The hunter's gift in ecorealist indigenous fiction from Taiwan

Abstract

The hunter's gift is a common motif in stories by indigenous writers from Taiwan. I interpret the hunter's gift as symbolic, both of a way of life in which gift exchange predominates and also of a mentality in which the fruits of the forest are regarded as gifts, not as raw materials to be extracted and sold. Yet the hunter's gift in Taiwanese indigenous stories is always in danger of being sold, so that a story about a hunter's gift can be read as a meditation on the indigenous encounter with capitalist modernity. The article begins by drawing on Marcel Mauss's monograph on the gift and Marx's writings on alienation to develop a model of social transformation from gift society to commodity society. I propose 'ecorealism' as a genre of fiction in which an omniscient third person narrator places individual action not just in social but also in ecological context. Then I interpret three stories by Taiwan indigenous writers as works of ecorealism. These three stories, Auvini Kadresengan's "Home to Return to," Topas Tamapima's "The Last Hunter," and Badai's "Ginger Road" are, on first reading, nostalgic and tragic. I argue they are also critical of the impact of capitalism on community and ecology and hopeful that the gift economy might complement the commodity economy in interpersonal and ecological interchange. The indigenous hunter has been seen as a threat to wild animal populations, but the cultural tradition he represents might guide our responses to environmental problems, a possibility I consider in an afterword on the sustainability of the bushmeat trade.

Full text

ORIENTALARCHIVE81,2013•555
TheHunter’sGiftinEcorealistIndigenousFiction
fromTaiwan1
DarrylSterk
Introduction
AccordingtoKarenThornberinhermonographEcoambiguity,theTaiwanindigenous
writerTopasTamapima’slasthuntercharacterindulgesin“sporthunting.”2Thelast
hunterBiyariisreluctanttochangehis“lifestyle.”3He“believesheshouldbeableto
uselandscapestofulfilhispersonaldesires,evenwhenthismeanshuntingtheforest’s
mostendangeredanimals,”4Thornberwrites,asifBiyariisaselfishconsumerwho
choosesthemostpleasurablelifestyleinwilfulignoranceoftheenvironmentalcost.
InthisarticleIputindigenoushunterslikeBiyariintoculturalcontextandappreciate
whattheyhavetooffertoanenvironmentalethic.WhereThornberdoes not find
“significantly different perceptions of ideal relationships with the nonhuman”5 in
TopasTamapima’s“TheLastHunter,”Iseeinindigenoushuntingstoriessurvivalsof
a“giftculture”thatspeakstoissuesofsustainabilityandcommunity.Iinterpret“the
hunter’sgift”inthreestories–AuviniKadresengan’s“EternalKabalhivane”(Home
toReturnTo),TopasTamapima’s“TheLastHunter,”andBadai’s“GingerRoad”–as
asymbolofecologicalandsocialintegration,whichcanbeunderstoodincontrastto
appropriationaswellasalienation.
ThesociologistHelmuthBerkingarguedthatearlymanperceivedappropriation
from nature as a problem. The solution was to reconceive appropriation as “an
exchangerelation”–anexchangeofgifts–inwhichhuntersrituallyreturnedthe
soulsofanimalstothelordofthehuntandsharedthemeat“amongthemothersand
children.”6Ritualsharingconsecratedthecommunityandintegrateditintonature.
1 This article builds on research I published in Studia Orientalia Slovaca, as noted in the
References.ThankstoHenningKlöter andAnnHeylenforinvitingmetotheInternational
SymposiumonTaiwanLiterature OfftheMainstream at RuhrUniversity Bochum on5–6
November,2010,wherethefirstversionwaspresented,to four anonymous reviewers,and
tomany friends forcomments.This research wassupported byan ROC NationalScience
Councilgrant(No.1012410H002206).
2KarenLauraThornber,Ecoambiguity:EnvironmentalCrisesandEastAsianLiteratures,133.
3 Ibid.,134.
4 Ibid.,135.
5 Ibid.
6 HelmuthBerking,SociologyofGiving,57.
ArOr–Issue81.3ISSN00448699©2013OrientalInstitute(ASCR),Prague

556•DARRYLSTERK
The consumption of meat bought in plastic wrapped styrofoam trays no longer
carriessuchmeanings.Thoughweappreciatethesocialvalueofaturkeydinner,
weofteneatalone,andtendtothinkofturkeyintermsofprice,pleasureorcalories.
IncontemporaryindigenousvillagesinTaiwan,however,huntingremainsaritual
actperformedinaccordancewiththetraditionalmoralorder,whichencompasses
natureandhumanity.AccordingtotheanthropologistScottSimon,oblationsmust
bemade,andtaboosrespected,whenTrukuhuntersinHualianCounty“goupthe
mountain.”Whentheycomedown,huntingis“asignofmasculinity,asourceof
prestige,andproofofone’smoralstanding,”whichmeansitisabout“sharingand
communitybuilding.”7
Yet,today indigenoushuntersoftenbreak thelawbyselling wildgame.They
maydenythatthestatehasanyrighttointerfere,butinappropriatingandselling
the gift of nature they have accepted “alienation,” the logic of capitalism. For
modernindigenouswriters,then,huntingisnotjustasymbolofintegrationitis
alsoasiteatwhichtoexploretheeffectsofmodernity.ThethreeauthorsIdiscuss
inthisarticledramatizeconflictsbetweencultural,social,ecologicaloreconomic
valuesinexchangesbetweenhuntersandtheirfamilies,businessmen,policemen,
andconsumers,inordertoworkouttheirownmixedfeelingsaboutmodernity.As
eachhadamodernupbringing–AuviniKadresenganbecameanaccountant,Topas
Tamapimaadoctor,Badaialieutenantcolonel–nonerejectsmodernityoutright.
Yet whilethey appreciate theconvenience ofthe commodity andthe need for a
stateauthority,theirstoriesinscribeadesireforselfsufficientsocialandecological
integrationinagifteconomy.
GiftEconomy,Alienation,Ecorealism
Withthegoalofbuildinganinterpretiveframework,Ibeginbycontextualizingthe
anthropologyofgifteconomy.IshowhowMarcelMauss’snotionof“thespiritof
thegift”resistsalienationbyweavingpeopleandthingstogetherintonetworksof
relationshipsorwebsofmeaning.ThenIconsider“(magic)ecorealistfiction”asa
genreofintegrationthatsometimesliterallyspeakstocontemporaryecologicaland
socialconcerns.
EversinceMarcelMauss’sTheGift,publishedinFrenchin1923–24,problems
ofliberalcapitalismhavebeeninthebackgroundofthestudyofgiftculture.Inhis
greatmonograph,Maussaddresses the“crisis”inliberal theoryifnotin “liberal
society.”8Liberalphilosophershadclaimedasocialroleforhomooeconomicus–
forrational,free,selfinterestedmarketagentsexchangingcommoditiesaccording
to“icy,utilitariancalculation.”9Theinvisiblehandwouldmakesocietyricherand
7 SimonScott,“Animals,Ghosts,andAncestors:TraditionalKnowledgeofTrukuHunterson
Formosa,”90,93.
8 MarcelMauss,TheGift:Theformandreasonforexchangeinarchaicsocieties,5,84.
9 Ibid.,98.

TheHunter’sGiftinEcorealistIndigenousFictionfromTaiwan

•557
allow everyone to give more gifts in private life, thereby melting the ice of the
market.Inliberalism,giftgivingwasalsosupposedtobevoluntary(eventhough
weareobligedtoreciprocateonspecificoccasionslikebirthdaysandChristmas).
Mausswantedtotosstheliberalfictionofthefrostyfreeindividual,alongwiththe
distinctionbetween gift andcommodity,“into themelting pot once more.”10 He
suggestedareturntoamoresocialnotionofmanandtothearchaicorprimitive
gift.
Intheoldendays,andincertainremoteplaces,therewasnodistinctionbetween
giftand commodity.Allexchange wasgift exchange,and thegiftwas akind of
unwritten,involuntary,sociallyenforcedcontract.Like a legalcontractitcarried
obligations. According to Mauss, there were three obligations: one had to give,
toreceive,and,attheappropriatetime,toreturnthegiftinsomeotherform.Gift
obligationstiedpeopletogetherinnumerousways:“theobjectreceivedasagift,the
receivedobjectingeneral,engages,linksmagically,religiously,morally,juridically,
thegiverandthereceiver.”11InthekindofcommunityMausshadinmind,there
wasnofreemarketinwhich“[a]simpleexchangeofgoods,wealth,andproducts
intransactionsconcludedbyindividuals”couldoccur.12Theonlysiteofexchange
wasthe“economy oftheexchangethroughgift,” andanyexchange inthis“gift
economy”wasmeaningfulinmultipleways.13Giverandreceiver,asrepresentatives
ofclans notindividuals,were tiedmore andmore tightlyas theyexchanged the
rolesofgiverandreceiver,passingwealthbackandforth.Tradewasnotanendin
itself.Thepointwastheexchangeof“politeness”andthe“recognition”ofsocial
roles.14Unfortunately,in thepotlatchin the latenineteenthcentury,superiorand
inferiorroleswererecognized:chiefsgaveawayvastamountsofwealthtoputtheir
peerstoshame.Thepotlatchwasastatuseconomy.Yet,thoughgiftculturewasnot
entirelyunproblematic,Maussstillpreferredittoliberalism.
One of the attractions in gift culture for Mauss was the spiritual or religious
dimension.Inagiftcultureareturngifthastobemadebecauseofthespiritofthe
giverremainsinthegift.Togiveagiftistogive“apart”ofone’sliving“spiritual
essence.”15Inacultureinwhichallexchangeisgiftexchange,“[e]verythingpasses
to and fro as if there were a constant exchange of a spiritual matter, including
thingsandmen…”16 Like thewhole,the partsarealive: theyevenhavefeelings
anddesires.Theycanroamaround,butultimatelythespiritofthegift“wishesto
returntoitsbirthplace.”17Thus,thingsare“personified,”bothinthemselvesandas
10 Ibid.,93.
11 MarcelMauss,“Gift,Gift,”29.
12 Idem,TheGift:Theformandreasonforexchangeinarchaicsocieties,6.
13 Ibid.,92.
14 Ibid.,6,52.
15 Ibid.,16.
16 Ibid.,18.
17 Ibid.,15.

