民國36年 (1947) 因緝煙騷動而引起的二二八事件，使全臺許多地方受到衝擊。由於緊鄰事件發源地臺北市，位居北海岸的金山鄉因當地軍民之間的摩擦，迅速地被捲入這場政治風暴。從事件初起、戒嚴、軍隊掃蕩、綏靖以迄清鄉，短短幾個月之間所發生的事情，造成該鄉十餘人的死亡與許多鄉民內心的創痛。然而因為諸多因素的影響，以往有關金山鄉二二八之實情，無論在官方出版的《臺灣省通志》與《臺北縣志》，或民間纂輯的《金包里志》等，均無紀錄。在民國81年(1992)行政院所公佈的「二二八事件研究報告」，對金山鄉的情況也只有簡短的描述，其中又有不少啟人疑竇之處。 為探索此一事件，作者廣泛搜羅各類史料，包括近期公開的政府機關檔案、鄉公所檔案、戶政資料、當事者受難事實陳述書、受害者與受難者家屬口述訪問、地方耆老之回憶、照片、地圖等，嘗試描繪金山鄉二二八事件發生的經過、確定受害者與受難者之事實，並略述近年來政府對他們的平反與補償。 本文係作者利用新挖掘的史料對金山二二八事件所做的個案分析，將來如果有學者能從事更多類似的研究，將可幫助我們對於二二八事件有更全面的認識。在結論中作者強調：金山二二八的歷史圖像隨著各種史料的出現，大致上已逐漸浮現，但並未水落石出。目前我們所面對的困難不但是繼續探索歷史真相，也在於如何公正地評估此事。評估的困難出於歷史與現實的糾葛，因為二二八已不單純是個人經驗或歷史事件，也是一個由不同人們所臆想、創造與挪用的象徵符號或「神話」。在撫平歷史傷痕之餘，如何在不同神話的擺盪之間，面對真實的過去，並在堅實的史料基礎上給予公允的評估，將是值得我們進一步思索的嚴肅課題。

The February 28 Incident in 1947 had a tremendous impact on many places in Taiwan. Jinshan is located on the northern coast of Taiwan and is close to the original place of the incident--Taipei. Therefore, people in Jinshan got involved in the incident immediately. The most important factor of the incident in Jinshan was the conflict between the army stationed in Jinshan and the local people. Jinshan saw the rule of the martial law, the shooting of civilians by soldiers, and a policy of pacifying and cleaning the countryside that caused the deaths of about a dozen people and the suffering of their relatives and thus led to local people’s fear and grief. Yet due to many factors, the fact of the incident was long taboo in Taiwan. The February 28 Incident in Jinshan had never been mentioned in the local gazettes. Furthermore, even in the official report of this incident in 1992, it was only briefly described and some crucial issues were not clarified. In order to explore this incident, the authors collected various materials including the government archives, population data, personal statements, oral history, photos, and maps. Matching the pieces of evidence from different places involved in the incident, the authors describe the incident and its aftermath in Jinshan, list the names of victims, and discuss the reevaluation and compensation of the victims in recent years. This study is an example of using newly-released archives to explore the February 28 incident. If similar case studies can be done in the future, we can surely arrive at a better understanding of this incident as a whole. Now the facts of the February 28 incident in Jinshan have more or less been revealed. The task we next face is not only to understand the facts more thoroughly but also to evaluate them in an impartial manner, a task made difficult because the “2-2-8” incident was not just personal experiences or a historical event but also a “symbol” or “myth” that has been imagined, created, and manipulated by different people. After compensating the relatives of the victims, we should think about how to avoid shifting our view from the standpoint of the government to the standpoint of the victims in a Manichean manner, and to understand “2-2-8” through a fair evaluation based on solid historical records.