The abundance of data

Chinese archaeology is supported by a receptive government that encourages, and funds, research and innovation, with a particular emphasis on archaeometric analysis. However, despite the availability of facilities and considerable expertise in China, laboratories are largely overwhelmed. The current timelines for most archaeological projects—which are primarily rescue excavations conducted before construction—mean that few scholars have the time or resources to engage in work beyond writing site reports. Sampling for archaeometric analyses is often not undertaken due to an underlying perception on the part of the archaeologists that such analyses add little value to, or may even delay completion of, projects. Where samples are collected, finding a lab that is available or willing to analyse them can be challenging.

Excavation is an inherently destructive process, requiring the careful recording and subsequent dissemination of data. In working with multiple archaeological institutes, we have observed that on average only 10 per cent of sites excavated produce basic reports, with many excavations inadequately recorded. In recent years, some universities and provincial units have started to put together databases that may help to streamline the recording process to prevent data loss. However, the scale of data held by each research unit means that digitisation will be a long-term endeavour, particularly as there is a notable reluctance on the part of some researchers to share their data.

The absence of comprehensive databases limits the potential for big data analyses. In the case of osteoarchaeology, although thousands of graves are excavated each year, most reports record only the biological sex, age at death and ethnicity of the tomb occupants. Individual abnormalities are reported (Zhou & Gao Reference Zhou and Gao2022), but large-scale studies are not undertaken, even when hundreds of tomb occupants are present (CASS 2007).

There is currently a push to increase archaeometric research into sites excavated between the 1980s and early 2000s. Although archaeometric analyses were undertaken at some sites, for instance Mawangdui (马王堆) (Ji Reference Ji1985), their application was far from universal and, in many other cases, the use of archaeometry is only just beginning. For example, the Famen Si site (法门寺) in Baoji, Shaanxi, was originally excavated in 1987 but the full archaeological report was not published until 2007 (SSKY 2007) and archaeometric analyses of metalwork and textiles from the site have only recently been conducted (Lu et al. Reference Lu, Hui and Yang2022; OSM section 2). Although these analyses are well organised and provide key findings, they are often hampered by the sampling methods employed in earlier excavations.

Identification over investigation

The application of archaeological method is strictly regulated on archaeological sites in China, requiring compliance with the protocols defined by the Cultural Heritage Bureau (国家文物局) (GWJ 2009), which are regulated and enforced by the local provincial or city Archaeological Institutes (省/市考古研究所). Any researcher or institute wanting to conduct archaeological work in China must be authorised at the local level (归属地管理). Normally, where a site is considered to have great cultural significance, it is elevated to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences: Archaeology (CASS Archaeology) (中国社会科学研究考古研究所). Stratigraphy, typology and archaeological-culture naming theory (考古学文化定名说) form the core of Chinese archaeological method and theory (Zhang Reference Zhang1995; Zhao Reference Zhao2021). These techniques are skilfully employed to build detailed theories regarding cultural variation and genealogy, social development, state evolution and the development of civilisation within pre-Qin China (Hein Reference Hein2022).

Research on non-elite post-Qin contexts remains limited, with most archaeobotanical studies focused on identifying plant remains from tombs rather than exploring cultivation and domestication, as in pre-Qin research. This is partly due to under-sampling in post-Qin contexts, although there are some exceptions. Zhao (Reference Zhao2020) analyses grain proportions from a Han Dynasty household in Henan, concluding that a two-crop system was practised, but overlooks regional climate and geomorphological variations. Similarly, Zhao (Reference Zhao2018) identifies spices and dried fruits from the Nanhai 1 Song Dynasty shipwreck as crew provisions; an interpretation that needs further scrutiny. These studies emphasise the desire to categorise, rather than investigate object use and deposition, that currently exists within post-Qin archaeology in China.

