Reconstructing Kabaliwa

Places in the Taromak landscape continue to be important as they gather

meanings, and interact with a variety of local and global elements. Kabaliwa is the main cultural heritage site in Taromak and since the mid-1990’s reconstruction of the old village has been taking place. The first structure to be rebuilt there was the ‘Alakua or men’s house built in 1999, followed by the chief’s house in 2005, the ancestral spirit house in 2006, a commoner style house in 2007, a guardian stone in 2008, and recently an observation platform and partially cemented road in 2009. There have been a variety of perspectives on the reconstruction of Kabaliwa, discussed below in the generalized categories of support and opposition.

Reconstruction of Kabaliwa has basically been an effort to uncover the ‘roots’ of the Taromak’s ‘mother culture’, and to protect and pass on this ancestral place.

“The Eastern Rukai migrated from Kabaliwa to where we are now at, ‘Olravinga.

Kabaliwa is the root of our culture. In Rukai it is called twalrai, ‘to come from that place’. So it is important to reconstruct Kabaliwa because it is the mother of our culture. When a mother is pregnant she is connected to the baby by an umbilical cord, right? Cultural reconstruction is for contemplating this original umbilical cord of culture, so one must return to the mother’s side. Now where is the mother? If you don’t return to Kabaliwa, where will you go? That is the mother! Once one arrives at Kabaliwa, they think ‘Hmm, what was Kabaliwa like? Where did it come from?’ That will cause one to think about the entire land, the entire culture, the original-traditional life, and how these people came about. Regardless of the fact that many people bring in their current beliefs, because we all have a belief system now and some say ‘what are you doing going back?’. But humans are diverse! We cannot use that single perspective to look at this issue, we should accept more diversity (Takalri A)!”

Takalri A describes here the reasons for reconstructing Kabaliwa and one of the oppositional views against it, which is has been influenced by contemporary belief systems.

Figure 17

Site of Kabaliwa reconstruction at Kazecele.

(Photo: Caleb Portnoy)

The reconstruction of Kabaliwa is seen as being particularly important as a place to develop local identity and to educate local youth by reconnecting them with the place of their mother culture. Education programs intend to bring young people to Kabaliwa and have them stay to be educated by elders on how to live a traditional lifestyle¹²³. By developing youth identity and local knowledge the Taromak intend to build their self-respect and confidence in a world dominated by Han Chinese culture. The reconstruction of Kabaliwa is also an attempt to stimulate the local tourism industry and develop local employment by bringing tourists to Kabaliwa with local guides to experience the lifestyle of the Eastern Rukai, and to teach them about the plants and animals of their landscape.

These tourism ventures also intend to connect traditional culture with international conservationist values, thus appealing to contemporary trends in indigenous/eco-tourism.

One informant claimed that overall approximately 80% of the locals in Taromak support the reconstruction projects because of its value as a cultural heritage site and it potential for creating local jobs in the tourism industry. In addition many informants pointed out

123For example, how to find ones way in the forest, how to find food, how to live without electricity and tend a fire, how to catch wild animals and find wild vegetables, and how to build houses from local natural materials.

Figure 18 Reconstructed central Kabaliwa area with ‘Alakua building on far right.

(Photo: Caleb Portnoy)

the need for appropriate development that would not damage the community or environment.

Much of the opposition for the reconstruction of Kabaliwa is passive and is based on fears of over-development. These include fears of backhoes destroying the mountains, karaoke bars, hotels, cafes, and food stalls lining the roads, further selling of reservation land to outsiders, increased crime or disrespectful visitors, the construction of a concrete road to Kabaliwa causing more over-development, and the environmental problems such as pollution and potential landslides that might come with tourism development. Other people point out that the facilities, such as the road, are not safe enough to promote tourism, and that tourism development is not as important as other issues that need money and attention. Because the reconstruction programs have been in cooperation with the community college and other outside individuals and organizations, some locals are also concerned that these outsiders may be controlling the projects. In addition, these conflicting perspectives on the reconstruction of Kabaliwa are not only a contemporary phenomenon, but in fact some elders believe that Kabaliwa is inhabited by the ghosts of their ancestors who will take away their spirits if they go there, leaving only a shell of a body behind. These oppositional perspectives demonstrate the internal diversity of the

Figure 19 Reconstructed commoner’s house at Kabaliwa. Built using local slate stone.

(Photo: Caleb Portnoy)

Taromak as well as the many new and old elements of the landscape that are being included by promoting reconstruction and tourism development.

Many of the above fears are realistic and must be addressed by the community, but several other problems that have been encountered on the road to reconstruction continue to hinder the Taromak’s ability to reclaim and reconstruct their land. These problems are directly related to two contemporary entities, 1) the reservation land policies developed by the KMT government, and 2) the market economy on which the Taromak now depend.

Problems related to land rights in Kabaliwa began when the KMT measured and registered people’s land according to who was using it at the time. Because much of the land in Kabaliwa was not being used at the time of land measurement, many individuals and families that can still find the housing or agricultural sites of their forefathers were not able to register for their land. Now, because indigenous families can only apply for a limited amount of land, if registering for their ancestral land in Kabaliwa or elsewhere exceeds the limit, they will be denied land rights. Other areas of Kabaliwa were

registered for and several people in Taromak own land titles to it, while some of that land has been rented or illegally sold to outsiders. These land title issues and the fact that the Taromak have to adhere to other people’s rules on their own territory causes much

Figure 20 Recently paved road to Kabaliwa. Some people fear that over-development could cause environmental damage, while others see the roads construction as enabling the Taromak to reconnect with their ancestral landscape.

(Photo: Caleb Portnoy)

frustration while trying to reconstruct Kabaliwa. One solution to this that has been proposed is to make Kabaliwa a common property cultural heritage site.

Taiwan’s Indigenous Council, as well as the township and county governments have passively supported the reconstruction projects by supplying grants for temporary activities, but applying for these grants requires the Taromak to jump through the hoops of the bureaucratic process. This grant money is then handled by the local development organization for paying for reconstruction materials and labor by willing locals. Other problems have come about after locals receive payment for their labor and then continue to expect payment for all other participation in activities¹²⁴. This issue stems from the fact that many people are too busy, financially troubled, or passive to volunteer their time for unpaid reconstruction projects. Money earned from tours is divided amongst local workers, guides, and the development organization, which has led to some conflicts over how the money should be distributed. Other issues have arisen due to the need for locals to first invest some money whole preparing for tourism activities, which they may be unwilling to do because of their own financial hardships. Some informants also complained that it was difficult to find good local guides who could interpret accurate information and traditional stories to tourists, hinting at the need for more training and capacity building.

124For example, the chief’s house collapsed but no one volunteered to fix it, and no money was supplied to arrange for local workers or repair supplies, thus leaving it in disarray.

Many of the Taromak continue to view Kabaliwa as an extremely important place in their landscape, which, if reconstructed and revived, could provide many emotional and material benefits to the human community. But the problems that have come about during the reconstruction projects and the justified fears of others in the community show that the Taromak’s landscape is no longer only made up of ancestral spirits, chiefs, boars, and hundred-pace vipers. The network of landscape now extends to include a variety of new actors such as: government, tourism, and conservation organizations, backhoes, land policies, global tourism markets, karaoke bars, world religions, concrete, student and worker schedules, and grant applications. If the reconstruction of Kabaliwa is to be successful, the community of Taromak needs to create their relationships with the new and old elements of their landscape in locally acceptable and appropriate ways. The limited land rights, financial assistance have been described here as recreating Kabaliwa as a place of cultural heritage with conflict.