西拉雅族為南部平埔族分佈區域最為廣闊的一族，在近代學者的分類上，另將其區分為西拉雅本族、馬卡道支族與大武瓏支族等三個系統。在其信仰的系統上，均有崇祀「阿立祖」為主神的信仰習慣，但因各地區區域的差別而對「阿立祖」主神有其不同稱謂。此外，在祭祀「阿立祖」的信仰行為方面：包括以「公廨」、「公界」等特定稱謂稱「阿立祖」的祭祀場所，以「祀壺」作為祭拜之象徵，並以檳榔、米酒為祭拜供品等特殊型態的祭祀行為。但長期以來，已逐漸與台灣民間信仰文化交互的影響，形成一獨特的信仰型態。 本研究係透過田野調查的方式，蒐集台南縣境內有關於阿立祖信仰的公眾祭祀場所忙相關資料，並依其信仰的文化特質分類記錄呈現，包含阿立祖廟的基本資料、廟貌、路線圖與相關方位描述、配置圖、相關沿革、祀神名稱、祀神型態、祭典日、祭祀型態、祀壺相關事項、阿立祖信仰特質、信徒與管理組織、對聯、橫匾及其他事項等，每間阿立祖廟記錄之信仰文化特質平均約有四十七項。並以九十四張繪製圖、二百七十一個表、二百二十五張照片，具體呈現台南縣內十三個鄉鎮共四十七處單獨祭祀阿立祖或阿立祖與其他神明合祀的廟宇。 論文除緒論與結論之外，共分為七章：第一章主要針對阿立祖信仰中有關阿立祖祀神、祀壺、祭祀的公廨、祭拜使用的檳榔等，進行相關的討論。第二章記錄及描述蕭瓏社群活動區域內十四個祭祀場所有關阿立祖信仰相關的文化特質。第三章記錄及描述大武瓏社群活動區域內八個祭祀場所有關阿立祖信仰相關的文化特質。第四章記錄及描述新港社群活動區域內十六個祭祀場所有關阿立祖信仰相關的文化特質。第五章記錄及描述目加溜灣社群活動區域內九個祭祀場所有關阿立祖信仰相關的文化特質。第六章記錄及描述麻豆社群活動區域內四個祭祀場所有關阿立祖信仰相關的文化特質。第七章則針對阿立祖祭祀場所的名稱、形制與阿立祖的稱謂、神格祭祀等進行分析與討論。

台灣原住民族有平埔原住民族（簡稱平埔族）及高山原住民族（簡稱高山族）二大族群，西拉雅族為平埔族群之一，鳳山八社為西拉雅族之支系。從財產權的制度變遷得知，自然資源權屬是從開放性共用資源、共有財產以迄私有財產制度之形成，人類經濟活動從狩獵採集轉變為定居農業時，正式形成私有財產的產權型態。荷蘭據臺以前，臺灣島上全屬番地，而分布於臺灣南部屏東平原的鳳山八社，以狩獵、漁撈及游耕為其主要之經濟活動，對於土地並無所有權的觀念，土地是共有的，頗為類似「封閉的共用資源」，已略具排他性質。在清治以後，由於漢移民不斷湧入，荒埔地逐漸減少，為提高番地之生產效能及維持社番基本生計，鳳山八社傳統之經濟活動，當須配合改變，然而，生產型態及技術之改變，不僅形成水田稻作農業，亦導致番社土地由共有型態轉變為地權私有化。 清治時期，分割地權或一田二主制為屏東平原傳統地權制度之一，分割地權是將所有權區分為業主權（大租權）與田主權（小租權），清廷為保護社番之地權，禁止漢人私墾荒埔地，鼓勵社番自行墾耕番地，如社番不自墾，准許番社或社番將番地租與〈給墾或佃批〉漢人，漢人以「代番輸餉」方式合法取得番地小租權，而番社仍保有大租權，爾後並形成在同一番地上存有大租權與小租權，而且可以各自分別處分其權利。另者，部分番地大小租權皆屬社番所有，社番因乏銀費用而典賣小租權，番業主僅剩收租權。因社番在經濟上屬於弱勢者，如以番租做擔保，向漢銀主典押或借貸，當期限期滿時，社番常無法清償，番租則繼續歸漢銀主收租，形成社番「地權虛有化」，本研究將以自行繪製之「清治時期鳳山八社番租分布圖」及「清朝晚期鳳山八社社番人口分布圖」予以驗證番業主地權虛有化的事實。 質言之，本文係從制度變遷理論，配合西拉雅族番契，探討西拉雅族番社地權從傳統共有地權、私有地權形成至虛有地權之變遷過程。本文共分六章，第一章為緒論，第二章文獻評述及建立分析之理論基礎。第三章從清康熙及乾隆年間臺灣輿圖與日據初期之調查圖中，說明鳳山八社之傳統領域範圍，並以文獻史料、部分番契內容，探討鳳山八社傳統地權制度。第四章是以誘發性技術變遷及強致性制度變遷，探討鳳山八社共有地權變遷為私有地權之過程。第五章從番契內容分析地權結構之演變，以實際案例計算番大小租權價格差距，並證明地權虛有化的事實。第六章為結論與建議。 / In Taiwan aborigines have Pingpu people and Mountain people. Siraya is one of Pingpu people, Feng-Shan eight tribes are branches of it. The property-rights configuration of natural resources had transited from open access common resources into closed access common property, and then from latter into private ownership from the view of institutional change of property rights. It had formed common property into private ownership, when people’s livelihood changed from hunting and gathering into settled agriculture. Before Dutch occupying, all Taiwan was aborigines’ land, Feng-Shan eight tribes’ population spread in Pingtung Plain of southern Taiwan. Hunting, fishing and farming were Siraya’s livelihood mostly, there was no concept of ownership, and land was used in common. As the land area was used only by village man, it was similar to “the closed–access common resources” which had the feature of exclusive communal property. After Ching Dynasty, owing to Han Chinese had moved into the southwestern Taiwan, wild plains decreased gradually. To improve the productivity efficiency of tribal land and sustain basic needs of living, Feng-Shan eight tribes’ people must change their traditional livelihood. As rapid growth of Han