558•DARRYLSTERK
synecdoches,aspartsofalargerwhole.Personifiedthingscantalk,ofcourse,or
atleasttheycould.“Everythingspeaks…”saidoneTrobriandislander.18Wehave
verygoodreasonsformakingthedistinctionbetweenthingsandpersons,butwe
mighttrytohearthingsspeak,atleastinourimaginations,asawayofovercoming
alienation.
FromaMarxistperspective,alienationisoneofthebasicproblemsofliberalism,
inwhichmarketagentsbuyandsell(i.e.,alienate)commoditieswithoutformingor
acknowledgingsocialties.AccordingtotheearlyMarx,theworkerinacapitalist
regimeconfrontstheproductofhislabour as “analienobjectexercisingpower
overhim.”19Hefindshimselftrappedinaworldofobjectstowhichheisinthrall.
Heisalienatedfromhimself,somuchsothathedoesnotrealizeheisalienated.
Heisalienated fromnature, too.“Man/lives/ onnature –meansthat natureis
his/body/,withwhichhemustremainincontinuousinterchangeifheisnotto
die.”20Theonlycontacttheindustrialworkerhadwithnaturewastheindustrially
processedfoodheate,whichhadnoobviousconnectiontoplantsintheground
oranimalsintheforest.Maussdidnotusetheterm“alienation”inTheGift.Yet
whenhewritesthat,“[t]heeconomicprejudicesofthepeople,theproducers,arise
fromtheirfirmdeterminationtofollowthethingtheyhaveproduced,andfrom
thestrongfeelingtheyhavethattheirhandiworkisresoldwithouttheirhavinghad
anyshareoftheprofit,”heseemstoarticulatearesistancetoalienation,tosocial
andecologicaldisintegration.21Peopleinagifteconomytendnottosuffersocial
alienationasaneffectofexchange,becausethespiritsofthegiftstheyexchange
keepthem tiedtogether.Not makinga strictdistinction between“society” and
“nature,”people did not sufferecological alienation, either.Mauss touchedon
the “thanksgiving rites” whereby premodern people discharged obligations to
thegods.22MarshallSahlinspointedoutin1974thatthetextwhichgaveMauss
theideaofthespiritofthe gift, thefamousdiscourseoftheMaorisageTamati
Ranapiri, was about “a sacrificial repayment to the forest for the game birds
takenbyMaorifowlers.”23Fowlerscouldtakebirdsfromtheforest,butcouldnot
appropriatewithoutreturn.ForMaorifowlers,whatalienationcouldtherebe,in
theory?
Exchangeonthegroundis,ofcourse,morecomplicated,butmanywhomake
useofgifttheoryhavenotdonefieldworkandtendtocontrastmorethancompare.
FortheliterarycriticLewisHyde,forinstance,theprinciplesofagifteconomyare
“flow” and “abundance,” not the “accumulation” and “scarcity” of capitalism.24
18 Ibid.,44.
19 KarlMarx,EconomicandPhilosophicManuscriptsof1844,75.
20 Ibid.,76.
21 Ibid.,85.
22 MarcelMauss,TheGift:Theformandreasonforexchangeinarchaicsocieties,19.
23 MarshallDavidSahlins,StoneAgeEconomics,156.
24 LewisHyde,TheGift:CreativityandtheArtistintheModernWorld,27.

TheHunter’sGiftinEcorealistIndigenousFictionfromTaiwan

•559
Butanyonewhoengageswithgifttheoryhastorememberthatgiftandcommodity
are“idealtypes,”asare“giftculture”and“commodityculture.”Eveninaliberal
capitalistsociety,inwhichanynumberofgiftculturescanthrive,thereisatleast
littlesocialityinanypurchase,alittleselfinterestinanygift,andalotofsociality
andselfinterestinanybribe.Norshouldoneassumethatthedistinctionbetween
premodern and modern according to, for instance, the presence or absence of
“markets,”is selfevident. Marxists insistthat the market is a modern invention
ofa stateto defendthe interests of a rulingclass.25 Liberalsarguethe market is
avenerable grassroots formof efficientexchange whichmodern states canhelp
regulate,arguingagainstaclearbreakbetweenpremodernandmodernintermsof
theformofexchange.
Regardless,weshouldnotfailtoacknowledgethatforlocalpeoplelivinginsmall
communitieswithout permanent powerstructures, the introductionof capitalism
with state assistance can be an awful imposition. The Marxist anthropologist
Michael Taussig has studied how local people respond to the encounter with
capitalism. Discovering devil worship among miners and plantation workers
in South America, he argued that, “the devil is a stunningly apt symbol of the
alienationexperiencedbypeasantsastheyentertheranksoftheproletariat.”26In
“theAndean version of thestory of Faustus,”a peasant sold(i.e., alienated) his
soul to rationalize appropriation.27 However, according to Taussig, devil belief
might“stimulatethepoliticalactionnecessarytothwartortranscendtheprocessof
commodityformation,”becauseproletarianizedpeasantsmightfightback.28
TheliteraryscholarMarkOsteenhasusedtheOjibwewriterLouiseErdrichas
anexampleinhisowninvestigationofresistancetoconsumeralienation.Osteen
arguesthatthe“discourseofthegift”canstopmodernconsumersfrom“frantically
calculating selfinterest and exchanging commodities that do nothing more than
confirm[their]alienation,”becauseit“recoverssomerespectfortheseimmaterial
qualities– the spiritualityand sociality– ofsubjects andobjects.”29In Erdrich’s
“The Red Convertible,” a used automobile (whose origin the narrator does not
reveal)isconvertedintoaninalienablepossessionwhentwobrotherstakeatripin
it.Itbecomesasymbolinthestoryoftheirbrotherhood.
Taussigstudiedoralnarrativesattheproductionend,Osteenwrittenonesatthe
consumptionend, raisingthe issue ofinterpretive method:how couldthere bea
“onesizefitsall”approachtothereadingofstoriesaboutgiftsfromdifferentkinds
ofsocieties?Thereisattentiontooralnarrativeinanthropologicalwritingaboutthe
gift.Mausswrotethateverygifthas“itsname,apersonality,ahistory,andeven
25 DavidGraeber,Towardan AnthropologicalTheory ofValue:The False Coinof Our Own
Dreams,10.
26 MichaelTaussig,TheDevilandCommodityFetishisminSouthAmerica,xi.
27 Ibid.,208.
28 Ibid.,17.
29 MarkOsteen,“GiftorCommodity,”244.

560•DARRYLSTERK
ataleattachedtoit.”30AnnetteWeiner’s“inalienablepossessions,”whichdefined
aclan’ssocialdistinctiveness,wereinalienablepartlybyvirtueofnarrative:they
wereauthenticatedby“fictiveortruegenealogies,originmyths,sacredancestors,
andgods.”31Butpremodernnarrativesareproblematicforcritique.Theymightbe
“fictive.”Storiesaboutartefactsmightleaveouttheprocessofcreation.32Onthe
otherhand,storiescapitalistsandconsumerstellaboutthecommoditiestheysellor
purchaseareproblematicbecausetheytendtoleaveoutproduction.
I adopt “ecorealism” as an interpretative framework for the modern stories I
discussinthisarticle.Thistermiscurrentlyusedinandoutsideofliterarystudies
tomeanthatecologicaldegradationisreal, buttomyknowledgeithasnot been
usedtodesignateagenreoffiction.Innineteenthcenturyliteraryrealism,athird
personomniscientnarratortellsaputativelyobjectivestory about theintegration
oftheindividualinto society,andin anecorealistworkthere wouldbea further
integrationintonature.Realistfictionwasoriginallyabourgeoisartform,butcan
beputtootheruses,orinterpretedwithotherconcernsinmind.Thus,accordingto
FredricJameson,momentsof“daydreaming”inrealistnarratives“tellusaboutthe
otherwiseinconceivablelinkbetweenwishfulfilmentandrealism,betweendesire
andhistory.”33Readingallegorically,JamesonunearthsutopiandesireinaBalzac
novel. In other words, realism is capacious, capacious enough I would argue to
includesocialandecologicalcritique.Anecorealistnarratorwouldplaceindividual
andcollectivehumanactioninbothsocialandecologicalcontext,withoutneglecting
the“sociallives”ofthings.34Nomereprop,eachthingwouldhaveownroletoplay
inanecorealiststory.
Isee a special role formodern indigenous writers in thedevelopment of this
critical and possibly utopian genre. Modern indigenous writers have often
experienced proletarianization and have almost certainly encountered socialist
andenvironmentaldiscourses,whichtheymayunderstandintermsofthemodes
of perception and the morality of the gift economy. To simplify greatly, if Juan
Valdez’sson becameawriter,hewould tendtotell a storyaboutthe production
implicitinacupofcoffee.Heorshemightaddamagicrealisttouch:themyriad
presencesinthecoffeemightbegintospeak,drowningoutthepopularmusicand
thetrafficnoiseinthecurbsidecafé.Readinganecorealiststoryaboutcoffee,you
woulddiscoveryouareplayingaroleinacoffeedrama.Youhavetointeractwith
theotheractorsonthestage,fromthegoodearthandthefarmertothedistributor
andthebarista.Youareobligedtoallofthesepeople,fortheyhavegivenyouagift.
Ifyouviewacoffeeasacommodity,bycontrast,youdonothavetolistentoany
30 MarcelMauss,TheGift:Theformandreasonforexchangeinarchaicsocieties,30.
31 AnnetteWeiner,InalienablePossessions:TheParadoxofKeepingWhileGiving,33.
32 DavidGraeber,Towardan AnthropologicalTheory ofValue:The False Coinof Our Own
Dreams,185.
33 FredricJameson,ThePoliticalUnconscious:NarrativeasaSociallySymbolicAct,182.
34 ArjunAppadurai,“Introduction:commoditiesandthepoliticsofvalue,”3.

