Notes INTRODUCTION 1. Wushe is in today’s Ren’ai Township in Nantou Prefecture, Taiwan. 2. Taiwan sōtokufu keimukyoku, ed., Takasagozoku chōsasho dai go hen: Bansha gaikyō, meishin (Taipei: Taiwan sōtokufu keimukyoku, 1938), 132–33. 3. Ronald Niezen, The Origins of Indigenism: Human Rights and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003); James Clifford, Returns: Becoming Indig- enous in the Twenty-First Century (Harvard University Press, 2013). 4. Laura R. Graham and H. Glenn Penny, “Performing Indigeneity: Emergent Identity, Self-Determination, and Sovereignty,” in Performing Indigeneity: Global Histories and Con- temporary Experiences, ed. Laura R. Graham and H. Glenn Penny (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2014), 1–5. 5. Wang Fu-chang, Zokugun: Gendai Taiwan no esunikku imajineeshon, trans. Matsuba Jun and Hung Yuru (Tokyo: Tōhō shoten, 2014), 86–87. 6. Anthropologist Scott Simon writes that “ . today’s political debates about Indigenous rights are rooted in an unfolding political dynamic that predates both the global indigenous rights movement and even the arrival of the ROC on Taiwan. What we know today as Indigenous Formosa is a co-creation of the resulting relationship between the Japanese state and diverse political constellations among many Austronesian peoples across the is- land.” From “Making Natives: Japan and the Creation of Indigenous Formosa,” in Japanese Taiwan: Colonial Rule and Its Contested Legacy, ed. Andrew Morris (London: Bloomsbury Press, 2015), 75. 7. “Taiwan Indigenous Peoples” is an English translation of Taiwan Yuanzhuminzu, the officially adopted name for indigenous peoples in Taiwan. This book will use the term indigenes to avoid awkward constructions and wordiness. 8. Japan’s bifurcation of Taiwan fits under the category of “state-centered legal plural- ism” or “strong legal pluralism,” as formulated by Lauren Benton. She writes that from “the 251 252 Notes mid-nineteenth century forward, colonial states devised formal typologies, and drew firmer boundaries, between social formations within colonial spaces that were perceived to be at different ‘levels of development,’ and often attributed differences to temporal lag—de- limiting one zone as ‘primitive’ and the other ‘modern’.” Law and Colonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History, 1400–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 6. 9. The term Austronesia refers to a “geographic region of the language family spread- ing from the Western Pacific (e.g., Taiwan) to the Indian Ocean (e.g., Madagascar).” From “Editor’s Note,” in Austronesian Taiwan: Linguistics, History, Ethnology, Prehistory, ed. David Blundell (Berkeley and Taipei: Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology and Shung Ye Museum of Formosan Aborigines, 2000), xxi. 10. The conceptual, administrative, and political vectors of continuity across the TGG and GMD periods of rule in Taiwan are complicated. Direct continuities are document- ed most clearly and forcefully in Matsuoka Tadasu, Taiwan Genjūmin shakai no chihōka: Mainoriti no nijūsseiki (Tokyo: Kenbun shuppan, 2012), 167–85. See also Nobayashi Atsushi and Miyaoka Maoko, “Araraweru senjūmin shuchō no shosō,” in Senjūmin to wa dare ka, ed. Kubota Sachiko and Nobayashi Atsushi (Tokyo: Sekai shisōsha, 2009), 296, 306–8, 312; Chen Yuan-yang, Taiwan Genjūmin to kokka kōen (Fukuoka: Kyūshū daigaku shuppankai, 1999), 21–24; and Simon, “Making Natives,” 82–83. 11. I am adapting James Hevia’s conceptualization of re- and deterritorialization. See English Lessons: The Pedagogy of Imperialism in Nineteenth-Century China (Durham: Duke University Press, 2003), 20–21. 12. Michael E. Robinson, Korea’s Twentieth-Century Odyssey: A Short History (Hono- lulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2007), 47–52. 13. Takashi Fujitani, Race for Empire: Koreans as Japanese and Japanese as Americans during World War II (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011), 22–25; Kyung Moon Hwang, Rationalizing Korea: The Rise of the Modern State 1894–1945 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2016), 9–10, 15–16. 14. Henry H. Em, “Minjok as a Modern Construct: Sin Ch’aeho’s Historiography,” in Co- lonial Modernity in Korea, ed. Shin Gi-Wook and Michael Robinson (Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center, 1999), 353 (emphasis added). 15. Haruyama Meitetsu, “Shōwa seijishi ni okeru Musha hōki jiken,” in Taiwan Musha hōki jiken kenkyū to shiryō, ed. Tai Kuo-hui (Tokyo: Shakai shisōsha, 1981), 131–36; Robin- son, Korea’s Odyssey, 49. 16. Kondō Masami, Sōryokusen to Taiwan: Nihon shokuminchi hōkai no kenkyū (Tokyo: Tōsui shobō, 1996), 264–66; Matsuda Kyōko, Teikoku no shisō: Nihon “Teikoku” to Taiwan Genjūmin (Tokyo: Yūshisha, 2014), 191–211; Sakano, Teikoku, 248. 