Chinese and Siraya people, and the diffusion of technology for paddy rice farming, the tribal land rights had transited from common property into private ownership. Split ownership or two tiers of owners was one of the traditional system of land tenure in Pingtung Plain in Ching era, it distinguished what were called large-rent and small-rent rights. In order to protect tribal land rights and encourage village aborigines to plant their land, Ching Government prohibited Han Chinese from developing wild plains illegally. However, if aborigines did not need to develop the tribal land, Ching Government permitted Han Chinese to rent tribal land. Han Chinese obtained small-rent rights of tribal land by paying the tribal tax, the tribe only kept residual large-rent rights. Therefore, the tribal land rights were divided into split ownership which was called large-rent and small-rent rights. Any owner of those rights could either manage them by themselves or sold them out. Otherwise, large-rent and small-rent rights of some tribal lands belong to village aborigines, some of them sale small-rent right for lack of money. Village aborigines had left nothing but right for collecting rent. Because village aborigines were very poor, they had to borrow some money from Han lender and mortgage their rent to lender. Village aborigines could not amortise the debt usually, if the appointed pay off date reached. As a result, the right of collecting rent belonged to Han lender continually. Formally village aborigines had the large-rent rights, but they were deprived gradually, the large-rent rights turned out empty. This research will prove that by the spread drawing of tribal rent in Ching era and spread drawing of tribes’ population in late Ching period. In short, the purpose of this research is to explore institutional change of land rights of Feng-Shan eight tribes by institutional change theory. Through deliberation of Siraya private documents, we can conclude the property rights of village aborigines were transited from communal right into private ownership and turned out to be emptiness or only face right. This research is divided into six chapters. Chapter one is introduction. Chapter two is literature review and theory deliberation. Chapter three explains the traditional territory of Feng-Shan eight tribes by Taiwan maps of K’ang-hsi and Ch’ien-lung period and investigation map in early period of Japanese occupation, and explores the traditional land right system of them to utilize historical article and folk contract. Chapter four explores their land rights had transited from common property into private ownership from induced institutional change and imposed institutional change theory. Chapter five analyzes evolution of tribal land rights, calculates difference of values between large-rent and small-rent rights and proves that the large-rent rights were turned out empty from folk contracts. Chapter six is conclusion and suggestion.