TheHunter’sGiftinEcorealistIndigenousFictionfromTaiwan

•561
stories.Youhavepaidforyourcoffee.Youcandecide,basedon“marginalutility,”
ifthepleasureofanothercupisworththeprice.
Ratherthanacupofcoffee,themetaphorIexploreinthisarticleisthehunter’s
gift,ofmeatorarticlesobtainedinexchangeformeat.Thehunter’sgift,whichcan
begiven,taken,stolenorsoldinserviceofmanydifferentvalueagendas,seemsto
havemanysymbolicpossibilities,buthasreceivedalmostnoscholarlyattention.
The anthropologist Christopher Hill argues that the hunter founder story about
thehunter’sgift of meat“servesinMendeoralhistoriesasasymbolicstatement
validatingcontemporaryauthoritypatterns.”35ThethreeecorealiststoriesIdiscuss
are clearly not intended to naturalize hierarchy. Rather, they serve as reminders
that the land and community are inalienable possessions, not sources of natural
resourcesandlabourpower.
Asatrilogytheytell astorythatmovesoutwardinspaceasittravelsforward
intime.Itisastoryinwhichapremodernhunterwalksahundredkilometresfrom
hometoalienatethegiftoftheancestors,inwhichamodernhunterwhohastried
andfailedtomakeitinthebigcityhopestogivethegiftoftheforestonlytohave
itconfiscated,andinwhichacontemporaryhunterwhocanreadthebusinessnews
aboutbillionaireinvestors indistant citiesgives thegiftof natureeven whenhe
has the chance to sell. It seems to be a story about accommodation to scarcity,
alienationandcontrolinthelongFormosanindigenousencounterwithmodernity,
butitisalsoastoryaboutthecriticalpotentialofresistanceanddesire.
TheHunter’sGiftandtheIndigenousEncounterWithModernity
In1624,theDutchEastIndiaCompanyestablishedacolonyinsouthwestTaiwan.
Chinesefarmersworked thefieldsand therewas alivelytrade betweenforeign
guestsandaboriginalhosts.Tradecontinuedthrough the Zheng(Cheng)era and
intotheQing(Ching)dynasty.InJohnR.Shepherd’saccount,
Tradewas necessary to acquire the shot and powder needed foraborigine hunting
guns,aswellasthetextilesandornamentsthatsatisfiedanexpandingneedforcreature
comforts.Toacquirethesegoodsandtomeetthedemandsofthestateandinterpreters
forrevenueandsqueeze,theplainsaboriginesoverhuntedthedeerherds.36
This“deereconomy”wasexhaustedbythefirsthalfoftheeighteenthcentury.
Bythenineteenthcentury,theplainsaborigineshadmostlySinified.Althoughthe
peopleswholivedinthemountainsweremoreisolated,theytradedforthesame
commodities,bycashorbarter.Meanwhile,gifteconomymusthavepersistedwithin
thecommunityasitdoesinthemodernfamily.Thisisthehistoricalgeographyin
whichIwishtodiscussthefirstliteraryhunter’sgift.
35MatthewHill,“WheretoBegin?ThePlaceoftheHunterFounderinMendeHistories,”654.
36JohnR.Shepherd,StatecraftandPoliticalEconomyontheTaiwanFrontier,1600–1800,365.

562•DARRYLSTERK
1.TheAlienatedGiftinAuviniKadresengan’s“EternalKabalhivane
(HometoReturnTo)”
Auvini Kadresengan was born in southwest Taiwan in the Rukai hamlet of
Kochapongan,locatedaday’shikeintothemountainsfromthenearesttownonthe
plains.Theauthorrecallsgatheringherbs,schleppingthemdowntotowntosell,
thenusingthemoneytotakeabustoPingtung(Pingdong)City,justtoseeamotion
picture.Itisundeniablethatheshouldbeunderstoodinacontextofmechanized
transportandmassentertainment,andItakeuphismodernitybelow.Idiscusshis
storyfirstbecauseitappearstorecreateapremodernvillagewithminimalmarket
contactandamodeofperceptionthatrecallsMauss’sspiritofthegift.
Atthestart of thestory,the narratorconveysan animisticsenseofbeneficent
vocalpresences.Stonesspeak,thefallingleavesspeak,thestepsthehuntertakes
speak–eventhehunter’scallusesspeak–ofthebrevityoflife.Everythingspeaks,
orsings,andallspeech,orsong,isagift:abirdsingsofblessings,andwhenthe
horticulturalisthunterheroEsaiaskstheancestorstobestowblessingsuponhim,
theancestorssingthroughthebirdcalls,assuringhimthathishuntwillgowell.
Esai seems innocent of the modern world, but he carries a gun, an industrial
productandamarketcommodity.Hedidnotusemoneytobuyit,butobtainedit
throughbarter.EsaiandaneighbourtraveldownfromthehillstotheplaininTai
tung(Taidong)insoutheasternTaiwantotradewithaheadman,whohasinturn
beentradingwith“peoplefromelsewhere.”37Mostofthedescriptionconcernsthe
ritualsofhospitalitysurroundingthebarter.Themontagnardspresenttheplainsman
withmountainproducts.Thesethingsweregivenbytheancestors nowtheyare
given away. The hospitable headman receives them with sweet rice wine. Then
thebarteritselftakesplace“amidexcitedsmilesthatwouldproducesingingina
dream.”38TheyoungdeerandsetofantlersthatEsaihasbrought,alongwithhis
“belovedDutchrifle,”areworthoneshellshoulderbelt,arollofwire(forsnares),
andanAmericanrifle.39ThenEsai andhisneighbour gointo thehillsand bring
back a log for a new mortar for the headman (presumably to pound sweet rice
to make more wine). In return, the headman gives them food for the road. The
barterisembeddedinagiftexchange,followingnormsofhospitalitythatmodern
consumershavemostlyforgotten.
“Eternal Kabalhivane” does not, however, describe a way of life that is
predominatelybased onbarter.It is about alargelyselfsufficient communityin
whichcalculatingselfinterestapparentlyneverfigures.Communitymemberslive
inaworld notof commoditiesbutof inalienablepossessions. On theway home
fromTaitung,Esaidreamsofanoldwomanwhopresentshimwithgifts.When
laterEsaibringsdownayoungbuck(perhapstoreplacethedeerhetradedaway),
37 AuviniKadresengan,“EternalKabalhivane(HometoReturnTo),”101.
38 Ibid.,102.
39 Ibid.,101.

TheHunter’sGiftinEcorealistIndigenousFictionfromTaiwan

•563
hethinkshis dreamhascome true.Observing tradition, Esaiand hiscompanion
showgratitudetotheancestorsbyconductingthefallenleafritual,whichinvolves
asacrificialoffering–apartofthepreythatisreturnedtotheoriginalgiver–anda
liturgy:“Wearestillimmature,butourheartsarepious,weofferthissmallheartfelt
gift.”40Theygoontoasktheancestorsforwisdom,love,calmspiritsandgrateful
hearts. In this way, they return the gift in verbal and material form. When Esai
arriveshome,theproceedsofthebarter,alongwiththeyoungbuck,arewelcomed
into the community. They are offered to the ancestors in a ritual in which they
take on personalities: the gun, for instance, is given a life, a soul and a name.
Meanwhile, Esai’s wife admires the craftsmanship of the shoulder belt. In John
Balcom’stranslation,“alotoftime had goneintomakingit.”41Translatingmore
literally:everydetail“showedthetimebehindthelifeofthisthing.”42Theoriginof
thelifeofthethingisnotincludedinthestory,thoughEsai’swifemusthavesome
ideaofhowmuchworkwentintoit.Sherecitesablessing,thankingtheancestors
forwhatthefamilyhasbeengiven,thankingthegun,eventhankingthesteelwire,
“likeadogcurledinsleep.”43Oncetheseobjectshavegainedmembershipinthe
community,theybecomeinalienablepossessions.Thebelt,forinstance,istobea
betrothalgiftforwhenEsai’syoungsongetsmarried.
This belt gives us reason to question the romantic assumption that economic
considerationsdid notapply in oldKochapongan. Esaireflects thatthe beltwill
sufficeifhissonmarriesanaristocrat’sdaughter,butifhemarriesachief’sdaughter
anancestralceramicvesselwillhavetobeadded.Thebelthasvalueinthelocal
statuseconomy.Evenso,thegiftwillnotbeusedtopurchasethebride.Thegift
is not a “bride price.” It will be given, as will the bride, along with gifts from
the bride’s family. Rukai marriage was a Maussian gift exchange.Yet it is also
importantthatthebetrothalgiftisobtainedthroughbarter.
Indeed, the story seems to be as much about the influence of markets and
technological modernity on social and ecological relations as about “tradition.”
(Though the author projects eternity upon the community or the landscape in the
titleofthestory,all culturesand ecosystemsarein astateof change.)Following
Esai’sreturntothevillage,thenarratorlaunchesintoalistofthepreyanimalsEsai
huntsandtrapswithrifleandwiresnare:120deer,over70boar, and3bear.This
huntingorgygivesEsaitherighttocounthimself“amongthegloriouslilybearers,”
toparticipateinapublicceremonyinwhichthechiefconfersalilyheaddressupon
him.44ButEsai’shuntingexploitsareoverkill.Only6boarswererequiredtobear
40 Ibid.,103.
41 Ibid.,106.
42 AuviniKadresengan,“Yongyuandeguisu(Kabalhivane),”167.
43 Idem,“EternalKabalhivane(HometoReturnTo),”106.
44 Ibid.,108.
45 Taiban Sasala, “The Lost Lily: State, Sociocultural Change and the Decline of Hunting
CultureInKaochapogan,Taiwan,”68.

