A Review of Archaeological Organization and Practices in Taiwan

International audienceSince the mid-twentieth century, the worldwide practice of archaeology has taken many different forms, especially in terms of its management: state-based, regional/federal-based, city-based, private, commercial/contract-based, academic, amateur, etc. Although archaeology, as a profession, is generally organised in accordance with the dominant ideologies of the time, on a national level it is adjusted to address specific needs and domestic ideological dynamics. While archaeological management practices are more complex and nuanced than framed by a simple dichotomy, such a structure usefully highlights overlapping similarities and differences. On the one hand, Japan, France, Italy, Greece, and many others made the initial choice for a mainly state-based archaeology, in which the state handles the practice and regulation of archaeology. On the other hand, countries like the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia chose a largely commercially-based archaeology, which is essentially a privatized and de-regulated practice. Such stark differences made us question whether archaeologists in both systems do the same job and have the same objectives? Furthermore, what is the situation in Taiwan? What choices have been made and what still needs to be done to define the future of archaeology in Taiwan? Even though archaeology largely relies on public institutions and their members, archaeological practice in Taiwan is now mainly done within a ‘salvage archaeology’ or ‘contract-archaeology’ model involving public and private operators. Funding for salvage archaeology comes through the ‘polluter-payer’ principle, which is developer-based and embedded in a market economy. This specific market configuration comes with well-known issues experienced worldwide, but the organisation of archaeology in Taiwan presents some unique successes and challenges due to the history of its specific development. It retained large public archaeological institutions and structures that mainly support research, giving a more hybrid character to Taiwanese archaeological practices. It is suggested here that we are entering a period of transformation in Taiwan with the more common application of salvage practices and the advent of private operators, which may present several choices for the structural orientation of archaeology in Taiwan.自二十世紀中期以來，考古學實踐在全世界發展出許多不同的樣貌。特別在管理與控制的各層面來說，包括國家主導的、地區/聯邦主導的、城市主導的、私人主導的、商業考古、學院派考古、業餘考古等等都是。然而，考古學，作為一個專業，通常被當代的主流思想所塑形，但更重要的，它在一個民族國家的尺度下隨著其內部思潮變遷而被調整。用一個過度簡化的二分法來說（全球考古學管理的實踐勢必是更加複雜且細微的），日本、法國、義大利、希臘以及許多其他選擇採取國家主導的考古工作（也就是說考古學實踐以及管理由國家來進行），而美國、英國、加拿大、澳洲等國，則大部分選擇商業化的考古工作（也就是採取私人化、放鬆管制的實踐）。此兩種系統下的考古學者是否進行著同樣的工作，以及有著相同的目標？再者，臺灣的狀況又是如何？臺灣過去選擇了什麼樣的方向，以及未來面臨了哪些選擇？我們將會見到，即使在臺灣的考古學研究大都仰賴公立機關的審查或執行，現今臺灣的考古學實踐主要組織在一個「搶救考古」的模組下，透過「污染者自付」的原則（受到1992的瓦萊塔大會所啟發），也就是土地開發者出資，且將考古學放入一個競爭性的市場經濟中。這種競爭性的市場構造伴隨著的問題可見於世界各地，不過有些狀況基於當地的開發歷史，是臺灣的考古管理上特有的。看來我們正面臨臺灣的一個轉捩點，其牽涉到要持續受市場經濟邏輯主導，或者以一個更試圖挑戰的態度面對現今的資本主義的思維，將考古學重新導向社會文化，而非遵循追求增長產值的教條