Chapter 9

THE ORGANIZATION OF EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES: 
ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEAMS N.1 & N.2

0. Elements of interest & structure
There are several particular elements of interest in this case study:
•	The archaeological teams involved were in charge of the fundamental ring within the archaeological chain:  archaeological excavation.
•	The case reflects China’s archaeological peculiarity in comparison to the Western world (and maybe the rest of the world), either in terms of opportunities (urban/building development and related findings), administrative rules (Luoyang model and salvage excavation), archaeological techniques (detection/excavation) and, last but not least, the high profitability of archaeological excavation.
•	It provides significant evidence of the Luoyang specificity within China (co-existence of two archaeological teams, development of the Luoyang Model, developing of professional knowledge at local levels, strong support from the national government).
•	It provides an example of inter-organizational complexity related to the co-existence of several institutions contemporarily in charge of excavation, preservation and research of cultural relics and to the existence of an economical/prestige disincentive for cooperation among institutions.

The structure of the chapter is as follows:
1.	a preliminary short reconstruction of the birth of the two Luoyang archaeological teams; 
2.	a reconstruction of the archaeological teams’ main functions and procedures (excavation, preservation and research);
3.	aspects related to the archaeological teams efficiency, investigating both procedural and substantial issues in managing human & financial resources;
4.	final conclusions and implications.

1. Historical evolution of archaeological institutions
Luoyang has two archaeological teams: the Archaeological Team of Luoyang and the Archaeological Team n.2. The historical and current roles of the two teams are strictly related to the development of China’s archaeological institutions in the 20th century and follow the development of the last decades at the local level (creation of several Archaeological teams at the Municipality Level, the boom of urban development with the shift from research excavation to salvage excavation, and an increase in cooperation with international experts). However, Luoyang is characterized by one peculiarity: the creation of two teams instead of one. Since 1986, in fact, Luoyang has been divided into the Luoyang Area (which included all the counties and, in the 1950s, also Luoyang City) and Luoyang City (which included only Yanshi County). 
-	The Archeological Team of Luoyang (which will be referred to as AT 1) was responsible for the city of Luoyang: at the beginning as part of Luoyang Museum, and since 1981 as a single institution under CRB supervision;
-	Archeological Team n.2 (AT 2) was in charge of the Luoyang Area and it was under control of the Prefecture.

	Starting in 1986, the two teams became both under CRB control and now the distinction among the two reflect a mere geographical motive: AT 1 is in charge of east Luoyang plus 5 counties (and is located in a building in the city centre), while AT 2 oversees west Luoyang plus 4 counties (and since 2006 is located in the same building of Luoyang Cultural Relics, in the south of Luo River). 
	In addition, other Archaeological Institutions currently work in Luoyang on archaeology: the CASS, which has 4 teams (each of which employs about 3-4 persons) and several excavations campaigns in the Luoyang area such as in Erlitou, Shang Capital City, Han and Wei, and Sui and Tang sites; and the “History, ancient relics and archaeology research institution”, which was the Communist Party’s organization in charge of research on Archeology and today is under the control of the Cultural Relics Bureau of Luoyang with the main function of desk research (no excavation activities).
	The historical evolution today has an impact from an organizational point of view, with the co-existence of two different teams and several other institutions with similar duties and skills.

