本文探究台灣原住民族逐漸凋零的巫信仰，如何在1980年代末於獨家民主化的過程中，經歷著令人驚奇的、矛盾的及差異的復振形式，而提出一套歷時性的多點田野比較分析。文中以花蓮的噶瑪蘭族PatRungan（新社部落）與北部阿美族Lidaw（里漏部落），這兩個地緣與社會關係親近的巫信仰為實例，分析與其相關祭儀，在1950年代國民政府集權與政教分離政策的影響下，如何被女巫化與汙名化。同時這兩個部落在與國家的互動中，卻產生不同的回應：如噶瑪蘭族PatRungan開始基督教化，其mtiu（巫）信仰逐漸被邊緣化。但是Lidaw的sikawasay（巫）信仰，卻與當地的漢人民間信仰融合，成巫年齡也從幼童轉變到壯年甚至中老年人，性別上湧起女生巫師的風潮，在祭祀分工上也產生泛女性化的傾向，這些巫信仰的轉變與調適，展現其相互主體的能動性，使宗教仍是凝聚部落意識與建構集體認同的重要機制，其巫師也仍具有公眾影響力。本文比較研究的結果更凸顯出巫信仰、巫師、性別與國家的關係充滿互動與變數，甚至鄰近的部落，即可清楚地看到不同的反應與行動。解嚴前後，中斷了三十年的噶瑪蘭人成巫治病儀式（kisaiz），卻奇蹟式的重現在當代的劇場舞台，以「過去傳統文化」之身再現。此展演模式是部落改宗後內部衝突協商的場域，同時也是其部落社會轉變到成為國家民主化後的「族群」之協商手段。近來在全球化的衝擊下，國家在新關係中透過文化政策，又重新定義噶瑪蘭巫師祭儀歌舞，將之發展成一種符號經濟，以展演形式發展成文化創意觀光產業。此歌舞脫離部落能掌控的範圍，為官方所挪用，成為一種流動的國族文化符碼，及國家積極要保護的傳統智慧財產。另一方面，里漏的巫師祭儀在新的社會脈絡中，跟新社噶瑪蘭人的kisaiz相當不同，並未朝文化展演或是文創產業發展，而於2009年以信仰類別登錄為文化資產，這又是怎樣的政治協商過程？互動過程中掌握祭儀資本的兩部落巫師群體，是否在新的多元主義國家與觀光民族中，重回部落權力的中心？

This paper presents a diachronic, multi-sited ethnography to comparatively examine how shamanism, gradually fading away among the aboriginal peoples of Taiwan, underwent stunning, contradictory, and differing forms of revival in the process of the democratization at the end of the 1980s Taking examples of shamanism as practiced in the two geographically and socially intimate locales of PatRungan, a Kavalan village in Hualien, and Lidaw, a Northern Amis village, this study analyzes how their respective rituals became stigmatized as ?Witchcraft? under the influence of the centralized power of the Nationalist government and its policy of separating religion from the state in the 1950s. At the same time , different responses arose from the two villages’ interactions with the state: as the Kavalan village of PatRungan began to be Christianized, its mtiu (shaman) gradually became marginalized The sikawasay (shaman) beliefs in Lidaw, however, became integrated with the folk beliefs of the local Han, and the age at which people could become a recognized shaman shifted from childhood to adulthood and even middle age In terms of gender, there was a wave of female shamans and a pan-feminine tendency arose in the division of the offering of sacrifices. These shifts and adaptations in shamanistic beliefs reflect an intersubjective agency that allowed shamans to continue to have public influence and religion to remain an important mechanism for the coalescence of village consciousness and the construction of a collective identity. The results of this comparative research highlight different responses and actions in these two neighboring villages in which there are numerous interactions and variables in the relationships between shamanism, shaman, gender and the state. Around the time martial law was lifted in Taiwan, the Kavalan initiation and healing ritual (kisaiz), defunct for 30 years made a reappearance in modern theatre, being recreated in the form of the ?traditional culture of the past.?This performative transition was both a field of internal conflict and negotiation after the religious conversion of the village, and also a means of negotiating the transformation of its tribal society into an ?ethnic group? within the democratizing state. Under the impact of globalization in recent years, the state, through its cultural policies, has redefined the song and dance of Kavalan shamanic rituals , developing them into a kind of economies of signs and turning them into a cultural tourism industry in the form of performance These songs and dances have left the scope of the village’s control and been appropriated for use by the government, becoming a fluid national sign and traditional intellectual property to be actively protected by the state. On the other hand, the shamanic ceremonies in Lidaw have a considerably different place in their new social context than the Kavalan kisaiz. They have not developed in the direction of cultural performance or cultural industry, and were registered as cultural heritage under the category of belief in 2009. This paper asks: what kind of political negotiation led to this? Have shamans in the two villages, as they possess ritualistic capital, returned to a position of power as a result of Taiwan’s new multiculturalism and indigenous tourism?