Publication problems

The overabundance of archaeological data in China has led to a backlog in publication; submissions to CCJs can take two or three years to publish, although this varies substantially depending on the perceived importance of the findings or the author. This is further exacerbated by the fact that many excavators are unwilling for articles to be published before the main report, which can lead (in our experience) to four- to five-year delays in publication. In turn, the editors of CCJs have a strong preference for traditional and trusted methods, as evidenced by the relative publication rates of archaeometric analyses in CCJs and WCJs (OSM section 1). It can thus be difficult to get innovative theories or methods published in CCJs and, consequently, such archaeometric research articles are more often published in WCJs under more receptive editors.

Differences in academic conventions also often lead to miscommunication. Scholars based outside China may find Chinese papers lacking in interpretation, while Chinese academics often see foreign papers as overly interpretive (过度阐释) with insufficient data to support their conclusions. The Chinese approach, where the data constructs the argument for itself, can impede the publication of new methods unfamiliar to local editors and reviewers. Meanwhile, international editors may overlook brilliant Chinese papers because the data-based construction of arguments is obscure to a reader unfamiliar with Chinese academic writing. In short, a ‘coding error’ exists between the two approaches.

Interpretation of texts

There is a common perception that the role of archaeology in China is “to verify the histories and fill in the gaps” (zhengjing bushi 证经补史), a saying used by scholars from the early twentieth century onwards to describe practices first outlined by scholarly literati examining inscriptions on bronzes in the Song Dynasty (AD 960–1279) (Xu Reference Xu2025). The relevance of historical texts is substantial, as excavated texts have demonstrated high degrees of accuracy in transmission when compared with modern examples—for instance the copies of the Daodejing (道德经) recovered from Mawangdui Tomb 3 (c. 168 BC) and Guodian (郭店) Tomb 1 (cf. Tomohisa Reference Tomohisa, Chan and Tan2004; Cook Reference Cook2012). However, this accuracy has led to a research paradigm in which archaeological research from the post-Qin period is considered incomplete without affirmation by historical texts. Although available texts are very detailed on many subjects, as records primarily of the historical elite they leave much under- or un-recorded. Due to this historiographic orientation, post-Qin archaeology largely focuses on the social elites and understanding the systems within which they lived.

In post-Qin archaeology, therefore, historical sources are perceived as a framework into which analyses must be fitted rather than a foundation upon which to build. As most archaeologists who focus on archaeometric analyses specialised in science disciplines during their education, they often believe that they do not have sufficient knowledge of written history to undertake research into the historical period. This could be counteracted through greater co-operation and collaboration between scholars from different subdisciplines.

The lack of zooarchaeological research in post-Qin China perpetuates the long-held assumption, based on historical texts and funerary art, that the empire relied primarily on agrarian production, with animal husbandry remaining marginal (Twitchett & Loewe Reference Twitchett and Loewe1986; Sterckx Reference Stercxk and Wang2006). Consequently, animal bone analyses from post-Qin contexts are often deprioritised (Jiang et al. Reference Jiang, He, Liu and Ju2007). Yet, research in Eurasia shows that integrating textual and zooarchaeological evidence can illuminate overlooked or misunderstood aspects of antiquity (MacKinnon Reference MacKinnon2010). For example, Festa and colleagues (Reference Festa2024) demonstrate that animals provided both meat and traction for small-scale agriculture in Han Dynasty urban households in Yishengci (医圣祠), Nanyang, Henan.

While some post-Qin zooarchaeological and archaeobotanical studies do exist, they often focus on mortuary contexts (Zhang Reference Zhang2011). The low prioritisation of faunal and vegetal finds limits contextual accuracy, complicating functional and spatial analyses (Carrer Reference Carrer2015). Additionally, there is no reliable ‘zooarchaeological’ or ‘archaeobotanical’ context for post-Qin sites, and existing reports are typically too vague to address this gap (Hu & Yang Reference Hu and Yang2010; Liu & Jiao Reference Liu and Jiao2019).

Ingrained practices and reluctance to adopt new protocols, such as sieving and carbon dating, result in less-rigorous sampling. The lack of sieving, particularly in aeolian loess where hand recovery is deemed sufficient, contributes to the under-representation of small animals in zooarchaeological assemblages. Greater use of sieving could address this issue (Lam et al. Reference Lam, Brunson, Meadow and Yuan2010).