2008 Conference

"Sharing Archaeology"

The International Centre for Chinese Heritage and Archaeology (ICCHA), a collaborative project between the School of Archaeology and Museology of Peking University and the Institute of Archaeology of University College London, together with the International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies at Newcastle University, is organising an international conference on ‘Sharing Archaeology’ to be held in Beijing (Peking University) between 4 and 7 November 2008.

The conference has four major themes:
1. Sharing between archaeologists

2. Sharing between various associated subjects, distinguishing
2a. other ‘scientific’ specialists
2b. heritage-related specialists (tourism etc)
Taking into account what other specialists want from archaeologists

3. Share with the general public, distinguishing
3a. those who visit archaeological sites and monuments open to the public
3b. the majority of the general public who do not visit sites and monuments
Taking into account what the public and the media want from archaeologists

4. The relationship between sharing archaeology and the protection of cultural heritage.

Contributions, in the form of papers or poster presentations should be sent to Catherine Todd (Catherine.todd@ncl.ac.uk) on or before 1 September 2008. If papers cannot be accepted because of time constraints there will be the opportunity of placing these on a conference web-site prior to the meeting.
请于2008年9月1日之间,将拟发言稿寄给Catherine Todd (Catherine.todd@ncl.ac.uk),如因会期限制不能安排发言者,会将其投稿发表与会议网站上。

On Tuesday 4 November all conference participants will take part in a one-day site visit to Dabaotai Han Dynasty Tombs Museum near to Beijing and to the Zhou Kou Dian Site (Peking Man Site). Participants’ common experiences on these visits will help to inform discussion during the rest of the conference.

A draft outline of the conference including speakers will be available in mid September.

We hope to publish the proceedings of the conference within twelve months.

For further information please contact: Catherine Todd (Catherine.todd@ncl.ac.uk)
更多相关咨询,请联系Catherine Todd (Catherine.todd@ncl.ac.uk)

Professor Peter Stone
International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies, Newcastle University
Peter Stone 教授, 纽卡斯尔大学文化与遗产研究国际中心主任
Professor Zhao Hui
Director, School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University
Director, International Centre for Chinese Heritage and Archaeology
赵辉教授,北京大学考古文博学院院长,中国文化遗产保护与考古学研究国际中心 主任
Professor Stephen Shennan
Director, Institute of Archaeology, University College London
Stephen Shennan教授,伦敦大学学院考古学研究所主任
Professor Thilo Rehren
Executive Director, International Centre for Chinese Heritage and Archaeology
Thilo Rehren 教授,中国文化遗产保护与考古学研究国际中心执行主任
On behalf of the Sharing Archaeology organising committee

Professor Peter Stone
International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies
Newcastle University, UK
That we should, and do, share the results of our archaeological work seems an obvious statement to make and thus, to some minds, might bring into question why we are holding this conference. However, it only takes a few moments of reflection to acknowledge that our sharing is, at best, unstructured – if not downright haphazard – and could be seen, at worst, as almost non-existent. And yet, surely, sharing our discoveries and understanding of the past must be the oxygen in which our discipline exists and thrives.

Most archaeologists now reject the view that archaeology is an objective science with only one – “the correct” - possible interpretation of our excavations and fieldwork. The previous certainties of the culture-history and processual approaches to archaeology have been replaced by an acceptance that archaeology is a subjective discipline in which contexts and choices frame our research questions, our understanding and presentation of data, and our interpretations.

The implications of this acceptance of archaeology as a subjective discipline are wide-ranging as we have to re-negotiate how we share our data and knowledge and how we justify and present our interpretations. This has implications not only for the sharing of information between archaeologists but also in how archaeologists share knowledge and understanding with the wider public. It has significant implications on how archaeology, and archaeological interpretation, is used, and on occasion, abused, by society more widely.

Our conference has therefore been divided into four themes:
1. Sharing between archaeologists;
2. Sharing between various associated subjects, distinguishing
2a. other ‘scientific’ specialists
2b. heritage-related specialists (tourism etc)
Taking into account what other specialists want from archaeologists;
3. Share with the general public, distinguishing
3a. those who visit archaeological sites and monuments open to the public
3b. the majority of the general public who do not visit sites and monuments
Taking into account what the public and the media want from archaeologists;
4. The relationship between sharing archaeology and the protection of cultural heritage.
This paper will introduce some, but by no means all, of the issues surrounding these themes through examples of sharing archaeology collected over the last twenty-five years and will provide a context for discussion over the next three days.


