full-coverage regional survey methods, the incorporation of regional survey with geoarchaeology, GIS (geographic imaging systems) applications, and remote sensing in the study of settlement patterns; mineralogical studies of archaic jade; the development of interdisciplinary approaches such as zooarchaeology, ethnobotanical study, and environmental archaeology; and the employment of advanced laboratory technology such as AMS (accelerator mass spectrometry) dating methods, genetic studies, and the analyses of phytoliths, isotopes, and stone tool use wares. The introduction of these methods and techniques has brought Chinese archaeological research to a higher level of sophistication than before.

A new generation of Chinese archaeologists, who received Ph.D.s from foreign universities in North America, Europe, Australia, and Japan during the 1990s, has either returned to China or worked in archaeological institutions outside China. With their up-to-date knowledge of western archaeological methods and theory, they have made important contributions by introducing new ideas of study and employing new methods and techniques in collaborative research projects. The discipline has become more international than ever during this golden age of Chinese archaeology.

Interestingly, the research orientations of the joint collaborative projects seem to follow some traditional patterns. Most projects initiated by western archaeologists have primarily focused on Paleolithic and Neolithic sites, or on cultures in peripheral areas, which appeal to internationally oriented research topics, while projects designed by overseas Chinese archaeologists tend to focus on the central plains in search for the processes of Chinese civilization.

The development of Chinese archaeology, therefore, has intertwined with the ever-changing political environment of the twentieth century. Archaeologists have worked extremely hard to overcome all kinds of economic, social, and political difficulties during many different politically turbulent eras, and they have made extraordinary contributions to the field. Our understanding of ancient China has markedly improved because of their archaeological achievements.

In many cases, archaeology has been driven by changing concepts of nationalism and has been used as an instrument to support, rather than to evaluate, particular theories, political themes, and agendas. In other situations, it has provided independent data for the creation of new paradigms, which have changed traditional perspectives of China’s national history. State-promoted nationalism has indeed played an important role in shaping the discipline. However, many individual archaeologists, have spontaneously exercised nationalist ideology in their research. For them, the building of national history implies dignity and pride as human beings.

China is certainly not the only nation in which archaeology is relevant and meaningful primarily in the context of the connection between modern cultural and national identities and ancient indigenous traditions (e.g., Kohl and Fawcett 1995). Therefore, in spite of the growing influence of western ideology and technology over the past decades, which in many cases has been positive, the general objective for mainstream Chinese archaeology does not seem to have changed; the discipline remains committed to the reconstruction of national history.

That mission will probably continue to dominate the discipline for many years to come. It is possible, however, that more varied research approaches will emerge in future. Although some archaeologists will continue to pursue regional historical issues, others may become engaged in theory building and cross-cultural comparative studies, which will develop the discipline from a more international perspective.

Li Liu and Xingcan Chen

References

Andersson, G.J. 1923. “An Early Chinese Culture.” Bulletin Geological Survey of China 5: 1–68.

Binford, Lewis, and Chuan Kun Ho. 1985. “Taphonomy at a Distance: Zhoukoudian, ‘the Cave Home of Beijing Man?’” Current Anthropology 26, no. 4: 413–442.

Brysac, Shareen B. 1997. “Last of the ‘Foreign Devils.’” Archaeology November–December: 53–59.

Center for the Study of Ancient Civilization,