564•DARRYLSTERK
thelilies.45Esaihuntsforindustrialgoodsandforstatus.Theformerheobtainsby
barter,thelatterasrecognitionforcontributionstothecommunity.Whetherornot
theimprovementsinhuntingtechnologyhadanyimpactonthenormsofthestatus
economy, they seem to have had an ecological effect: Esai laments a “decline in
nature.”46 Though Esai respects taboos against the hunting of smaller animals as
wellasthecloudedleopard(whichaccompaniedthefirsthuntertoKochapongan),
ecologicalequilibriumhasbeenlost.Butthehunterscarryonhuntingallthesame.
Overtwodecadeslater,Esaireturnstotheplaintotrade,withthesonoftheheadman,
forsaltandmatches,needleandthread,handwovenfabric(abetrothalgiftforhis
daughter),andanewrifle.Therifleisthethirdinthestory.Thelatesttechnology,it
bearswhatsoundslikeabrandname.Esaihasbecomeaconsumer,perhapsevena
technophile.Unfortunately,heisunabletoenjoyhisnewtoy,orwelcomeitintothe
community:hegoesmissingonthewayhome.
Thelosstothecommunitygoesuncompensatedbyanywideningofperspective.
Esaiwasgrantedavisionof ancestralbattlesandjourneysonhis firsttriphome
throughtherealmoftheancestors,butheknowsnothingoftheprovenanceofthe
productsheobtainsthroughbarter,nordoesthenarratordisplayanycuriosity.They
aremerelyboughtobjectsofdesirebroughtfromfaraway.Yetthefactremainsthat
Esaitrades ancestral giftsfor industrialproducts.AuviniKadresengan explained
thatthe soul of the deermight migrate into the gun,which would thenbear the
deer’sbiography.Butwhatabout theultimatefateofthe antlers?Evenifstories
attachtothem,partoftheirbiographywillbelost,andastoryabouthowthelives
ofdifferent beings are interconnected will be incomplete.The narrator does not
confrontthisissue.Esaidiedinalocalworldthatmodernitywasonlyjustbeginning
tochange.
GiventhattheauthorwasbornsixteenyearsaftertheJapanesehadestablisheda
policestationinthevillage,thissettingmakesthestoryseemlikepartlyimaginary
nostalgia.TheauthormissesoldKochapongan.SasalaTaiban’sPh.D.dissertation
fillsinsomeofthedetailsaboutthiswayoflife.Societywasstratified,withchiefs,
aristocratsandcommoners.Accordingtolegend,thelandwasdivinelygiventothe
chiefs.Thechiefsgavehunterstemporaryuseoftractsofland,andinreturnreceived
thefirstfruitsoftheforest,whichtheythenredistributed,alongwithrecognition
forthehunters:“theculturalprincipleofsharingrenders[sic]theaccumulationof
wealthunnecessary.”47Inthisway,“[p]eople,spirits,andanimalshaveformed[sic]
an ecological system that is [sic] based on sharing.”48 Taiban’s dissertation also
seemsnostalgic.
Oneof thefirst actsof theJapanese policewhen theyarrived in1929 wasto
confiscate rifles. Hunting and swidden farming were discouraged in favour of
46 AuviniKadresengan,“EternalKabalhivane(HometoReturnTo),”109.
47 Taiban Sasala, “The Lost Lily: State, Sociocultural Change and the Decline of Hunting
CultureInKaochapogan,Taiwan,”170.
48 Ibid.,117.

TheHunter’sGiftinEcorealistIndigenousFictionfromTaiwan

•565
intensivecultivationforthemarket,whicheventuallyleftpeopledependentonthe
market.Thecommonswereprivatized.Thecultureofsharingdeclined.Wagelabour
wasintroduced.Thechiefslostpowertothepolice.Localleaderswerecoopted.
Childrenwere sent to school toturn them intoloyal Japanese subjectsand later
patrioticChinesecitizens.TheKuomintangcontinuedJapanesepoliciesafter1945,
theyearAuviniKadresenganwasborn.By1965,indigenouscommunitieswitnessed
“thereplacementofartisticallyenhanceddailyusegoodswithcheapcommodities
purchased on the market.”49 There was a labour outflow from Kochapongan. In
1979, remaining community members moved to a site in a nearby river valley.
After1973,huntingwaspermittedonlyonreservelands,notintraditionalhunting
grounds,manyofwhichwereturnedintopreservesordevelopments.Bythe1980s
youngerhuntersnolongeraspiredtobearthelilies.Theyweremakingmoneyin
thebushmeattrade.
In 1961, Auvini Kadresengan had left the old villageat sixteen years of age
to go to school. He worked as an accountant for Christian organizations on the
plainsuntil,inhismidforties,inresponsetothe“returntotheland”and“cultural
revitalization”movementsinthelate1980s,hereturnedtowriteaboutthetraditional
Rukaiworld,asakindofculturalsalvageeffort.Thevillagewasgreatlychanged.
Buttheslatehousehehadgrownupinwasstillstanding,upinoldKochapongan.
Heinstalledsolarpanelsandbeganwritingonalaptop.Everythinghewrotewas
aboutaworldbeforecomputers,solarpower,cornerstores,policestations,buses,
churchesandschools.
The only psychological trace of the modern world in “Eternal Kabalhivane”
appears to be counting: the numbers of hunted animals seem too large and too
preciseforapremodernsubsistencehunter.Esaiwasabletocountintothehundreds,
anabilitynecessaryinacasheconomy.Thereisnomoneyinthestory,butthere
isbarter,andthecurrentanthropologicalconsensusisthatbarteremergesonlyif
currencyhas:currencysupplies anabstractstandardfor thecalculationofvalue,
andbarteroccursintheeventofalackofliquidity.50Barteristhereforeoutsidea
gifteconomy,andrequiresaheadfornumbers,notjustasenseofvalue.“Eternal
Kabalhivane”is inthis respect aboutthe creepinginfluence of accountancy.At
thesame time, itseems to preserve anolder,animist consciousness. In the next
twostoriesthemagiciswearingoff,though,asweshallsee,ithasnotlostallits
force.
49 StevanHarrellandYushihLin,“AestheticsandPoliticsinTaiwan’sAboriginalContemporary
Arts,”4.
50 DavidGraeber,Towardan AnthropologicalTheory ofValue:The False Coinof Our Own
Dreams,222.

566•DARRYLSTERK
2.TheConfiscatedGiftinTopasTamapima’s“TheLastHunter”
Topas Tamapima was born in 1960 in the Bunun village of Loloko in Nantou
(Nantou)County,nearthe geographical centreof Taiwan.By thetime he wasa
child,daily life had beencommoditized, technologized, andpoliticized. He was
a twentysix year old medical doctor when he wrote “The Last Hunter.”Topas
Tamapima shows how modernity diversifies the professional possibilities for
indigenouspeople.In“TheLastHunter,”though,hewritesaboutamarginalfigure
andadisintegratingcommunity.
ThelasthunterBiyari,likeAuviniKadresengan,hasleftthevillageandcome
back.ButthesortoflabourhedidwaslessspecializedBiyariwasproletarianized.
Afterthewar,moreandmoreaboriginalyouthleftthevillageinsearchofwork.
Mostofthemfounditinfactoriesorminesoronconstructionsitesorfishingboats.
Wherever they went they encountered nonindigenous Taiwanese society. This
wasnotexactlyaliberalcapitalistsociety:Taiwanesepeoplehadtheirown“petty
capitalist” or familybased gift economies.51 But members of Taiwanese society
tendedtobeuninterestedingiftrelationswithmarginalaborigineslikeBiyari,who
usuallyenteredthewagelabourmarket.Ifthingsdonotgowellinthecity,young
menreturntothe“littleworld”ofthetribalcommunity,“whichretainsbothsocial
andemotionalsaliencedespiteitspartialbreakdown.”52Marginalmentendtohunt
whentheygohome.
Biyarihasdonetemporaryworkpackinggoodsforashippingcompanyinthe
city.Presumablyhewaspackingcommoditiestobeshippedandsoldtomiddleclass
consumers.Buthewasfiredafterfivedaysonthejobbecausethebosswantedto
savemoney,andheevenleft800dollarsinpaybehind.Thebossfiredhimforthe
sakeofanabstraction,aquantityofmoney,160dollarsaday.Thesensuousworld
ofritual,personalityandmoralityof“EternalKabalhivane”hasbeenmonopolized
bya utilitarianmentality,byaccountancy.Totheboss, theamount ofmoney he
willsaveseemsmorerealthanaperson.Esai’shuntingyieldedgifts,butBiyari’s
labourisanextractablecommodity.Inotherwords,themoderndiversificationof
employmentpossibilitiesforindigenouspeoples maysimplyjamthemintoslots
inthecapitalistdivisionoflabour.Therewasevenapressuretospecializebefore
Biyarileft.Whereas Esaisaw nocontradiction in beinga horticulturalisthunter,
Biyari’sfatheralwayssaidyouareeitherahunterorafarmer:youhavetochoose.
Biyariexplored anotheroption, andfor five days he hada bitpart inthe drama
ofthemoderneconomy.NowhehasreturnedhometoLoloko.Mostlyhehunts.
Afterall,hewasborninthemonthoftheBununriteofpassage,theearshooting
ceremonyhefeelshewasborntobeahunter.
51 HillGates,China’sMotor:AThousandYearsofPettyCapitalism,204–42.
52 StevanHarrellandYushihLin,“AestheticsandPoliticsinTaiwan’sAboriginalContemporary
Arts,”18.

TheHunter’sGiftinEcorealistIndigenousFictionfromTaiwan

•567
However,theentirecontextinwhichthetraditionalhunterlivedisgone:daily
lifehasbeencommoditized.Villageinhabitantsnowrelyonthemarketfordaily
necessities.WhereasEsaihadtotravelaweektobarter,Biyaricanbuyricewine,
betel,matches,andgasforhismotorcycleatthelocalstore.Shoppinginthisstore
isconvenientbuthumiliating.TheHakkaproprietorsuggestsexpensivesorghum
wine,saying,“Ilikeitmyself,thericewineistooplain,”likeanactorinatelevision
commercial.53Biyarireplies,
“Thestrongstuffisforthosewhoaredying.Keepitandsellittothosesadpeopleto
washawaytheirsuffering.Ijustwantplainoldricewine.Here’sthirtyyuan.”Biyari
feltaroundinhispockets.Fortunatelyhehadthethirtyyuan.54
Biyari’srelationshipwiththeproprietorisnotfleshedoutbygiftgiving,either
material or verbal. The proprietor’s words are manipulative, intended to tempt
Biyari to spend beyond his means while Biyari’s words are bluster, meant to
uphold his wounded honour.All speech in “Eternal Kabalhivane” was a ritual
gift that conferred recognition and expressed respect in Biyari’s world, words
areinstrumental.The proprietorand Biyari recognizeeach other,butthere isno
enduringconnectionbetweenthem,becausetheydealwitheachotherasbuyerand
seller,notashumanbeings.Theremaybedramaherebutitishardlysocial.
Biyari, like Esai, has possessions, including a home, and at least one personal
connection,whichhetriestomaintainbycontributingtoaconnubialgifteconomy.
Hismostprizedpossessionisajacket,whichhefirstsawinashopwindow.Having
noideaoftheproductionofthegarment,heregardeditasanobjectofdesire.He
purchasedit,formingnorelationshipwithanyone.Butunlikeatypicalconsumer,
whosedailylifeissurroundedbyquantitiesofthingsthatcanbetossedoutwithouta
secondthought,thejacketisoneoftheonlypossessionsBiyarihasgot.Ithasworn
throughinplaces,buthecherishesit.Asaninalienablepossession,ithasabiography
–Biyarihashuntingstoriestotellaboutit–thoughthestoryonlybeginswhenhe
putdownhismoney.Hishouseisasinneedofpatchingashisjacket.Unfortunately,
thesituationathomeisprecarious.HiswifePasulahassufferedamiscarriageand
hasyettorecoverherhealth.ThefirstgiftinthestoryisachairBiyarihadhoped
togivetohisunbornchild.Probablyhemadethechairfromscratch,acceptingthe
giftofnatureandcreativelyshapingitintoanartefact.But,angryatBiyariforhis
inabilitytoprovide,Pasulathrowsthechairathim,almostbreakingoneofthelegs.
Biyariexplicitlyidentifiesthelegofthechairwiththelegoftheirunbornchild.This
isanapparentliterarypersonificationandmetaphor(thechairstandsforthechild),
buttoBiyarithereis amagicalconnection.Pasuladoesnot takemagicseriously
anymore,andthe hunter’s marginalityismostimmediatelyandpainfullyobvious
inhisrelationshipwithhiswife.Allhehastoofferisaffectionshewillnotaccept.
53 TopasTamapima,“TheLastHunter,”6.
54 Ibid.

