本文以南王卑南聚落的形成（1929- ）為例，尤其對照於1929年尚未遷村之前的情形，認為一個地域化的（territorialized）並且具有清楚「境界」（boundary）的「部落」，其實是在日本殖民的歷史情境下形成的。這樣的「部落」形成也影響南王卑南人區分人群的方式。光復後，「部落」漸次開放，不但南王卑南人逐漸成為當地住民的少數，部分族人也遷居外地（或鄰近地區），再加上不同宗教信仰的影響，族人如何再界定「部落」以及由之認定成員的身分遂成為一個凸顯卻又不無爭議的重要問題。最後幾年，更有逐漸發展出強調文化特性與共同祖先來源的「族群觀」的趨向。最後，根據這個個案研究，筆者指出攸關「族群」研究的一些限制。

This paper explores the historical formation of a Puyuma ‘community’, and argues that its distinctive feature as a territorially closed settlement is the result of its forced resettlement in 1929 under the Japanese colonial rule. Consequently, such resettlement created among indigenous peoples the sense of a ‘community’ characterized by its clearly defined boundary, to which the Han-Chinese were clearly out of bounds. In other words, the indigenous notion of ‘community,’ particularly its representation in the form of boundary-maintenance, has since then molded their thinking about ‘who are our people’. However, the seemingly autonomous and isolated ‘community’ becomes problematic since the 1970s due to the fact that not only have the Han-Chinese immigrants become the majority within the administrative unit of which the former indigenous ‘community’ now constitutes a part, but the younger Puyuma have also gradually emigrated to the urban settings in large number. Under such circumstances, how to maintain a ‘community’ and define ‘who are our people’ becomes a serious issue confronting the indigenous people. Today, the category of ‘our people’ consists both of the Puyuma households and those composed of the Han-Chinese and their Puyuma wives, who live within the precinct of the administrative unit and participate in the activities exclusively regarding the Puyuma ‘community’. In contrast, the Han Chinese merely living within the same territory, and those Puyuma living in the urban setting but failing to maintain connections with the home ‘community’ are excluded. Equally significant development within the ‘community’ is the emergence of a new theory, using both physical (or biological) and cultural features to define the primordiality of ‘a Puyuma’. Based on these findings, I suggest that the historical formation of this Puyuma ‘community’ will shed lights on several issues in our discussions on ‘ethnicity’.