2. Functions and activities of the two archeological teams
The archaeological teams have three main functions: excavation, protection and research: “The major job of the Archaeological Team of Luoyang is archaeological excavation, ancient relics protection, and ancient relics research” (internal document AT 1); “Activities: protection, excavation and research of ancient relics of western area of Luoyang” (internal document AT 2).
	Achievements of the two teams are impressive, especially due to the incredible richness of Luoyang’s history: “The archaeological achievements of the team in the last 10 years are mainly some excavations including the construction bases belonging to the Eastern Zhou and the early Western Han dynasties, two horse and chariot pits and other tombs of the Eastern Zhou dynasty, 132 tombs of Qin dynasty at Guanlin, 8 tombs of Western Jin dynasty, the Huiluo Storehouse of the Sui dynasty at the Xiaoli village in 2004, some relics of the eastern capital of the Sui and Tang dynasties, and irrigation works of the Tang dynasty, etc.:
-	“In 1988, the team was honoured as the most excellent safeguarding and preservation unit of the Henan province;
-	in 1991, the team was honoured as the most advanced unit in the circuit of culture of the Henan province;
-	in 1992, the team was honoured as a civilization unit by the People’s Government of Luoyang.” (internal document AT 1). 
-	in 1996, Neolithic relics at Zhouli were excavated and honoured as one of ten great new archaeological findings in China in 1996; 
-	in 1997, Neolithic relics at Yandong were excavated;
-	in 1998, Paleolithic relics at Beiyao and the relics of Dingding gate of Tang dynasty were excavated;
-	in 1999, the rammed earth of Western Zhou in the eastern outskirts of the Luoyang city and the relics of the courtyard of the Han Dynasty were unearthed;
-	in 2000, the rammed earth of the wall of the Royal city of Eastern Zhou, the palace base of King Fu of the Ming dynasty and civil dwelling of the Ming dynasty, etc, were unearthed one after another;
-	in 2001, relics of the bank of the ancient Luo River and Tianjin Bridge were excavated; 
-	in 2002, a big tomb was excavated at 27th Middle School of Luoyang; 
-	In 2003, horse and chariot pits in Royal City Square were unearthed” (internal document).

	According to an internal document of Archaeological team n. 2, “3600 ancient tombs and the relics of 30,000 square meters have been unearthed. Ten thousand ancient relics were excavated. In 1998, a large construction base of the Han dynasty in Xin`an was excavated and honoured as one of “ten big new archaeological findings in China in 1998”. More than 150 articles and 10 monograph books have been published.” 
	However, some additional comments on rules and procedures of the three activities could be made, especially from the organizational and inter-organizational point of view.

2.1 Excavation 
In China, there are two different excavations typologies: salvage excavations and research excavations.

•	Salvage excavations
The term reflects the need to “save” the ancient cultural heritage buried underground from the destruction due to the recent urban development.  It reflects a specific national law which establishes that before building, any construction company must ask permission from the Cultural Relics Bureau of the area, which might then be involved in archaeological supervision and excavation.
This rule, called the “Luoyang Model”, was first carried out in Luoyang for the protection of the old city and became a local law in 1982. Luoyang thus has a specific role in the archaeological development of China because it is here that the Luoyang Model was first developed before becoming a national law. 
	The procedure of assessment of the presence of cultural heritage underground can however be different in different areas of the country, depending on the geomorphologic characteristics of the soil. 
	In Luoyang the steps involve (what is informally called the “Luoyang way”):
-	first, the construction company must ask for building permission to the archaeological department of Luoyang Cultural Relics Bureau. 
-	Then, the archaeological department of the Luoyang Cultural Relics Bureau asks the Detection Institution to conduct a “detection” (a special technique invented in the 1950s which uses long wood sticks to survey the soil for cultural evidence) in the area designated for construction. If nothing is found, the company can start building in the area without any monetary charge.
-	If any object is “found” by the detection, the archaeological team responsible for the area is asked by the Cultural Relics Bureau to begin the excavation. The cost of the excavation is charged to the construction company which negotiates the time and price with the archaeological team, depending on the size and the depth of the area.
-	If important findings are made during an excavation, the archaeological team must report to the archaeological department of the Luoyang Cultural Relics Bureau, which asks a group of scholars for advice. The scholars’ advice is taken into account by the Cultural Relics Bureau Director, which decides what to do with the site: the excavation can either stop or continue (and in this case, the time and fee previously agreed upon between the construction company and the archaeological team must be renegotiated, as in the Shanyan building) and, in some specific cases, the Construction company can be obliged to move into another area (such us the Horse and Chariots Pits site).

