二十世紀後半，由於歐美澳紐等國政府對原住民尋求國家重視其主體性之訴求有更多正面回應，加上聯合國等國際組織日益重視，並提倡無形文化遺產概念與實踐潮流影響下，臺灣原住民無形文化遺產與地方社會之發展因此有了具體改變。 1980年代後期，因為臺灣社會對於族群議題的主流論述，逐漸從「同化主義」轉向「多元文化主義」，於是過去明顯帶有同化主義內涵之政策受到嚴正挑戰與考驗。在此時代脈絡之下，中央與地方政府陸續成立原住民事務專責機構，一方面激勵弱勢族群主動參與政策制定與執行，另一方面也提供族群諸多資源改造社區景觀和復振基本文化形式（例如，恢復舉辦傳統祭儀、傳承口語傳統等），透過傳承與復振世代相傳的無形文化遺產，喚起各族群之文化認同感。然而，這也同時開啟原住民族質疑行政單位長期遵循的族群分類與辨識系統之合理性，進而導致原有的族群共同體大幅重構。　　 官方分類上原本歸屬於鄒族三群之一的卡那卡那富（Kanakanavu）之祭儀復振和爭取正名歷程，正提供一項值得重視的民族誌實例。 2014年才獲得國家認定為臺灣原住民族第十六族的卡那卡那富族，從 1990年代初就開始持續進行復振傳統祭儀、重建會所、成立族群文化發展協會、傳承口語傳統與手工藝等文化復振，族人持續關注文化遺產傳承已經二十多年。到了 2014與 2015年，更有人提議將米貢祭 mikong和河祭 kaisisi cakʉlan/cakuran登錄為高雄市文化資產等。卡那卡那富族人堅持文化主體性以及我群認同，不斷衝擊國家族群或民族分類體系，儘管各方提出的論點分岐，但其正名結果已經重構卡那卡那富乃至於阿里山鄒族與拉阿魯哇族（Hla’alua）對於族群共同體的認知，改變了社會大眾乃至學界對於臺灣原住民族的瞭解。本論文將透過累積多年的民族誌研究，結合無形文化遺產重要論述，探索與論析卡那卡那富如何透過最重視的兩項祭儀（米貢祭 mikong、河祭 kaisisi cakʉlan/cakuran）之實踐，重構鄒族和卡那卡那富族群共同體，當地的地方社會也因而形成新的結構與秩序，對卡那卡那富族人也有不同於以往的象徵與實質上的意義。

In the second half of the 20th century, several western countries had responded positively to indigenous people’s claim on their subjectivity. International organizations such as the United Nations, had also paid much attention to the protection of the intangible cultural heritage. These international trends brought changes that affected Taiwan on two fronts, the government’s cultural and indigenous policies and the development of indigenous communities. In the second half of the 1980s, the dominant ethnicity discourse gradually shifted from Assimilationism to Multiculturalism. Policies enacted in the past that were obviously Assimilationist were seriously challenged. In this context, both the central and local governments have set up offices that oversee aboriginal affairs. On the one hand, disadvantaged ethnic groups are encouraged to actively participate in the enactment and execution of policies. On the other hand, the offices in question offer multiple resources for indigenous communities to improve their community landscape and revitalize their intangible cultural heritage. As a result, the indigenous peoples are able to gain more access to resources that help revitalize their traditional cultures (eg. rituals, languages, material cultures, etc.). And the government could assign cases of cultural heritage under legal protection. With the heightened sense of their cultural identities, the indigenous people also questioned the legitimacy of government’s longestablished ethnicity classification system. This subsequently led to the reconstruction of ethnic communities. The Kanakanavu people’s endeavor to revitalize their ritual tradition and establish an official identity would serve as an obvious example. Previously recognized as a subgroup of Tsou or Tsau, the Kanakanavu people have continued, for more than twenty years, to reinstate ritual traditions, rebuild assembly halls, set up associations for ethnic cultural development, and preserve oral tradition and handicraft. It was not until 2014 did they finally gain legal status as the 16th indigenous people of Taiwan. Their persistence in cultural autonomy and sense of wegroupness keep on impacting the national ethnic classification system. Even though there are disagreements, the Kanakanavu people’s success has reshaped their own perception of — as well as that of Tsou and Hla’alua — ethnic community and change the general public’s understanding of Taiwanese indigenous people. I base the present study on my ethnography research which has been accumulated from extended years of studies. I propose to integrate discourses on intangible cultural heritage, to explore and analyze how the Kanakanavu people reconstructed the “imagined communities (of Kanakanavu, Hla’alua, and Tsou)” by enacting two most important rituals — mikong and kaisisi cakulan/cakuran–in its local and social context. The new social structure and order that took shape subsequently carry different symbolic and actual meanings for the Kanakanavu people.