cloud Begins with Coal: Big Data, Big Networks, Big Infrastucture, and Big Power. Digital Power Group.
    Muthesius, Hermann. 1904. “Kultur Und Kunst: Betrachtungen Über Das Deutsche Kunstgewerbe.” Pp. 74–87 in Deutsche Monatsschrift für das gesamte Leben der Gegenwart 3. Vol. 7.
    Naumann, Friedrich. 1906. “Kunst Und Industrie.” Pp. 32–35 in Das Deutsche Kunstwerbe 1906. Munich: Bruckmann.
    Panofsky, Erwin. 1955. Meaning in Visual Arts.
    Parmentier, Richard J. 1994. Signs in Society: Studies in Semiotic Anthropology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
    Pearce, Susan M. 1994. “Objects as Meaning; or Narrating the Past.” Pp. 19–29 in Interpreting Objects and Collections, edited by S. M. Pearce. London: Routledge.
    Pesce, Gaetano. 1969. Donna, Model Nos. Up 5 & Up 6.
    Preucel, R. W. 2006. Archaelogoical Semiotics. BLACKWELL PUBLISHING.
    Rietveld, Gerrit. 1918. Red/Blue Chair.
    Silverstein, Michael, and Greg Urban. 1996. “The Natural History of Discourse.” Pp. 1–17 in Natural Histories of Discourse, edited by M. Silverstein and G. Urban. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    Zhou, Bright. 2016. “Bioarchaeological Assemblages at Çatalhöyük: A Realatiomal Examination of Porotic Hyperostosis and Cribra Orbitalia Etiologies and Transmissions.” BA diss., Standford University.
    劉益昌. 2003. “台灣玉器流行年代及其相關問題.” Pp. 1–44 in 史前與古典文明, edited by 臧振華. 台北: 中央研究院歷史語言研究所.
    劉益昌. 2015. “玉器的交換體系研究 - 製造與資源控制.” Pp. 83–112 in 台灣史前史專論, edited by 劉益昌. 台北: 中央研究院.
    劉益昌, and 劉瑩三. 2012. “花蓮縣縣定遺址-萬榮‧平林遺址 內涵及範圍調查研究計畫成果報告書.” 花蓮縣文化局.
    劉茂源. 1954. “花蓮縣「平林」遺跡調查初步報告.” 文獻專刊 5:47–59.
    康培德, ed. 2005. “續修花蓮縣志.” 16–17.
    康涵琇. 2005. “續修花蓮縣志族群篇.” Pp. 29–146 in 續修花蓮縣志, edited by 康培德. 花蓮: 花蓮縣政府.
    方玉如. 2009. “太魯閣族的正名運動與族群認同之研究.”
    施正鋒, 許世楷, and 大立布興. 2002. 從和解到自治. 前衛出版社.
    李坤修. 2010. “舊香蘭遺址出土的三突脊玉耳飾及其相關問題探討” edited by 童春發. 2009南島國際學術研討會論文集 141–64.
    李坤修. 2020. “花蓮縣支亞干(萬榮。平林)遺址的發掘與發現.” 中央研究院歷史語言研究所會議論文集 21:163–239.
    李如菁, and 何明泉. 2009. “博物館文化商品的再思考：從跨界的觀點出發.” 設計學報 14(4):69–84.
    江妤. 2020. “太魯閣族之集體記憶與當代族群認同－以正名運動論述中的「太魯閣事件」為例.” 國立政治大學民族學系.
    洪曉純. 2003. “史前臺灣閃玉製玉器在東南亞分佈及其考古的意義.” 2003 年,華南及南史前考古一紀念皮岩遺址据30週年國際學術研討會會議論文 325–26.
    洪曉純. 2022. “南島語族起源.” 原住民族委員會.
    田哲益. 2020. 太魯閣族神話與傳說. 晨星出版.
    程廷. 2012. “近代太魯閣族部落空間變遷之研究─以alang Ciyakang（支亞干）為對象.” 國立台灣大學.
    程廷. 2022. Dapil Takaday(Takaday的腳印). 花蓮縣萬榮鄉西林社區發展協會.
    臧振華. 2005. “海隅奇葩一台灣東岸的玉器文明.” in 館藏卑南遺址玉器圖錄. 台東: 史前文化博物館.
    蘇弘恩. 2021a. 世代共有的支亞干.
    蘇弘恩. 2021b. 我的土地支亞干.
    鍾國風. 2022. 支亞干文化考古學園公眾考古計畫 工作計畫書. 國立成功大學考古學研究所.
    鍾國風, and 蔡靜婷. 2021. 花蓮縣支亞干列冊考古遺址（支亞干段 2206 地號）試掘評估計畫成果報告書. 國立成功大學考古學研究所.
    鍾國風, and 蔡靜婷. 2022. 花蓮縣支亞干列冊考古遺址文化資產評估計畫成果報告書. 國立成功大學考古學研究所.
    陳俊男. 2010. “撒奇萊雅族的社會文化與民族認定.” 國立政治大學, 台北.
    陳國政. 2005. “台灣博物館之賣店生態與文化商品研究.” 國立成功大學藝術研究所, 台南.
    陳蕙芬, and 楊燕枝. 2016. “文物典藏到文創產品的價值創造-以故宮與頑石合作案為例 Turning Cultural Heritage into Cultural and Creative Products: A Case Study of Value Creation Out of Cultural Artifacts Collaborated between the National Palace Museum and the Bright Ideas Design, Co. Ltd.” 圖書資訊學刊 14(1):115–49.
    馬淵東一. 1935. 臺灣高砂族系統所屬の研究.
    鳥居龍藏. 1996. 探險臺灣 ：鳥居龍藏的臺灣人類學之旅. 遠流出版事業股份有限公司.
    鹿野忠雄. 1946. “東南亞細亞民族學先史學研究.” I.
    鹿野忠雄. 1955. 台灣考古學民族學概觀. 台北: 台灣省文獻委員會.
    黃宣衛, and 蘇羿如. 2008. “文化建構視角下的Sakizaya正名運動.” 考古人類學刊 (68):79–108.

    下載圖示 校內：立即公開
    校外：立即公開
    QR CODE