	In other areas of the country were the soil is “harder”, such as in Chengdu, the detection step is skipped (what is informally called the “Chengdu way”). Before beginning any work, the construction company negotiates a price with the archaeological team only in terms of the area of digging (because the depth of potential objects, and thus of the excavation, is not known). Therefore, the difference between the two procedures seems important not only in terms of techniques, but also in terms of “profitability” of the archaeological teams (something similar to what is normally referred to as “business model”), because with the “Changdu way” the archaeological team intervenes - and is paid to intervene - also when no relics are found in the area. 
	In any case, however, and differently than in other countries, both ways ensure a high profitability to archaeological teams for salvage excavation. This is surely positive in absolute terms, and also in terms of the amount of money to be potentially re-invested in the archaeological chain, yet it has a potential for several negative effects that are worth noticing:
•	In terms of research (both excavation research and desk research), for which the degree of profitability is very low, if not null, and the opportunity cost is very high. In short, the problem is: why invest time and professionalism in research if it could be invested in a more profitable activity, such as salvage excavation?
•	In terms of transparency: time and price procedure, which is not fixed (as it was before 1978) but instead the result of a negotiation, can potentially lead to a problem of transparency in the relationship between the archaeological teams and the construction company, with the conflict of profit with preservation.
•	In terms of inter-organizational relationships: the profitability of excavation can lead to the avoidance of co-operation with other archaeological institutions (other archaeological teams, universities and the CASS), and to minimize know-how and professional exchange (with potential for local excess).

•	Research excavations
Research excavations, on the contrary, are made for reasons not directly connected to building activities. They can start either with the initiatives of archaeological teams (with the permission of the SACH, which will subsidized the excavation and establish its duration), or directly from the SACH, that can ask the archaeological teams to realize the excavations, for instance, in the case of international cooperation projects on sites of particular importance. 
	Today in China, research excavations made by archaeological teams seem to be quite rare. In Luoyang, out of 40 excavations carried out in 2005 by Archaeological Team n.1, not a single one was for research purposes, while the only research excavation carried out by Archaeological Team n.2 in 2005 was at the Mang Mountain (indeed purposeful archaeological excavation tends to bypass local institutions, such as in the case of the Xia, Shang & Zhou Dynasties project).

2.2 Protection
Protection activity consists of keeping the object safe in the archaeological deposit and in its restoration. 
	The Archaeological team of Luoyang has two deposits (1,500 and 2,500 square meters): one exhibits several objects in quite good conditions in apposite showcases and is open to outside researchers and students; the other collects about 240,000 pieces and is closed to outside researchers. Objects are supposed to remain at the archaeological teams’ deposit only for the time necessary for their first cataloguing (photo and recognition) and research, during which no outside researcher or expert can study or even view the collected objects. After the cataloguing has been finished, upon request, the objects must be handed over to the museums for exhibition (with no charge to the museums).  However, for what we understood, the procedure for cultural objects transfer is not as clear as the rules are, and the objects tend to remain in the archaeological team’s deposits for several years. In any case, it seems that many objects held in the archaeological team’s deposits will be transferred to the new Luoyang Museum for exhibition in the future.
	The very fact that Archaeological teams 1 and 2 have separate departments is hard to understand. Replication of costs, but above all waste in organizational learning on restoration and development of skill are likely to occur.  Restoration is carried out by the “technique department” in AT 1 and the “technique and protection department” in AT 2. The archaeological teams can apply to the SACH for financial support only for special projects of restoration (passing through a Municipal/Provincial procedure, whatever the level of the object is), while the others are funded with current income (and somehow taken into account, together with research costs, in the excavation price). Current restoration is, therefore, a “resource consuming” more than “resource creating” activity (in terms of time, people, and money for equipment). Resources can not always be available because they are involved elsewhere (such as in excavation). 

