2007 年撒奇萊雅族申請族群正名成功，這個過去被視為阿美族分支的族 群在部落菁英努力下，以阿美族為對照的他者，透過歷史的考掘與遷移歷程的 調查來證明自己的獨特性，成為台灣第十三個原住民族。在這正名的歷程中， 推動正名人士如何與部落族人溝通、「重現」傳統的文化儀節、決定族語版本 及確立族群發展傳說等，都受到其他類似遭遇的族群（如平埔族）與學術界關 注與討論。在筆者的田野調查中發現：所謂的族群定義與傳統的界說族人與倡 議者間認知不但有所出入，部分族人對撒奇萊雅族的認同感並不強烈，多數人 對於所恢復的祭典已阿美族化的感知不強，部落菁英對族群內涵的界定也存 在方法論的競爭，甚至出現論述排他性。在這過程所謂的傳統不斷的被發現與 被發明，菁英的觀點在部分學者的背書下成為族群建構的依據，並利用各式活 動與場合進行動員與說服，但無法改變族人游走在阿美族認同的現實。 本文將從撒奇萊雅族群建構的策略來思考族群文化是如何被形塑出來的， 族群倡議者如何面對及化解來自他者的質疑與反對，在這充滿神話與浪漫的 文化運動中如何支撐一個民族的自我想像，這對理解近幾年有關文化跨界流動 的討論將有所助益。

The Sakizaya, regarded as subgroup of the Amis in the past, applied for ethnic recertification successfully in 2007. By historical investigation, representing the ritual and cultural tradition, the elites acknowledged their new identities. But gaps between the ethnic definition and knowledge of legends exist between the elite promoters of the new identity and the masses. There are no distinctive Sakizaya features that define the tribe, because the Sakizaya were subordinated to the Amis tribe for more than one hundred years, and most rituals and customs were assimilated by the Amis. Some contradictions and conflicts among the Sakizaya elites could not be reconciled before recertification. They attempted to construct exclusive discourses by restating and representing the tradition as well as creating artificial criteria to categorize the new ethnicity. Until now only five hundred Sakizaya have officially converted their ethnic registration. It is controversial that elites’ enthusiasm couldn’t move their tribal people who had assimilated to be Amis. This paper will explore the process of ethnic and cultural construction of a newly ethnic recertified group. How do the promoters face the objections and questions from the others and insiders? How do they shape a cultural image under the still weak identification? This research on the effects and development of recent aboriginal recertification processes will be of great help to comprehend ethnic policy in Taiwan.