Akira Matsuda
Archaeology is a study very closely related to the public not only because of its implications for people’s identities that are in part formed by the interpretation of the past, but also because of its nature - intruding upon people’s living space in an active and real, physical sense. This second point is particularly concerned with rescue excavations, where the vast majority of archaeological activity is carried out in most countries in the world. One of the important questions to be addressed from the perspective of public archaeology is, then, who informs the public of the results of archaeological studies in each country, and how. This paper examines the question through a case study of Japan.

Boasting 6,600 full-time professionals, archaeology today constitutes an important area of study and employment in Japan. Despite a large number of publications produced each year by archaeologists involved in rescue excavations, it is predominantly journalism, in particular newspaper reports, that informs the Japanese public of the latest results of archaeological studies. Whilst archaeologists often criticise the way in which newspapers report on archaeology, archaeology itself seems to be in need of, if not reliant on, journalism to sustain its status-quo in social and economic terms in contemporary Japan. Similar relationships between archaeology and journalism seem to exist also in other parts of the world.

Anne Pyburn
New government initiatives in the 1970s and new technologies developed over the past two decades have revolutionized archaeological research in the United States. At the same time, rapid globalization has made archaeologists increasingly aware of the need to communicate across national boundaries to keep up with new methods and the continuous flow of new discoveries. In countries like China, Great Britain, and the United States where there is a highly educated public, public outreach and education have been shown to improve the success of preservation programs and to increase the rate of discovery, since people are more willing to care for local sites and share local knowledge when they understand it has more than commercial value.

The changes that faced US archaeologists at the end of the 20th century were overwhelming to many academics whose training did not include the skills they were suddenly called upon to teach. The members of the Society for American Archaeology responded to a questionnaire investigating their needs by requesting help in designing new courses. In response George Smith of the Southeast Archaeological Commission and Anne Pyburn of Indiana University requested support from the US National Science Foundation to design courses that could be posted in the World Wide Web for use by anyone. Half a million dollars was granted to the MATRIX Project (Making Archaeology Relevant in the XXI Century) and 30 professional archaeologists from small colleges, large universities, government departments, private contract firms, and museums around the US. Participants were selected based on their professional stature, including former presidents of the Society for American Archaeology and the American Anthropological Association, several full professors from outstanding institutions, directors of large government programs, and owners of multimillion dollar contract firms.

MATRIX participants peer reviewed and test taught sixteen courses over a period of four years, which were then posted to the WEB in their entirety, with the assistance of pedagogical specialists who shifted the focus from professors’ typical concern for their teaching to a consideration of what students are actually learning. The website has been well received and has been used by as many as 30,000 people per month from around the world. Each course contains complete texts of lectures and assignments as well as statements by the designers about their teaching goals and all course materials are searchable so that users can put teaching materials together from several courses. Although intended to support university professors, the materials can be used directly by advanced students, or simplified by instructors for use in secondary schools.

In spite of its success, the MATRIX lacks an adequate international scope. The next challenge for MATRIX must be in broadening its value by incorporating courses designed by professionals from many nations. At present, a course on Central Asian Archaeology is under development and renovation of the original site with a greatly expanded inventory is planned for the near future. Advice and comment from participants in the Sharing Archaeology Conference will be of tremendous value to the realization of this goal. http://www.indiana.edu/~arch/saa/matrix/

Dominic Perring
For many the primary purpose of cultural resource management is to preserve and protect archaeological sites and remains for the future. If we are to share archaeology with the future, does this mean that we have to deny ourselves opportunities for excavation and research in the present? Why should we permit continued excavations on important sites when there is no danger to the archaeology? This paper will set out some of the reasons that might justify destructive fieldwork, whilst advocating approaches which are both sustainable and ethical.

Dougald O’Reilly
Heritage Watch is a non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of Southeast Asia’s cultural heritage. Founded in 2003, Heritage Watch has undertaken a diverse range of projects aimed at both the supply and demand end of the international antiquities trade as well as promoting responsible tourism in Cambodia.

Heritage Watch was founded as a result of a sharp increase in the destruction of Cambodia’s precious cultural patrimony, especially the looting of ancient cemetery sites nationwide. Cambodia is famed for the temples of Angkor but little is known of how these temples came to be and the secrets to the rise of Angkor are to be found in the countless prehistoric settlements and cemeteries.