2.3 Research
Desk research is the last fundamental activity of the archaeological teams, strictly connected to the previous ones. 
	A first “compulsory” level of research is the archaeological report on excavation, which must be realized within, at most, three years after digging. Before that time, the sites and objects revealed by the excavations can not be open to the public or to other institutions and researchers for study. Unfortunately, many research reports on recent excavations have not yet been published, even if the three-year period has already passed (such as in the Horse and Chariots Pits site) and even if, according to the law, before the publishing of the report, no other excavation work can start. As for restoration and research excavation, a problem of opportunity cost compared to salvage excavation seems to emerge and few human and financial resources are dedicated to research. 
	The potential for a second level of research, the publishing of deep studies on the findings, is for the same reasons underdeveloped, both for the archaeological teams as well as in other research institutions (in this second case, because of institutional fragmentation reasons).  In fact, as for restoration, only in rare cases (such as Longmen grottoes recently), specific, in-depth research is realized and specially subsidized from higher administrations (SACH), while research usually is financed with current earnings (in other words, with profit made from salvage excavation). 
	Furthermore, even if some excavations and research have been carried out in cooperation with other institutions (such as the Tang Frescos now collected in the Ancient Tomb Museum), what emerges in most cases is some kind of “institutional jealousy”, which hampers the diffusion of knowledge and cooperation. A problem deriving both from institutional fragmentation (the co-existence of several institutions in the area with similar skills/duties such as the CASS, universities, Archaeological teams and the History, Ancient Relics and Archaeological Institution) and the probable existence of disincentives for cooperation (in terms of money/prestige?). This is a problem that, in curatorial terms, means a delay in spread of knowledge, loss of opportunities in terms of scientific development etc., and in organizational terms, means the duplication of staff/skills/deposits/equipments (in short, a waste of money).

3. Resources and efficiency of the museum 

3.1 Human Resources
The three activities (excavation, protection and research) are reflected in the organizational structures of the two archaeological teams.

•	AT 1
What first emerges, when looking at AT 1 human resources, is the size of the staff: with 119 employees, the archaeological team is the largest institution inside the Luoyang Ancient Relics Bureau (excluding Longmen Grottoes). 
	Less then half (53) are permanent positions, while 18 are on contract, 30 are seasonal and 17 are retired employees. The composition, with a high percentage of seasonal workers (about 25%), reflects the peculiar work of the archaeological teams, where a different size of staff is needed depending on the number and importance of sites currently excavated.  Seasonal workers are therefore mostly engaged with excavation, safeguarding and cleaning and as in most cases, have a low educational background (middle/high school). The role of collective employees is not so clear (real job positions or welfare policies?), but what emerges from an internal document is that they are mostly engaged in safeguarding (“most of collective workers have a polytechnic diploma and their jobs are safeguarding and others”). Even if contract employees are almost half of the seasonal ones, the expenditure for their salaries is higher (from 2004); a phenomenon which is probably related to the shorter period of employment of seasonal workers in a year (see Exhibit 9.1).
 	Permanent employees cover professional positions (43 of 53 are professionals) and coherently have the highest educational background (1 master degree, 14 bachelor degrees, 32 junior college degrees, 4 polytechnic diplomas, and 2 high school diplomas among the group). Of the remaining, only 3 are administrative (few, compared to the size of the institution, thus begging the questions of who manages the staff and who is in charge of finance?), and 7 are workers. 

表2：所有的工资支出 Exhibit 9.1 -Total labour expenditures 							
 	 	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	
正式职工	permanent	42	42	42	53	54	71	73	73	73	78	82	
集体职工	on contract	6	6	8	10	13	13	14	15	16	19	19	
临时职工	seasonal	8	14	10	10	10	10,8	17,4	16	16	16	16	
退休职工	retired	10	10	10	12	10	22	24	25	25	26	30	
	total	66	72	70	85	87	116,8	128,4	129	130	139	147	

	The team is structured in seven departments (see exhibit 9.2): excavation, office, preservation, technique and protection (composed by site protection, photography/drawing and repair), research, safeguard and finance. We are not aware of employees’ distribution among the departments (except for protection department), but two considerations can be made: 
-	preservation department and technique and protection department seem somehow overlapping;
-	of 53 permanent employees, only 1 is dedicated to restoration. Without questioning its skills and merits, what can be said is that in mere quantitative terms is that the effort in this sense is too low, especially compared to the presumable amount of work.