568•DARRYLSTERK
Pasula’sverbaltreatmentofhimshowshowfraughttheconnubialgifteconomyhas
become.Sheissarcastic,andeventhreatensto leavehimunlesshegoeshunting,
sellssomemeattotheHakkaproprietor,andfixestheleakyceiling.However,she
continuestogivehimmaterialgifts,suchasasweetpotato(whichIliketothinkshe
hasgrownherself)forhimtoeatintheforest.
So,afterreceivingamessageinadream,Biyarisetsout.WhereasEsaiwouldhave
huntedinahuntingparty,Biyarigoesalone.Traditionally,thehuntertookwhatthe
forestgaveasagiftoftheancestors.ButthoughtheymaycommunicatewithBiyari
in a dream, the ancestors have fled the forest. What remains? Only the Christian
imageofEden,whichisironicallyprojectedupontheforest.Biyariandthenarrator
seepeopleintermsofnaturalfeatures,aliterarysuggestionthatpeoplecomefrom
nature.ToBiyari,Pasulais“likemapleleavesthatturnredinautumnandloseall
theircharm in winter.”55Tothenarrator, Biyari’sfaceislikean alpinelandscape
Biyari(alsospelledQobiaz)isakindofplant.Butthelandscapeitselfisnotexplicitly
personified.WhereasAuviniKadresengan’slandscapewasalive,TopasTamapima’s
is aestheticized, described as like “a painting.”56Whenthenarratorreachesat the
poetic he growsvague:“thebeautyof the forest isharmoniousandgreen”inthe
Balcom translation.57 More literally: “a green, harmonious integration,” quite an
abstractformulationcomparedwithAuviniKadresengan’svocalcalluses.58However,
thisunity,whichisalsodescribedas“allonegreenblur,”suggestsanorganicholism
thatresiststhe capitalistwillto chopupthe forestandextract theresources.59The
birds,whopaynoheedtohumanterritorialdivisions,oncetoldthehunterwhether
thehuntwouldsucceed,butnow,whenthebirdscry,itdoesnotsoundlikeamessage
fromtheancestors,orevenlikeasong:itsoundslike“atruckhorn.”60Development
isapparentlykillingtheforest,forthoughitretainsits“magic,”theforestisnolonger
asfertileasitoncewas.61Thehunter’sfailuretocatchanythingmeansthat“theforest
isshamed.”62Thisistheonlypersonificationofthelandscapeinthestory.
Biyari blames the forest’s shame on the Chinese government officials who
abstractandcalculatenature,asthefactoryownerdidBiyari.Biyarithinksthey:
shouldcomeandlistentothebirdsandbeastsandthewindandfallingleavesthey
shouldgotothevalleytoseethemagnificentcliffstheyshouldtakeofftheirshoes
andputtheirfeetinthewaterandwatchthefishswimmingintheunpollutedwater,
unafraid of people. They would unravel the enigma of the forest and, like sinners
55 Ibid.,9.
56 Ibid.,5.
57 Ibid.,9.
58 TopasTamapima,“Zuihoudelieren”[TheLastHunter],17.
59 Idem,“TheLastHunter,”16.
60 Ibid.,12.
61 Ibid.,16.
62 Ibid.,12.

TheHunter’sGiftinEcorealistIndigenousFictionfromTaiwan

•569
condemnedtohell,theywouldregrettheirpreviouslackofunderstandinginseeing
theforestasnothingbutasourceoftimber.63
“Asourceoftimber”intheoriginalChineseismoreliterally“thethicknessof
thelogs.”64Butthesenseissimilar:theofficialshaveonlythecrudestutilitarian
conceptoftheforestandareunabletoappreciateitqualitatively,asBiyaridoes.
TheForestryBureaumissestheforestforthetrees,butindigenouspeoplemaybe
contributingtotheproblem.Theforestryofficialsmayincludesomebrownskinned
Bununwhonowcalculatetheeconomicvalueoftheforest.Otherlocalpeoplemight
betoblameforaforestfireadecadebefore.Huntersclaimthatforestryofficialsset
thefirethemselvesafterextractingallthevaluabletrees.Itwouldbereassuringto
thinkthatthehuntersburnedtheforesttoforestallappropriation,butthefiremight
havebeenlitbyanindigenoustreepoacherorhunter,perhapsbyaccident.Biyari’s
illegal,extramarketuseofwoodinstovesandcampfiresmightalsocontributeto
deforestation.KarenThornberdiscussesthecomplexitiesofecological,socialand
economicvalueconflictsinthevillageintermsofecoambiguity.Idonotthinkthat
ecoambiguityislostonTopasTamapima,thoughitmaybeonBiyari.Puttingaside
foramomenttheissueofwhetherornotBiyarisharesThornber’senvironmental
concern,IwouldarguethatBiyari’svaluesarethoseoftheoldgifteconomy,and
thatthesevalueshaveanecologicalandsocialbenefit.
Biyariclaimsthathunters“knewlifeintheforestaccountedforhalfthelifeon
earth,mostofwhichwascloselyboundupwiththehunters,”indicatingawareness
of interdependency.65 Unfortunately, in a time of environmental scarcity, the
hunter’ssocialobligationsarehardtomeet,becauseifnaturedoesnotgive,how
canahunter?Biyari,walkingdownaslope,meetsanotherhunter,walkingup.This
isapotentialsharingsituation,amomentthatmightrestorearelationship.Butthe
wordsBiyari and Luka exchange areironic. “If itisn’t the great hunter…”says
Luka.66Biyari calls Luka theForest Chief in return, and reminds him that, “the
hunterwalking downhill should sharehis meat withthe hunter walking uphill,”
hopingtoshamehimintosharingwhenallLukahasisasquirrel,agiftforhisson.67
(ToLuka,asonisgiven,andifLukaisahunter,thenobviouslyBiyariisnotthelast
hunter.)BiyarieventhreatenstolayacurseuponLuka.Indeed,Biyariisthescion
ofafamilyofshamans.Shamanry,aremnantoftheoldmagicalworld,isnowjust
words.OnceBiyari’sgrandmother’scursecompelledfivehunterstodelivermeat
toherdoor–areminderthatfearwasasmuchanemotionofthegifteconomyas
gratitude – but now Luka does not take the threat seriously. When Luka finally
offerstoshare,Biyarihumiliateshimbyrefusingtoaccept.
63 Ibid.,16.
64 TopasTamapima,“Zuihoudelieren,”26.
65 Idem,“TheLastHunter,”9.
66 Ibid.,10.
67 Ibid.

570•DARRYLSTERK
Biyariimmediatelyregretshis cruelty toLuka,butit isreturnedtohimat the
endofthestorybyaforestpoliceman,adecommissionedsoldierfrommainland
Chinawhoappealsnottothehunter’scodebuttothelawofthelandtomakeBiyari
coughuptheprizeofhis catch, amuntjachewantstogiveto Pasula.What was
oncecommunionhasbeenreconceptualizedasstealing.Thepolicemansays,“The
governmenttakescareofyoupeoplesothatyoudon’thaveacare,”implyingthat
welfareis a freegift and Biyari is unableto take careof himself.68 Pathetically,
Biyariappeals forsympathy,explaining, “Ihad afight withmy wife.She looks
downonmeandlaughsbecauseIcan’tfindwork.”69Butthepolicemandoesnot
care,becausehehasnoneedforarelationshipwithBiyari.Hispositionmaynotbe
entirelysecure,ashefeelstheneedtoexplainwhyheneedstotaketheanimal–so
hecanreporttohissuperiors.EmphasizingBiyari’sagency,LiouLiangyareads
theexchangeasa“bribe.”70KarenThornberthinksthepoliceman“confiscates”the
muntjac,locatingBiyari’sagencynotintheexchangebutinhisdeterminationto
continuehunting(ofwhichshedisapproves).71
While Biyari is standing there, the policeman points at a purchased piece of
porkhangingonahook,asifthecapitalistsupplyofmeatisthemostnaturalthing
intheworld.IfBiyarihasmoneyforbetelandwine,itisplausibletoassumehe
has money for pork as well, but wanted to give Pasula something more potent,
something wild – something from outside the commodity economy. Indeed, he
hopes,byfeedingherfreshmuntjacmeat,to“putsomemeatbackonherbones.”72
ToKarenThornber,Biyariishuntingforpersonalreasons,butitseemstomethat,
likeLuka,heishuntingbothtoupholdhisdignityandforanother’ssake.ForBiyari
andLuka,culturalandpersonalvaluesareinextricable.Pasulaismoremodernthan
her husband and would probably prefer to purchase industrially produced meat
(thoughBiyaridoesrecallhowfondsheisofwildgoatintestines).Herultimatum
–thathemustsellthepreyorshewillleave–isademandforBiyaritoturnthegift
ofnatureintoacommodity.InatraditionalMaussiangifteconomy,economicand
symbolicorsocialvalueswereintertwined.In“TheLastHunter,”inwhichthere
arestateregulatedcommodityandgifteconomies,thereisadivisiveandcomplex
clashofvaluesoverthefateofamuntjac.
Huntinghadbeenseverelyrestrictedbeforethe1980s,butitwasnotuntilaround
thetimeof“TheLastHunter”thatitbecameacauseforindigenousintellectuals.
TheradicalindigenousjournalHunterCulture(Lierenwenhua人文化),published
on the 27th of the month from 1990 to 1992 (to commemorate Mona Rudao’s
68 Ibid.,19.
69 Ibid.
70 LiouLiangya,“AutoethnographicExpressionandCulturalTranslationinTianYage[Topas
Tamapima]’sShortStories,”814.
71 Karen Laura Thornber, Ecoambiguity: Environmental Crises and East Asian Literatures,
134.
72 TopasTamapima,“TheLastHunter,”17.