A grass-roots education campaign saw local people trained in the importance of preserving these ancient sites and national TV and radio advertising campaigns have been implemented to encourage preservation along with a hotline for people to report looting. Heritage Watch has established a database of news stories on looting in Cambodia as well as producing a Khmer language comic book, a bilingual children’s book and training manuals. A new initiative for 2008 is the DHARMA Project - the Database of Historical and Archaeological Regulations for the Management of Antiquities

In 2007 Heritage Watch launched the Heritage Friendly Tourism Campaign an effort aimed at encouraging responsible tourism, longer stays in Cambodia, visits to remote temple sites as well as encouraging local businesses to give back to Cambodia. Many businesses already support the arts, culture, heritage and development here and Heritage Watch is pleased to bring attention to these operators. We hope that visitors to Cambodia will patronize ‘Heritage Friendly Businesses’ by booking with responsible operators and using their services when they visit Cambodia.

Innocent Pikirayi
Associate Professor in Archaeology, Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, SOUTH AFRICA
In the book Archaeology and Ancient History: Breaking Down the Boundaries. (London and New York: Routledge, 2004), Eberhard Sauer argues that the divide between archaeology and history has long been problematical and there seems little chance of resolution in the near future. It is quite evident that within the wider discipline of archaeology, there are divisions within the academic study of the past, and numerous suggestions have been offered to narrow this divide, including multidisciplinary approaches to the study and understanding of the past. This sharing of the past by archaeologists, although it has gone a long way in disentangling the complex nature of the past, has however failed to define the role archaeology should play in history and its relevance to society. In southern Africa, archaeologists still struggle to make their work relevant to a variety of communities and the general public. The main problem is the esoteric nature of the discipline and the power of the artefact in the production of archaeological knowledge. This is further distanced from the communities and the broader public where archaeologists are confronted with issues such as environmental conservation and sustainability, land claims, economic development, heritage and identity, racism, etc. Thus the relevance of archaeology lies in not only what archaeologists do by themselves in order to understand the past, but also in what they achieve in the company of non-archaeologists, including interacting and engaging with the community.

This presentation examines archaeologists and community engagement in southern Africa, showing, among other things that engaging the public can address and reshape the structure of communication with descendant communities, and experts from other disciplines. As demonstrated clearly by some of the papers presented at the 6th World Archaeological Congress (WAC) in Dublin in June-July 2008, this exercise also has the potential to recast the roles and responsibilities of archaeologists to the communities in and with which they work. Community engagement enables archaeologists to recognize the voices of the communities and other stakeholders, ensuring that these are active participants in the course of the archaeological process. Engaged are also regarded as useful archaeologies that provide relevant and timely information which serve as a tool for solving social and scientific problems, thus making archaeology an integral part of the broader heritage discourse.

The presentation specifically highlights issues pertaining to archaeologists’ experience of community engagement in some parts of southern Africa, the concept of community involvement in archaeology, the power relations underpinning community involvement, and, how the past, in this context represented by the archaeological heritage, is negotiated and contested between various communities. It is argued that the conservation of some archaeological sites is best achieved by integrating ‘scientific knowledge’ with community-held knowledge of these places. Community-held knowledge, which is acquired through a process of engaged and collaborative conversation and dialogue with communities, provides information to archaeologists and heritage managers for use on the conservation of sites and monuments. I perceive this sharing of archaeological and related information that situates the archaeologist as the learner, instead of that long perceived ‘expert’ who ‘tells’ communities what to do. It is this latter practice which continues to alienate archaeology from communities that it seeks to study.

Joanne Farchakh Bajjaly
When Lebanon's so called civil war ended in 1992 the reconstruction of Beirut city started. The nation was soon to discover what was meant by the government's plan to "rescue archaeology". As some archaeologists were racing to delay the coming of the bulldozers, developers were using the same vehicles to destroy the, what in their minds was "old and destroyed", in other words - the country's heritage. At the time, a massive media campaign was launched in order to save part of Lebanon's heritage. The campaign never achieved its goals - a large part of Beriut's old city was destroyed, making way for modernism.

Then, archaeologists and politicians were not always helping journalists and rarely backed their comments with evidence. Archaeology became a political tool, and discoveries were largely politicized, either promoting or criticizing the government's actions. Hundreds of sites were destroyed for ever, giving birth to the need for a new form of lobbying, using "specialized journalists in archaeology and heritage" to cover this aspect of everyday life in the country. A page dedicated to Archaeology and heritage became a necessity, and local papers regard this as prestigious and being loyal to the country's history. Still, gaining media support was not enough to save heritage as archaeologists are reluctant to talk to just any journalist, they need to know them and trust them. This is crucial for saving heritage, since archaeologists are the main players. This has formed a new bond. Another obstacle needed to be cleared – the archaeologist's ego for great discoveries, and the journalist's ego for scoops. Recently, in 2008, new ways were paved for saving heritage.