		Exhibit 9.2 - Archaeological Team n.1 of Luoyang: Organizational Chart 

Director 
(1)

Office

Archeological excavation

Research

Technique and protection

Site protection
(2p)

Photography (1) and drawings (2)

Repair (2)

Preservation

Safeguard

Finance

•	AT 2
Archaeological team n.2 is also a large institution, with 76 employees including 38 permanent employees, 14 on contract, 16 seasonal and 8 retired. 
	The team is structured in 5 departments (see Exhibit 9.3, with the distribution of permanent and total employees, excluding retired):
-	The Office Department is in charge of logistics and employs 8 permanent people (of which 6 have junior college degrees and 2 have high school diplomas): 3 are drivers (coherently, 2 of them are those with only high school diploma), and 4 are in charge of finance. 
-	The Research Department is in charge of research archives and the protection of above-ground cultural heritage. It employs 8 permanent people, of which 7 are professionals and 1 is a worker. Besides permanent positions, the department employs one person on contract and 2 retired people.
-	The Technique and Protection Department  is in charge of protection and restoration after excavation and of photography for the archive. It employs 5 permanent people (all of them with junior college diplomas) and 3 people on contract.
-	The Safeguarding Department is in charge of security of under and above ground heritage. It employs 4 permanent people (3 administrative and 1 professional; 1 with junior college diploma and the other with polytechnic diploma) and 1 on contract.
-	The Archaeological Excavation is in charge of the excavation and research of underground cultural heritage. It employs 9 permanent people with higher education (5 bachelor degrees and 4 junior college degrees amongst the employees), 3 contract employees and 16 seasonal people.

In short, what emerges is: 
-	A quite high percentage of seasonal workers (21%, a bit lower than in the AT 1 case), all employed in the archaeological excavation department. The fact confirms the role of seasonal workers in the archaeological teams as workers “bought in the market” as needed for excavations;
-	A very high number of educational degree: among permanent employees only 2 have a high school diplomas, while all the others have junior college degrees (24), bachelor degrees (10) or master degrees(2). The three leader positions have the highest educational backgrounds (a strong coherence between education and carrier), with one vice-director having a PhD; surprisingly for a western reader, guards also have high educational background (1 junior college, 4 polytechnic diplomas);
-	It is not very clear whether or not someone is in charge of human resource management in the office department;
-	The distinction among administrative, professional, and worker positions looses meaning in the office department (only one person is ranked as administrative) and in the safeguarding department (where 3 - 4 are administrative).

Exhibit 9.3 - Archaeological Team n.2: Organizational Chart 

Director
(1 perm)

Office
(8 perm – 14 tot)

Research Dep. 
(8 perm - 11 tot)

Archeology dep. 
(9 perm – 28 tot)

Technique and protection 
(5 perm – 8 tot)

Safeguard dep.
(4 perm – 5 tot)

Vice-director 
 (1 perm)

Vice director
(1 perm)

	A last comment is worth noticing in terms of inter-organizational structures: the distinction between the two archaeological teams seems to be more the result of a sort of organizational inertia (due to historical-administrative reasons) than of a rational organizational design, with the duplication of departments and positions. A comparative analysis among the two teams is therefore needed, in order to re-think the current institutional design and future changes.

Exhibit 9.4 – Financial statement, Archeological Team n.1  of Luoyang

Note: 
For 2004, also a different set of data was provided, with total income (四、收入类) of 7,024,900, of which 524,900 of Grants from the state (财政补助收入 ) and 6,500,000 from  Operation Income (事业收入). In turn, Total Expenditures (五、支出类) were 4,585,924, composed by 136,754 as Restricted Fund expenditures (专款支出); 4.149.170 as Operation Expenditures (事业支出); and 300,000 as Payment to the higher authority (上缴上级支出). Not considering that the balance sheet was inconsistent with this figure, these numbers leave a surplus which is just a bit smaller than what is reported in Exhibit 9.4, as 2,438,975.