TheHunter’sGiftinEcorealistIndigenousFictionfromTaiwan

•571
resistanceagainst the Japanese in1930) used the hunter as a symbol to express
hostilitytomodernity.Ifindigenouspeoplehavebeensellingthefruitsoftheforest
for over three hundred years, the claim that they have been resisting modernity
isproblematic.But resistanceto modern lifeis notallor nothingBiyari ridesa
motorcycle,evenifhetriestoevadestatecontrolofatraditionalculturalpractice.
Inthe late 1980s,the returnmy land(huanwo tudi 還我土地)movement tookto
thestreets,demandingsovereignty.Clearly,“TheLastHunter”raisestheissueof
indigenous use of traditional hunting grounds under the control of the Forestry
Bureau.However,published inearly1987,this storydoesnotseem toarticulate
ademandforsovereignty,thoughitappearsto beacritique of developmentand
governance (as well as a Bunun selfcritique). The final story, Badai’s “Ginger
Road,” addresses the opposite issue to state interference – state neglect – while
greatlyenlargingtheeconomiccontextofindigenouslives.
3.TheReturnedGiftinBadai’s“GingerRoad”
Badaiwasbornin1962inthePuyumavillageofDamalagaw,locatedwestofTai
tungCityinsoutheasternTaiwan,atthefootof themountains.He servedinthe
SpecialForcesforovertwodecadesbeforeputtingdownthe gunandpickingup
thepen.Publishedin1987,theyeartheMartialLawwaslifted,“TheLastHunter”
emphasizedthestatesocietyproblem.Publishedin2000,threeyearsaftertheAsian
FinancialCrisis,Badai’s“GingerRoad”placescharactersinamuchlargereconomic
contextthantheycanpossiblycomprehend.Asin“TheLastHunter,”thecharactersin
“GingerRoad”arechallengedtobalancethevaluesofgiftandcommodityeconomy.
But Badai’s characters are not as marginal as Biyari. They have possessions and
occupations.Theyhavecapital,anintactcommunitythatrelateswithdignitytoHan
Chineseoutsiders,andenoughcashtobuycommoditiestogiveasgifts.
AnagingfarmernamedLuben,towhomHeavenhasgivenastrongbody,grows
gingerinapreternaturallyfertilefieldontheothersideofthemountain.Whereas
Biyarirodetohishuntinggroundalonganindustrialroad,Lubencanonlyaccess
hisfieldbythegingerroad,afootpaththatthecommunityhastomaintainitself.
Lubenownslandonthissideofthemountain,butthefertilegingerpatchbelongs
tohisbrotherinlaw,who has givenLubencultivation rightsinexchange for 30
daysofserviceayear.Thissoundslikeapremodernlandtenurearrangement,but
thepartiestotheexchangemightseeitasagiftexchange.Thoughthatis all we
learnaboutthebrotherinlaw,itseems unlikelythathisrelationshipwith Luben
isa purelycontractual relation.Atany rate,it isclear thatLuben is acapitalist,
thegingerfieldhiscapital,andgingerhiscommodity.Biyari’smoralrighttohis
huntinggroundwasrecognizedonlybyfellowaboriginesLuben’scontractualright
toploughwouldreceivelegalprotection.Biyari’shuntingwasatraditionalpractice,
whileLuben’sancestorswouldnot havecultivated gingerforthe market.Biyari
wantedtoprovehimselfto othermenandtohis wifebyhunting,whileLuben’s
headisfullofabstractionsthatallowhimtomakethemostofhiscapital.Hehas

572•DARRYLSTERK
quantifiedtheland,justas theChineseofficialsquantifiedtheland in“TheLast
Hunter.”Moreover,heaccountsfortherateshisbosssaysthefactory(presumably
aproduceprocessingfactory)willpaycommunitymemberstoharvestandhaulthe
gingerthe3kilometresfromthefieldbackalongthegingerroad.
However, this utilitarian mentality coexists with a warmhearted, moral
consciousness.ThegingerroadandpatcharetheobjectsofLuben’saffections.Though
Lubenisfeelinghisage,hecouldnotbeartopartwiththefield.Ithasbeensomany
years!Heisveryproudofwhathiseldestson,themostadventurousofhischildren
–whoisplanningtogowesttoexploretheprofessionalpossibilitiesforuntrained
indigenousmen–describedasthePuyumaSilkRoad.Asin“TheLastHunter,”there
isnolongeranysenseofliving,personalpresencesinnature.UnlikeBiyari,Luben
isnotevengrantedasigninadream.ButLuben’smeaningful,emotionalattachment
makesthelandmuchmorethancapital.Badaisuggeststheexperienceofatripalong
thegingerroadpoetically:theswitchbacksmake itlooklikea“beautifulhundred
pacer snake.”73 A hundredpacer snake is also deadly, but the whole landscape is
burstingwithlife.TherehasbeennodeclineinnatureinthehillsaboveDamalagaw!
Eachrhizomegrowinginthegingerpatch“lookedlikeagiant’shand.”74Theginger
isnomerecommodity,butlikealimbofalivingbeingwhogivespartsofHimself
tothepeople.Thisistheonlypersonificationofthelandscapeinthisstory.Though
Badai,likeTopasTamapima,aestheticizesthelandbydescribingitas“awatercolour
painting,” through metaphors the painting comes to life, with people in it.75 The
narratorconveysnotjustasenseofthelivinglandscape,butalsoacreaturelysenseof
communityascouplesmakedirtyjokesthatgoovertheheadsofthekids.Thetoneis
distinctlyinformal,incontrasttothesacredspeechin“EternalKabalhivane”orthe
sarcasmof“TheLastHunter.”Butitisverysocial.Theeconomicrelationsbetween
thesefolkshavenotseveredanycommunalconnections.
ThemostinterestingconnectioninthestoryisbetweenLubenandNi’en(‘neck’
inPuyuma),alocalHanChinesefarmerwhomarketsproduceforaboriginalfarmers
likeLuben.WithinChinesesociety,Neckismarginal.Hehasfoundhisplaceinthe
nationaleconomicanatomyasamiddlemanconnectingaboriginestothemarket.
Hehasamentalityfinetunedtoacommodityeconomy:
…somepeopleinthevillageregardedhimasalittlestingy.Helikedtoshortchange
peopleandwouldhaggleoverafewcents.Buttherewasnowinningbecausehewas
theonlyoutsidertohandlethesaleofthevillagecropsandofferthemoddjobs.76
ThisdescriptionmakesNeckseemlikeastereotype,liketheunnamedshopkeeper
in“TheLastHunter.”AnditseemstoLubenthatNeckwillalwaysgetthebetter
73 Badai,“GingerRoad,”34.
74 Ibid.,31.
75 Ibid.,26.
76 Ibid.,28.

TheHunter’sGiftinEcorealistIndigenousFictionfromTaiwan

•573
ofhimbytakingadvantageofhismonopolyposition.ButBadai’scharacterization
ofNeckisnotsosimplistic.TherelationshipbetweenLubenandNeckisnotjust
functional:giftexchangefleshesoutafriendship,producinganeconomichybrid
reminiscent of Mauss’s gift economy. Neck uses Luben’s language, Puyuma, to
greet him, and offers to buy him lunch. Neck asks, “Will you let me take your
gingeroffyourhandsthisyear?”–makingLubenarequest,notabusinessoffer.77
Andheofferstopayforlunchforthewholecrewthefollowingday.Thereisan
added,psychologicalinterestinthescene,becauseNeck’sgenerositycausesLuben
discomfort.Assuming thatLubenmight wantmoremoney,oneof Neck’swives
(yes,Neckhas twowives,suggesting thegreed of theHan Chinesemiddleman)
offers a bit extra, only to meet with Luben’s “insulted and peeved” refusal.78
Literally,the“oldbig(man)”(laoda大)inLuben’sheartisunhappy.79ForLuben,
asforhishunterancestors,givingothersthesenseofone’sendlessabundanceisthe
substanceofaman’shonour.Withhiscapitalist’sscarcityconsciousness,Neckhas
noqualmsabouthagglingLubenfeelshagglingisbeneathhimbutisinfactjustas
muchapennypincherashispatron.
However,thestorywouldremainacharming,keenlyobservedworkofecorealist
fictionwitharuralpalateoflocalcolour, ifitwerenotforthewildgoatcapture,
inwhichthemostcompellingofalltheFormosanliteraryhunter’sgiftsisgiven.
The episode lifts both Neck and Luben out of the sphere of petty selfinterested
calculationinamarketorhonoureconomy.Forthoughheissemispecialized(asa
cultivatorwhodoesoddjobsoffseason),Lubenisnotexclusivelyagingerfarmer
orhandyman.Hestillgoeshunting“withhisfellowvillagers.”80Partoftheprofit
from the ginger crop is for bullets for Luben’s gun. One afternoon at the ginger
patch,duringa momentofdaydreaming,Luben recallstrappingawildgoat live,
thoughhisexperienceoutinhishuntinggroundisagapinthetext,eitherbecause
huntingisnowillegalorbecauseitisnowsuchasmallpartofhislife.Lubenalso
remembershowthrilledNeckwastohearaboutthecapture,becausefreshwildgoat
bloodmightbethesolutiontohisproblem.ForNeckisamiddleagedmanwithtwo
wivesandabeliefinthevitalpowerofblood.Thereisthusaremnantofmagical
thinkinginthisstory,asin“TheLastHunter.”Atthemomentofslaughter,Neck
…cametoaskLubentosell him a bowl of the blood. Luben,ofcourse,knewwhy
he wanted it but said nothing. He mixed the blood with onion flowers, medicinal
herbs,andwineandgaveitto[Neck]freeofcharge.Butthefollowingdayhistwo
wivescameupthemountainand,whentheycametoLuben’sdoor,theyblushedand
presentedhimwithsomefruit.81
77 Ibid.,26.
78 Ibid.,27.
79 Badai,“Jianglu”[GingerRoad],102.
80 Idem,“GingerRoad,”27.
81 Ibid.,36.