The tangible and fruitful collaboration between archaeologists and journalists and the unlimited and unconditional support of "Al Akhbar" newspaper opened doors saving of Beirut's Roman Hippodrome in situ and the redeposit of the Roman bathes of Al Saifi towers.

The "battle" for saving Lebanon's heritage is definitely not over, but there are signs of new ways to win the next phases and in that aspect, Lebanon can be considered a pioneer in the entire Arab world.

Lyn Leader-Elliott
Acting Head, Flinders Humanities Research Centre for Cultural Heritage and Cultural Exchange; Senior Lecturer in Cultural Tourism
This paper discusses principles of collaboration between archaeologists and communities in presenting and interpreting cultural heritage. Recent international charters have identified the importance communicating meaning as an essential part of the conservation process and note the necessity of collaboration with communities and other stakeholders. The paper briefly introduces key principles of two relevant ICOMOS Charters: the 2007 draft ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites and the 2002 ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Charter.

For instance, the 2007 draft of the ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites notes the importance of public communication as an essential part of the larger conservation process, whether it is called “dissemination,” “popularization,” “presentation,” or “interpretation” (ICOMOS 2007:1).

The 2002 ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Charter states that ‘A major reason for undertaking the protection, conservation and management of heritage places, the intangible heritage and collections is to make their significance physically and/or intellectually accessible to the host community and to visitors’ (ICOMOS 2002:2). It observes that ‘cultural heritage and living cultures are major tourism attractions’ and emphasises the necessity for host communities, heritage professionals and the tourism industry to work together.

These principles are discussed in relation to Indigenous cultural tourism in Australia. Indigenous culture is promoted as tourism product by all Australian government tourism marketing organisations and by many tour companies. Indigenous community members are interested in earning income through tourism ventures which are frequently based in sharing culture and sharing knowledge: the brand tag on the Indigenous Tourism Australia website is ‘Share the Knowledge’. (Indigenous Tourism Australia 2008 and see also Canada Heritage 2006). Government Indigenous tourism strategies promote the active engagement of the traditional owners to some degree, acknowledging that they range from wholly indigenous owned and operated businesses to ‘mainstream’ tourism businesses that ‘deliver authentic Aboriginal cultural experiences (developed by way of joint ventures or collaborative marketing)’ (Tourism WA 2005:27, Aboriginal Tourism Australia 2008).

However, there is no practical working set of protocols that could enable more effective collaboration between the Indigenous communities and the tourism industry and an international study of Aboriginal cultural tourism concluded that ‘[c]ommunication between Aboriginal culture/heritage and tourism stakeholders is minimal’ (Canadian Heritage 2006: p7).

Many communities lack the experience and expertise necessary to work effectively as tourism businesses. Many Aboriginal cultural tourism organizations need assistance with marketing, as well as programme and product development (Canadian Heritage 2006:7), including interpretation and communication strategies.

Archaeologists and other cultural heritage professionals can play a lead role in developing workable protocols for collaborative, sustainable cultural tourism. They can also play a major role in helping to develop the capacity of Indigenous communities to share their knowledge and culture with a wider world. These activities must be carried out in conjunction with communities, tourism professionals and other stakeholders. Three Australian examples illustrate different ways of achieving these objectives in line with, and extending, the principles of the international charters. (Ngarrindjeri and Adnyamathanha people of South Australia, and Regional Arts Australia Indigenous training pilot programme).

Aboriginal Tourism Australia 2008. http://www.aboriginaltourism.com.au/downloads/Incredible Journeys PDF.pdf
Accessed 1 September 2008.

Canadian Heritage Aboriginal Tourism and Cross-Cultural Understanding Project Executive Summary 2006 http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/pubs/tourism/documents/2006-02/2006-02_e.pdf Accessed 1 September 2008

ICOMOS 2007. The ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation
of Culltural Heritage Sites, Proposed final Draft, 10 April 2007. Revised under the Auspices of the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Interpretation and Presentation. http://www.enamecharter.org/downloads/ICOMOS_Interpretation_Charter_EN_10-04-07.pdf Accessed 20 August 2008.