Exhibit 9.5 – Detail of expenditures, Archeological Team n.1 of Luoyang

3.2 Financial Resources
When talking about financial resources, a distinction among procedural and substantial aspects is provided. In this case, we will comment on the two different teams (see Exhibit 9.4 and 9.5 for AT n. 1, and 9.6 & 9.7 for AT n. 2).

Procedural aspects:
As usual, some problems in transparency and understanding emerge: serious ones, indeed.
The Archeological Team of Luoyang: Getting the “right data” is not easy: different versions of income and expenditure figures were provided, none of which were totally consistent. If one also wants the operating expenditures in the expenditure and income statement (5.53 million in 2005) to fit with the same item in the details of expenditures (7.49), this is almost asking too much! Though we are aware that for non-Chinese speakers (and non-Chinese in general) this is particularly difficult, as the lack of a notion of a unique financial statement based on the notion of accountability of the entity is involved here.
This being said, the fact that the variation of reserves is difficult to understand for the reader would sound like a very marginal point! Or that the item “other operating expenditures” in 2003 (2.59 million) was almost 43% of the total operating expenditures (5.95) is another “minor” issue! The exact meanings of items such as “Administration Fee” (办公费 ) or “Service Fee” (劳务费 ) are not self-evident in this context, which is particularly dangerous given their relevance.
Such a lack of clarity over elementary information is possibly justified due to the not-so-unusual situation of the retiring of the previous accountant. What emerges, however, is a dramatically fragile situation in terms of accounting knowledge, where very little seems to be shared within the organization about the understanding of basic financial figures.
Consistent ups and down in the level of profit/margin is something that would require more investigation.

Archaeological Team n. 2 presents the opposite situation: it was one of the easiest cases to attain financial data, which covers the entire period requested (1995, 2000, 2003-05) being totally internally consistent. This is an interesting point to stress: if archives are well organized, and if people know what to do, getting data is not impossible.
	This case also provides a good example of how to understand the variation of reserves. For instance, the Operational Balance (事业结余) in 2004 is reduced from 299.5 to 72.6 because there are Restricted Fund Expenditures (专款支出) of 226.9 without additional Restricted Appropriations (拨入专款) in 2004. Or in 2005, they increased by 340.8, from 72.6 to 413.4, because a positive savings in the year on Restricted Appropriation (拨入专款) versus Restricted Fund Expenditure (专款支出) (450.0-109.1=340.8). On the aggregate, the Operations Fund (事业基金) increased by 727.5 (from 903.7 to 1,631.2) due to the accumulation of total savings (1,068.3) less the already acknowledge differences between savings on Restricted Appropriation (拨入专款) versus Restricted Fund Expenditure (专款支出) (340.8).
	Things can function and be understandable, as provided by Archaeological Team n. 2’s accounts, though the lack of a clear and separate evidence of yearly savings – as a general issue in the Chinese accounting system from Shiye Danwei – makes things more complicated.

Substantive aspects:
The two archaeological teams face an extraordinary situation: they are both self-financing with good profitability. Indeed, they are rich (the exception to the rule at a global level); the richest entities amongst those reporting to the CRB. Income derives almost completely from salvage excavation while there are no grants from the state and higher authorities. Within such a common framework, minor differences can be pointed out.
The Archeological Team of Luoyang: An incredibly robust situation emerges from the balance sheet, with extraordinary values of assets, especially Properties (though the high level of “Other receivable” could deserve some investigation). Net assets also present very high values (highest in the entire area, excluding the Longmen Grottoes). Even more interesting is the income and expenditure statement, which reveals:
- high levels of income and expenditures (though we are uncertain between 5.3 as in the financial statement, or 7.4 as in the details of expenditures), the highest in the area (again excluding Longmen);
- all income is from “the market”, totally deriving from salvage excavation;
- within expenditures (though with doubts about the reliability of these figures), two elements can be pointed out: the anomalous high level of personnel expenditures, directly “paid” by this entity; however, with a relative minor incidence in terms of percentage, as a sign of important activities and services bought outside the entity to perform its activities;
- despite the fact that people inside the entity do not agree with our analysis, this data suggests that consistent savings were made in 2004. Indeed the situation – if these values were true – could give the idea of a lack of spending capacity.