574•DARRYLSTERK
Intheoriginal,Luben does notgiveitto Neck“freeofcharge,”whichwould
merelyrejectNeck’sinterpretationoftheexchangeasacommoditytransaction.He
literally“cutsawaywhatheloves”(geai割愛),acommonverbobjectcompound
inMandarinthat concealsan oldermeaningin whichgenerosity hurts,inwhich
youcutawaypartofyourselfwhenyougive.82Thepainofgivingapartofoneself
recallsanotherflashbackinwhichLubenremembersgettingverysickandgoingto
thehospitalandhavinghisbloodtaken.83SeeingthatBiyariidentifiedthelegofthe
chairhemadeforhissonwithhisson’sleg,wemightidentifythebloodLubengave
atthehospitalwiththebloodthegoatgivestoLubenandwhichLubeninturngives
toNeck.IfweseegoatandLubenasseparatecreatures,theidentificationismerely
metaphorical:thegoat’sbloodissimplysimilartoLuben’sblood.If,however,we
seegoatandman aspartsofa largerbeing,forwhicheach isasynecdoche, the
identificationisliteral,andLubenreallygivesapartofhimself,whichisalsoapart
ofthegoatandthegiantwholivesinthehillsaboveDamalagaw,toNeck.There
is“aconstantexchangeofaspiritual matter,includingthingsandmen,”without
alienation.84 Of course, the episode is also a joke at Neck’s expense, because if
Neck wants the blood to restore his sexual vigour his manliness is therefore in
doubt.Butthetoneofthesceneisserious.Thegiftprobablydoesnotfollowfrom
thedictatesofthehunter’scode,inthatLubenisnotobligatedtosharewithNeck
specifically.Itisdiscretionarysharing.Buthismemory’semotionalforce,intimate
andterrifying,derivesfromaprimitivehuntingrite.
Thenthereisthereturngiftoffruit.FruitisatypicalTaiwanesegift.InTaitung
fruitboxesaresoldatroadsidestands.Butthisgiftoffruitisnotpurchased.Noris
itpickedwildfromnature.ItispickedfromacultivatedfruittreeinNeck’sown
orchard.Neckfarmsfruittosellasacommodity,butinthiscasehiswivesmake
agiftofit.Thewivesmustfeelembarrassedinseveralways,atbeingobligedto
Luben and at their domestic relations being publicized. But there is a bloom of
sincerityonthisfruit.ThepoignancyofthegiftstemsfromthefactthatLuben’s
teenageson had stolen fruit from Neck’sorchard in anact of resistance against
someonewho exploits hisfather.The giftof fruit seems to forgive thischildish
transgression against private property. It also returns the gift of the generative
spiritualsubstanceofnaturein adifferentform–fruitforblood –allowingitto
flowandsomehowatoningforappropriation.
However,totheextenttherelationshipbetweentwominoroperatorsinalocal
gifteconomyishumanizedandecologized,thelargersystemisnot.Thenarrator
setsthedramaofthegingerpatchinasmallcornerofthestageofglobalfinance.
NeartheendofthestoryLuben’steenagesonflipsthroughthefinancialnewsby
thesideoftheGingerRoad:
82 Badai,“Jianglu,”116.
83 Idem,“GingerRoad,”36.
84 MarcelMauss,TheGift:Theformandreasonforexchangeinarchaicsocieties,18.

TheHunter’sGiftinEcorealistIndigenousFictionfromTaiwan

•575
…tradingonthestockmarketwashot.Atmidsessionthemarketwasat11thousand
and by the close of trading it was up another 235 points. 1.5 million shares were
traded,delightinginvestors.”
Hedidn’tunderstandaword.Bored,heflippedtothebackpageandread:
“…inhightech,Forbeslistedfournewtycoonswithanaverageageof36…with
respectivefortunesof$25billion,$22billion…”
“With so much money, how many bikes could they buy?” he asked himself,
puzzled.
…Howcouldhe,livinginamountainous[sic]villagewheretheyslavedplanting
gingerandcarryingbasketsforayear’sincomefarfromthemodernworld,understand
thatariseofacoupleofpointsinthestockmarketmeantpocketsofcash?Hedidn’t
understand. His father didn’t understand. The men and women workers who were
planningondrinking,chattingandsingingthatnightdidn’tunderstandeither.
Abirdreturningtoitsroostflewoverhishead.Ablotofdroppingsfell,punctuating
theendofthesectionofnewspaper.85
The bird seems to have a comment to make about the orgy of capitalist
accumulation.Thereisalsoasuggestionofcommodityfetishisminthispassage,
reminiscent of Taussig’s analysis of The New York Times.86 Especially in the
original Chinese: Balcom’s “the market was at 11 thousand” is more literally
that the stock market index on which the article is reporting “intraday (trading)
at one point stood above 11 thousand points” (panzhong yidu zhanshang yiwan
yiqiandian盤中一站上一萬一千點),asifthestockmarketindexisamountain
climberBalcom’s“inhightech”isliterally“showgratitudeforthebountyofthe
technologyindustry”(baikeji chanyezhi ci拜科技產業之賜),as ifthe investors
arevassals,thetechnologyindustryafeudal lord.87Commodityfetishisminvests
merecommodities,orabstractionscalculatedbasedoncommodities,withagency
whileconcealingproducerslikeLuben.Inthedepersonalizinglogicofthesystem
ofglobalfinance,economic andmoraleconomiesare completely separated.The
narratorunderstandsthelargersystem’slogic,andcaresaboutthecharacters.Luben
probablydoesnotunderstand,buthealsoshowsconcernfordistantstrangers,in
thathe wonders whetherthe long journeys of the ancient silkroad traders were
anythinglikehistreksalongthePuyumasilkroad.Totheinvestors,bycontrast,it
isallaboutthenumbers.
AsIhaveshown,asaneconomicallymarginalfarmer,Lubenalsoworriesabout
thenumbers.Healsohastopinchhispenniesasafatherandhusband.Hehasto
givegifts, tokens of affection(but also status symbols),to his family members,
andthese gifts costquite alot ofmoney.The gingerissold byunit weight,and
ratherthanreturntheyieldtothefield,Lubenuseshisprofitstobuymanufactured
85 Badai,“GingerRoud,”40.
86 MichaelTaussig,TheDevilandCommodityFetishisminSouthAmerica,30–31.
87 Badai,“Jianglu,”123.

576•DARRYLSTERK
commodities, the production of which he knows nothing, to give as gifts. His
teenagesonwantsa2,000NTDbike,almostatenthoftheannualincomefromthe
gingerplot.Hiswifewantsa sewingmachine.SomehowintheendLuben finds
awaytosatisfybothofthem.Thoughthebikeandcertainlythesewingmachine
mightserveascapital,theseinvestmentsturnouttobetoorisky.Forthismaybe
Luben’slastseasongrowingginger,andnotbecauseheisgettingold.TheGinger
Road,whichopenedopportunitiesforLuben’scommunitybutalsoopeneditupto
thealienatingglobaleconomy,getswashedoutthefollowingJuly.IfNeckwillnot
helphimrepairtheroad,thelocalgifteconomywillcollapse,andLubenmayhave
togotoworkinafactory.
Conclusion
Inherarticleon SymanRapongan,anotherprominentTaiwanindigenous writer,
ChiuKueifenwrites,“[a]sanactiveaffirmationandcriticalselection,inheritance
isanattempttoavoidaforeclosureofthepossibilityoffuture–inthiscase,the
dominationofcertainprescribednarrativesinenvisagingthefutureofTaiwan.”88
Thus,modernaboriginescancriticallyselectfromtraditiontoquestionprescribed
narrativesandproposetheirownvisions.Chiustudiedthenarrativeofindigeneity,
inwhichTaiwanesepeopleidentifywithaboriginestodistinguishthemselvesfrom
theChinese.ThethreeauthorsIhavediscussedaddressanothernarrative:Taiwan’s
transformationunder anauthoritarian statefrom thirdworld pauperto hightech
powerhouse.Byendingtheirstoriesinlamentation,grimdeterminationandirony,
in a social or ecological loss – Esai loses his life, Biyari a muntjac, Badai the
gingerroad–theyshowusthattheTaiwaneconomic“miracle”isamystification,
andthatbeneaththestoryofpostwarProgressisasubtextofscarcity,controland
alienation.
Butalthoughinendingtheirstoriestragically,theytakesomethingawayfrom
thereader,theyoffersomethinginreturn:thehunter’sgift,which,Ihaveargued,
“personifie[s]anabstraction.”89Thisabstractioncouldbedescribedassocialand
ecologicalintegration.Ibeganbyclaimingthatthesethreeauthorsdramatizevalue
conflictsinexchangestoworkoutmixedfeelingsaboutmodernity.Mydiscussion
suggests that they also redirect their misgivings into a productive critique of
modernity.Theyrevealinwhatrespectsthestateisfallingshort.Theyalsoallow
us to see – and hear – the factory workers, farmers, hunters, animals, and even
forestsinthecommoditiesweconsume.Indoingso,theyturnobjectsofdesirein
theshopwindoworthesupermarketbackintoMaussiangiftsandtherebyhelpus
overcomeconsumeralienation,atleastinourimaginations.Inthisway,theirtragic
talespartakeof“a‘comic’archetypeora‘romanceparadigm’”aboutanalternative
88 Chiu Kueifen, “The Production of Indigeneity: Contemporary Indigenous Literature in
TaiwanandTransculturalInheritance,”1085.
89 MarcelMauss,TheGift:Theformandreasonforexchangeinarchaicsocieties,55.