ICOMOS 2002. ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Charter International Council on Monuments and Sites ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Committee. December 2002 http://www.icomos.org/australia/images/pdf/ICOMOS%20International%20Cultural%20Tourism%20Charter%20(English).pdf Accessed 20 August 2008.

Indigenous Tourism Australia 2008. Case Studies http://www.indigenoustourism.australia.com/casestudies.asp. Accessed 1 September 2008

Tourism Western Australia nd. 2005?. Draft Aboriginal Tourism Strategy for Western Australia http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/parks-and-recreation/industry-information/aboriginal-tourism-development.html Accessed 1 Sept 2008

Tourism Australia 2008. Indigenous Tourism Visitors in Australia Snapshot http://www.tra.australia.com/content/documents/Snapshots/2008/Indigenous_07_FINAL.pdf Accessed 1 Sept 2008.

Mike Pearson
Site-specific performance responds to, and is staged in, non-theatre spaces: in natural and man-made environments; in places of work, play and worship, both used and disused, ancient and modern, and at a variety of scales. From empty factories to deserted beaches, from busy streets to quiet cathedrals…As the latest occupation of a location where former occupations are apparent and still cognitively active, it can provide a vital tool in the live interpretation of archaeological and heritage sites. But it need not attempt to re-enact the multitude of things that have happened there; it may even be in conflict with or ambivalent to the site. But in the clash of contemporary and historic, in the interpenetration of that which is of the place and that which is brought to it, performance may serve to reveal its particular qualities and resonances in ways that data-rich guided tours may obscure.

Taking a ruined farmhouse in an upland forest in Wales as its model, this paper suggests a series of performative engagements with the site that take into account the conflicting cultural and political narratives that have accumulated around it. Commencing with the option of doing absolutely nothing – and thus resisting explanations that might close down the imagination of the visitor, the paper examines the various ways in which the experience of visitation might be enhanced through the techniques of site-specific performance. Three main options are discussed: first, sending audiences there, unaccompanied, with our instructions, choreographic diagrams and alternative kinds of travel manual so that they themselves perform individual and collective movements through the site; secondly, taking or bringing them there in our co-presence, in performances that range from intimate solo interventions to large-scale scenographic intrusions; and thirdly, involving them in events that draw together live and recorded media, from other times, other places.

The overall aim is to recommend formats that might inform approaches at more fragile and prestigious locations.

Mike Pearson trained as an archaeologist. Between 1971 and 1997 he made performances professionally with Cardiff Laboratory Theatre (1971-80) and Brith Gof Theatre Company (1981-97). He is currently Professor of Performance Studies, Aberystwyth University and continues to present performances with the Pearson/Brookes group (1997-present). He is the co-author with Michael Shanks, Professor of Classics, Stanford University of Theatre/Archaeology (2001) and author of In Comes I: Performance, Memory and Landscape (2006).

Rui Pang
To what extent does the public really benefit from archaeology? A survey undertaken at Chang’an, Xi’an China, designated on the tentative list of World Heritage, shows that different stakeholders – archaeologists and professionals and other interest groups – have very different understanding and needs of an archaeological site. Three main interest groups are defined here – heritage professionals (archaeologists and others); the local community (particularly economic ‘stakeholders’ such as developers, local businesses and residents); and the educational sector (school teachers and students). Different value systems have developed within each sector, often based on preconceived ideas rather than a direct engagement with the site itself. There is consequently very little overlap between these competing value systems. This is a hindrance to effective site management and a barrier to finding ways in which the archaeological site might benefit the local community. A community value based paradigm, based on direct engagement with the archaeological resource, is recommended as a way of breaking down barriers between the different interest groups in the future.

Shahina Farid
Çatalhöyük Research Project – Field Director & Project Coordinator
Institute of Archaeology, UCL
The world famous site of Neolithic Çatalhöyük in Central Anatolia attracts an international team of scholars from within archaeological circles and related scientific disciplines. However, archaeologists are not the only group of people who are interested in the interpretation of the site. Çatalhöyük is embedded within a wider social, political, historical and cultural context. Çatalhöyük is being interpreted, consumed and co-opted by various groups with different interests and agendas, which impacts on the methodological practices and dissemination implemented by the archaeologists at the site and how the data is presented. How should we, as archaeologists, maintain control over the data that we are generating but at the same time recognise and deliver it to interest groups for their reinterpretation?