Archaeological Team n. 2: In this case, values are relatively slightly smaller, yet confirm a similar phenomenon: high levels of income (including a grant from the State and Restricted Funds appropriation). Here again, an attitude toward savings and accumulation underlines the richness of similar entities.

Exhibit 9.6 – Financial statement, Archaeological Team n.2 

4. Conclusions and implications 

4.1 A summary
In short, besides the high level of professionalism, the teams present amazing achievements in terms of findings and there is a high level of profitability within the two institutions (something which is really unusual in other countries), yet some risks of the system as a whole can be pointed out:

Exhibit 9.7 – Detail of expenditures, Archaeological Team n.2 

•	Research excavation, desk research and restoration activity are penalized compared to salvage excavation because they are not profitable (and thus not convenient compared to salvage excavation).
•	Because of institutional fragmentation (two archaeological teams, University, CASS, History and Archaeology co-exist) and a weak cooperation among institutions (because of a money/status disincentive?), there is a serious potential for missed opportunities in terms of avoiding duplication of skills, equipment and know how for what concerns excavation, research and restoration.
•	Even with good rules, unclear practices are carried out, specifically regarding:
-	report publishing: the deadline for excavation reports is not often respected (and new excavations are started before the reports on previous excavations are finished)
-	building activity: several construction have been carried out despites the protection law  
-	object destinations: cultural objects are kept in the archaeological deposits for long periods instead of being handed over for museums exhibitions. The effect is the missing of exhibition opportunities.

	Somehow, the archaeological chain (from excavation, to protection, research and exhibition) can be broken.

4.2 Recommendations
Several recommendations can be made, mainly deriving from the institutional fragmentation of the current system.

•	Roles and activities
In terms of excavation, the entire system would probably benefit from a major cooperation among institutions, in order to share and exploit others’ skills and experiences. Protection would also benefit from a stronger teamwork with other institutions. At the same time, a re-thinking regarding governmental financial support for protection is needed, in order to improve resources and efforts and avoid economic disincentives of excavation. The necessity to ensure the respecting of rules regarding object destinations (among Archaeological Teams and Museums) has also emerged.
	Regarding research activity, a greater investment in  research, as opposed to salvage excavation, is suggested (especially in cooperation with other institutions, such as universities), eventually reducing the time available for the report from three years to one year (and ensuring its respect including the time needed for reporting in the project scheduling). As for protection, a re-thinking of incentive mechanisms at higher levels is needed. 

•	Human resources
The need for a comparative analysis, with a better understanding of the differences among AT 1&2, has been pointed out: what emerges is a fragmented system which is probably the inheritance of Chinese and Luoyang historical developments, but no longer has reasons to exist. The need for re-designing the institutional settings and relationships, eventually unifying the three institutions (AT 1, AT 2 and the History, Archaeology and Research Institution), is therefore quite strong.  Such an effort would bring about benefits both in terms of savings (because of the existence of economies of scale) and in terms of know-how development and diffusion. 

Financial resources
Regarding financial resources, the suggestion is to define a budget allocation for different activities (excavation, protection, research) in order to avoid economic disincentives against protection and research and re-equilibrate the efforts.

	In conclusion, cooperation, institutional-redesign, budget allocation on different activities, and rules observance seem to be important ingredients to create favourable conditions for the functioning and development of the archaeological chain, which is such a crucial point in the  entire situation of cultural heritage in Luoyang.