TheHunter’sGiftinEcorealistIndigenousFictionfromTaiwan

•577
narrativeof Progress.90Fredric Jameson claimedthat onlyMarxism could, “like
Tiresiasdrinkingtheblood,”personifythemysteryoftheculturalpastandawaken
utopiandesire.91PerhapsinsippingfromLuben’sbowlofwildgoatblood,wecan
trytodigestadifferentculturaltradition,inordertomakeliberalcapitalismmore
socialandsustainable,forthebenefitbothofpeopleandofthings.
Afterword:TheSustainabilityoftheBushmeatTrade
Inhis monograph on thehistory of the representation of hunting, Matt Cartmill
claimsthat,“[t]heimportanceofhuntingliesinitssymbolism,notitseconomics.”92
In this article I have followed Cartmill and explored the symbolism of hunting.
But for many indigenous hunters in Taiwan, hunting is an economic endeavor.
Unfortunately, they sometimes end up “hunting the forest’s most endangered
animals.”93Today,theblackbearisendangered,thesambardeerthreatened.94The
muntjacis“highlyexploited”accordingtotheIUCNRedList.95Mining,tourism,
andBuddhist bird releasesalso havean impacton animalpopulations.96But the
sustainabilityofhuntingremainsanissue.
In addressing this issue, we cannot assume that the hunter is a rational, self
interested,individualsubjectwhomaximizesutility.Hunting,evenforthemarket,
remains a cultural practice with symbolic and social values. Scott Simon has
clarified by email how “gift and commodity logics coexist,” in that gizzards
maybepublicallygiventocertainmembersofthecommunity,andtherestofthe
meatsold.Thiscoexistenceoflogicsshowshowcapitalismissocializedinactual
indigenouscommunities.
Weshouldalsorealizethatindigenousculturalpracticesareselfregulatory.In
astudyoftheRukai,theconservation ecologist KurtisPeiarguesthattraditional
culturalrestrictionshelpmakehunting,even forthebushmeattrade,sustainable.
Huntersharvestanimalsthatreproducerapidly,inthecoldermonths,andinhunting
groundsclose tohuman civilization. Peialso notescustoms likebird anddream
divination. This is not, of course, to say that traditional practice is an adequate
responsetoenvironmentalissues.Culturehastorespondtocurrentconcerns,and
huntersmustconferwithexperts,includingconservationecologists.Biyaricannot
assume that ecologists do not understand the forest just because they number
crunch it. An aversion to numbers, coupled with a cornucopian attitudetoward
90 FredricJameson,ThePoliticalUnconscious:NarrativeasaSociallySymbolicAct,103.
91 Ibid.,19.
92 MattCartmill,AViewtoaDeathintheMorning:HuntingandNaturethroughHistory,28.
93KarenLauraThornber,Ecoambiguity:EnvironmentalCrisesandEastAsianLiteratures,135.
94 KurtisPei,“HuntingSystemoftheRukaiTribeinTaiwan,RepublicofChina,”2.
95 H.Leasoretal.,Muntiacusreevesi.
96 Karen Laura Thornber, Ecoambiguity: Environmental Crises and East Asian Literatures,
140–45.

578•DARRYLSTERK
naturethatledindigenousbuffalohunterstoindulgein“ariotousorgyofkilling,”
isdangerous.97
Indigenoushuntersshouldalsoconferwithlegalexperts.ThelegalscholarCarol
RosearguesthatNativeAmericantraditionscaninformenvironmentalmanagement
practices for hunting specifically and the environment in general. The Rule of
Captureincommonlawgivesahunterownershipoverananimal,whileRosetakes
seriouslytheNativeAmericannotionthataresourcelikeanimalsintheforestcan
beconceivedofasagift,aslongasthisreconceptionisnotusedasanexcusefor
abuse.Weparcelupthelandintoalienableparts,whileRosesuggeststraditional
NativeAmericantemporary land sharing arrangementscan reinvent the concept
ofproperty.Shedisputesthenotionofaninevitabletragedyofthecommons,and
pointsouttheproblemsthattheideologyofexclusiveownershiphascaused.
Rosealsosuggestsaroleforindigenouswriterstoplay.ForRose,poetrymatters
to practice, in the sense of having material effects. She implies that capitalist
appropriation depends on metaphors “of the garden and the zoo.”98 These are
settingsfora“tameandplacidproperty”thatturnsoutnottobesotame,because
“arealtreewilltalkback,eveninagarden.”99Shecallsforanacknowledgement
ofthe wildstreak inproperty byusing (rather Tarzanesque)metaphors like“the
untrammelled,leapingmountainlion,”notingthattothehunters,whodidnotassert
propertyrights,thewildernesswastame.100
ThethreeindigenouswritersIhavediscussedofferthemetaphorofthehunter’s
gift,whichtheyinvestwithasymbolismofintegrationandsetinecorealiststories
thatcontextualize apparently alienable things. In this way,they contributeto an
ethicof“economy”–literally,‘homemanagement’–thathonoursnatureasour
largesthomeandthegreatestgiverofgifts.
References
Appadurai,Arjun.“Introduction:commoditiesand the politics of value.” In Thesociallifeof
things:Commoditiesinculturalperspective.EditedbyArjunAppadurai,3–63.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress,1986.
Badai.“GingerRoad.”InIndigenousWritersofTaiwan:AnAnthologyofStories,Essays,and
Poems.Editedby John BalcomandYingtsihBalcomTranslatedby John Balcom, 25–40.
NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2005.
––.“Jianglu薑”[Ginger Road]. InTaiwanyuanzhu minzu hanyuwenxuexuanji: xiaoshuo
juan(xia)台灣原住民漢語文學選集—小説卷·下[AnthologyofTaiwanIndigenousChinese
LanguageLiterature:Fiction(vol.2of2)].EditedbySunDachuan孫大川,99–124.Taibei:
Ink,2003.
97 CarolRose,“GivennessandGift:PropertyandtheQuestforEnvironmentalEthics,”4.
98 Ibid.,30.
99 Ibid.,4,30.
100Ibid.,30.

The Hunter’s Gift in Ecorealist Indigenous Fiction from Taiwan
• 579
Berking, Helmuth. Sociology of Giving. Trans. Patrick Camiller. London: Sage, 1999.
Cartmill, Matt. A View to a Death in the Morning: Hunting and Nature through History.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1993.
Chiu, Kuei-Fen. “The Production of Indigeneity: Contemporary Indigenous Literature in Taiwan
and Trans-cultural Inheritance.” The China Quarterly 200 (Dec 2009): 1071–87.
Gates, Hill. China’s Motor: A Thousand Years of Petty Capitalism. Ithaca, New York: Cornell
University Press, 1997.
Graeber, David. Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own
Dreams. New York: Palgrave, 2001.
Harrell, Stevan, and Yu-shih Lin. “Aesthetics and Politics in Taiwan’s Aboriginal Contemporary
Arts.” North American Taiwan Studies Association Annual Conference (2006). Accessed
January 25, 2013, http://faculty.washington.edu/stevehar/NATSA%20aboriginal%20arts.pdf.
Hill, Matthew H. “Where to Begin? The Place of the Hunter Founder in Mende Histories.”
Anthropos 79 (1984): 653–56.
Hyde, Lewis. The Gift: Creativity and the Artist in the Modern World. New York: Vintage Books,
2007.
Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithaca, New
York: Cornell University Press, 1981.
Kadresengan, Auvini. “Eternal Ka-balhivane (Home to Return To).” In Indigenous Writers of
Taiwan: An Anthology of Stories, Essays, and Poems. Edited by John Balcom and Yingtsih
Balcom. Translated by John Balcom, 100–113. New York: Columbia University Press,
2005.
––. “Yongyuan de guisu (Ka-balhivane)” 󲋡󴜉󲴭󲈡󱉨 (Ka-balhivane) [Eternal Home to Return
To (Ka-balhivane)]. In Taiwan yuanzhu minzu hanyu wenxue xuanji: xiaoshuo juan (shang)
󰪙󲜌󰩈󰗸󲊺󲗋󴅇󱰰󱈡󴜡󴵯󱊸󴅕󰨠󰒳 [Anthology of Taiwan Indigenous Chinese-Language
Literature: Fiction (vol. 1 of 2)]. Edited by Sun Dachuan 󱈔󰿐󱒆, 157–80. Taibei: Ink, 2003.
Leasor, H., P. J. Chiang, & K. J-C. Pei, Muntiacus reevesi. In IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species, version 2013.1. Accessed October 12, 2013, www.iucnredlist.org.
Liou, Liang-ya. “Autoethnographic Expression and Cultural Translation in Tian Yage [Topas
Tamapima]’s Short Stories.” The China Quarterly, 211 (2012): 806–26.
Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and the
Communist Manifesto. Translated by Martin Milligan. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1987.
Mauss, Marcel. “Gift, Gift.” The Logic of the Gift: Toward an Ethic of Generosity. Edited by
Alan D. Schrift, 28–32. Routledge: New York, 1997.
—. The Gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. Translated by W. D. Halls.
New York: Routledge, 2002.
Osteen, Mark. “Gift or Commodity?” In The Question of the Gift: Essays across Disciplines.
Edited by Mark Osteen, 229–47. London: Routledge, 2002.
Pei, Kurtis. “Hunting System of the Rukai Tribe in Taiwan, Republic of China.” Accessed June
16, 2013. http://tk.agron.ntu.edu.tw/ethnozoo/Rukai-hunting%20systsm.pdf.
Rose, Carol M. “Given-ness and Gift: Property and the Quest for Environmental Ethics.”
Environmental Law 24 (1994): 1–31.
Sahlins, Marshall David. Stone Age Economics. London: Routledge, 2004.
Shepherd, John R. Statecraft and Political Economy on the Taiwan Frontier, 1600–1800.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993.
Simon, Scott. “Animals, Ghosts, and Ancestors: Traditional Knowledge of Truku Hunters on
Formosa.” In Indigenous Knowledge and Learning in Asia/Pacific and Africa: Perspectives
on Development, Education, and Culture. Edited by D. Kapoor and E. Shizha, 81–95. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

580•DARRYLSTERK
Sterk,Darryl. “The“Indian Gift”and theTaiwanIndigenous Literary Hunter’sGift.”Studia
OrientaliaSlovaca2,no.1(2012):79–100.
Taiban,Sasala.“TheLostLily:State,SocioculturalChangeandtheDeclineofHuntingCulture
InKaochapogan,Taiwan.”PhDdiss.,UniversityofWashington,2006.
Tamapima,Topas.“TheLastHunter.”InIndigenousWritersofTaiwan:AnAnthologyofStories,
Essays,andPoems.EditedbyJohnBalcomandYingtsihBalcomTranslatedbyJohnBalcom,
3–20.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2005.
––.“Zuihoudelieren”最後的人[TheLastHunter].InTaiwanyuanzhuminzuhanyuwenxue
xuanji: xiaoshuo juan (xia) 台灣原住民漢語文學選集—小説卷·下 [Anthology of Taiwan
IndigenousChineseLanguageLiterature:Fiction(vol.2of2)].EditedbySunDachuan孫
大川,7–33.Taibei:Ink,2003.
Taussig,Michael.The Devil andCommodityFetishismin South America. Chapel Hill,North
Carolina:TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,2010.
Thornber, Karen Laura. Ecoambiguity: Environmental Crises and East Asian Literatures.
Michigan:MichiganUniversityPress,2012.
Weiner,AnnetteB.InalienablePossessions:TheParadoxofKeepingWhileGiving.Berkeley:
CaliforniaUniversityPress,1992.