At Çatalhöyük we share our primary data online to our global audience whilst catering for visitors to the site with a Visitor Centre, areas of excavation under permanent shelters and a replica Neolithic house. Our Community Archaeology and Education programmes involve the local population whilst nationally interest comes from the fact that the site is taught in schools and features in the press regularly.

Artists visit the site to be inspired by the wall art and relief sculpture that we uncover and fashion shows, jewellery collections and music scores have been inspired by the work done at Çatalhöyük. Naturally politicians and our sponsors claim a stake in our discoveries and want the project to invest their interests within the structure of our work.

Presenting Çatalhöyük is integral to understanding it in its living context and recognising the investment in the site by multiple groups criss-crossing multiple disciplines. At Çatalhöyük our method for inclusiveness is in the recognition of multivocality that we cater for through different mediums.

Stewart Waller
It has become common place for a typical archaeological investigation to produce vast amounts of digital data: be it word-processed site reports, a database of artefacts, or megabytes of raw data produced by a survey of the ocean floor. In the majority of cases, the archaeological data in question can not be recreated because a site may have been lost through the very process of excavation or data collection. Thus the concept of a digital archive becomes important to ensure that primary data is not lost and is available for generations to come.

While the preservation of data is indeed of utmost importance, equally so is the ability to retrieve this data from the archive in a suitable format. What use is a digital archive if the data is inaccessible for future research or incompatible with current information systems? Therefore appropriate dissemination mechanisms must be implemented to maximise the value of a digital archive.

The technology available in the 21st century provides us with tools to manage our digital data more effectively in ways that have hitherto been unavailable. Advancements in communication systems, specifically the internet, allow data to reach an international audience. It is on this global stage that the collaborative development of recognised data standards can play a key role to ensure optimum interoperability is achieved.

This paper briefly looks at various case studies to highlight where mistakes have been made in the past. Further, it is hoped that by examining current projects, and drawing from experience gathered at the Archaeology Data Service over the last 12 years, an insight into current practices of preservation, sharing and reuse of digital archaeology in the 21st century can be gained.

Thilo Rehren
The modern World is criss-crossed by a multitude of artificial boundaries, between nation states, social groups, academic disciplines, and religious and political beliefs. However, this superficially disconnected assemblage of individual units is of course well-connected, both at the immediate boundaries and as part of an overall picture: like a jigsaw where each piece fits into its place, and only makes sense as a part of a whole. Modern society is just such a gigantic jigsaw, with the boundaries often acting more as glue than as dividing lines.

There is no reason to assume that ancient societies were any different, and archaeology is, together with its sister discipline history, at the forefront of reconstructing and interpreting this huge jigsaw of past societies.

My experience from working in archaeology as a scientist underlines the significant gains that arise from sharing in archaeological practice: sharing knowledge, sharing questions, sharing methods, sharing dreams. The key topic I will explore in the talk is that it is comfortable to share with people of one’s own type, conviction, upbringing and interests: but sharing with like-minded people renders a group static and conservative, but does not change much. It is more difficult to share with others, with people unlike oneself. The talk will explore some of the costs and benefits of this sharing across boundaries, showing how sharing across boundaries is a positive driver of innovation and cross-fertilisation. Thus, by sharing across faculty and other boundaries we help them to hold societies together as well as to structure and advance them, but reduce the risk that they divide or separate and petrify their members.

Tao Wang
This paper started as a field investigation on the current situation of ‘public archaeology’ in China. As everywhere else in the world today, Chinese archaeologists are faced with the challenge of public accountability and of promoting their research in a fast-changing environment. Whilst archaeologists from different countries are asking similar questions, we cannot expect the answers to be the same. Modern Chinese archaeology was introduced from the West in the early 20th century, but China’s traditional antiquarian scholarship has continued to play a significant part.

In this paper I will address three issues. First, I will give a historical review of the relationship and interaction between archaeologists and the public during the excavations of Yinxu, the capital of the late Shang dynasty. The impact of this experience is still felt today. Secondly, I will analyze the policy of the ‘archaeology of the workers and farmers’ under the PRC and in particular its role in movements such as the Cultural Revolution. These two aspects illustrate how Chinese archaeology developed in a very different context from other countries. China’s recent political history has influenced people’s concept of the role of ‘public’ archaeology. This is sharp contrast to the development of ‘public archaeology’ in the US and the UK. The third part of the paper will examine the current trends of ‘public archaeology’ in China, with the expectation that China will very likely develop its own interpretation and practice of ‘public archaeology’.