17. E. Taylor Atkins, Primitive Selves: Koreana in the Japanese Colonial Gaze, 1910–1945 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010); Hyung Il Pai, Constructing “Korean” Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State-Formation Theories (Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center, 2000); Hyung Il Pai, Heritage Management in Korea and Japan: The Politics of Antiquity and Identity ( Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2013). For Taiwan, see Yamaji Katsuhiko, Taiwan Taiyaru-zoku no hyaku-nen: Hyōryū suru dentō, dakō suru kindai, datsu shokuminchika e no michinori ( Tokyo: Fūkyosha, 2011), 402–5. Notes 253 18. Hu Chia-yu, “Embodied Memories and Enacted Ritual Materials: Possessing the Past in Making and Remaking Saisiyat Identity in Taiwan” (PhD diss., University College London, 2006), 48. 19. Steven E. Phillips, The Taiwanese Encounter Nationalist China, 1945–1950 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003), 90–114. 20. Huang Chih Huei, “Ethnic Diversity, Two-Layered Colonization, and Complex Modern Taiwanese Attitudes toward Japan,” in Japanese Taiwan: Colonial Rule and Its Con- tested Legacy, ed. Andrew Morris (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), 133–53; Asano Toyomi, “Historical Perceptions of Taiwan’s Japan Era,” in Toward a History Beyond Bor- ders: Contentious Issues in Sino-Japanese Relations, ed. Daqing Yang, Jie Liu, Hiroshi Mitani, and Andrew Gordon (Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center, 2012), 303. An advance party for the Nationalist Party’s Seventieth Army, which became the replacement authority of the defeated Japanese empire in Taiwan, landed in Jilong on October 17, 1945, while the GMD was still nominally the central government of China. In April 1949, the first plane- loads of fleeing Nationalist officials arrived in Taiwan from Shanghai in the wake of Chinese Communist Party offensives. On May 19 of that year, governor of Taiwan Province Chen Ch’eng proclaimed martial law. Chou Wan-yao, A New Illustrated History of Taiwan, trans. Carole Plackitt and Tim Casey (Taipei: SMC Publishing, 2015): 303, 322–33. 21. Michael Rudolph, Ritual Performances as Authenticating Practices: Cultural Repre- sentations of Taiwan’s Aborigines in Times of Political Change (New Brunswick, NJ: Trans- action Publishers, 2008), 1–4, 36–38; Mitsuda Yayoi, “First Case of the New Recognition System: The Survival Strategies of the Thao,” in Taiwan Since Martial Law: Society, Culture, Politics, Economy, ed. David Blundell (Taipei: Shung Ye Museum of Formosan Aborigines, 2012), 166–67. 22. Ku Kun-hui, “Rights to Recognition: Minorities and Indigenous Politics in Emerg- ing Taiwan Nationalism,” in Blundell, Taiwan Since Martial Law, 95, 98–99. 23. Rudolph, Ritual Performances, 55; Simon, “Making Natives,” 86–87. 24. Simon, “Making Natives,” 87. 25. Michael Berry, A History of Pain: Trauma in Modern Chinese Literature and Film (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008), 53–107. 26. Right after the Wushe uprising, highbrow general readership magazines ran feature articles on the people who had revolted against the empire. In each of these publications, the terms banjin (barbarian), banzoku (barbarian ethnic groups/tribes), and kyōban (bel- licose barbarians) describe indigenous peoples. Authors also identified the Wushe villages as members of the larger Atayal ethnic group. Namikawa Ryō, “Taiwan no Banjin to sono minzokusei,” Kaizō (December 1930): 42–67; Nagamatsu Asazō, “Hagyakusuru Banzoku,” Chūō kōron, 173–86. A popular science magazine added one refinement by noting that the Wushe villages were part of the Sediq subgroup of the Atayal ethnic group. Matsumoto Akira, “Taiwan banzoku: Riban jigyō to jinruigaku,” Kagaku chishiki 10, no. 12 (Decem- ber 1930): 8–11. For representative newspaper articles, see “Musha bōdō jiken no gen’in to shinsō,” Tokyo Asahi Shinbun, November 20, 1930, 2; “Musha no banjin hōki: keisatsu bunshitsu sono ta o shūgeki,” Taiwan nichinichi shinpō, October 29, 1930, 1. Newspapers also used a few references to the ethnic marker Atayal amid a blizzard of pejorative terms such as banjin and banzoku. 254 Notes 27. Matsuda Kyōko, Teikoku, 189–90; Leo T. S. Ching, “Savage Construction and Civility Making: Japanese Colonialism and Taiwanese Aboriginal Representation,” Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique 8, no. 3 (2000): 795–97, 815. Fujitani makes a related point regarding Japanese rule in Korea in Race for Empire, 25–26, 37–39. 28. See Uno Toshiharu, “Taiwan ni okeru ‘banjin’ kyōiku,’ Tenbō 4, no. 196 (April 1975): 37, for difference betweensha/she and shō/zhuang; see Matsuoka, Taiwan Genjūmin shakai no chihōka, 41–44, for a detailed description of various Paiwan terms for units of settlement and affiliation; see the hundreds of tables in the official publication Takasagozoku chōsasho dai san-hen: