Early Differentiation of Archaeological Labor

The century-long development of archaeology in China is also a history of labor becoming progressively institutionalized, stratified, and incorporated into state management (Falkenhausen Reference Falkenhausen1993; Xia Reference Xia1963). When Western expeditions first entered China, linguistic and logistical challenges led foreign investigators to rely heavily on local guides and assistants. These intermediaries worked across translation, guidance, and technical support, forming a type of “mediating labor.” Chiang Ssu-yeh is a well-known figure in this early phase, largely because he assisted Aurel Stein in removing manuscripts from Dunhuang (Stein Reference Stein1921). Although such assistants were indispensable to fieldwork, their status remained ambiguous: central to exploration, yet marginal to scientific authorship and often entangled in the political tensions of the period (Zhang Reference Zhang2013).

A more formalized mode of archaeological work began to take shape in the 1920s, when Johan Gunnar Andersson and his Chinese collaborators conducted systematic excavations in Henan Province and elsewhere (Andersson Reference Andersson1923; Johansson Reference Johansson2016). Under this model, early practitioners such as Bai Wanyu advanced from skilled laborers proficient in field techniques to independent field specialists, marking the emergence of the first generation of professional archaeological workers in China (Romgard Reference Romgard2021). Chinese-led field archaeology, with explicit research aims and institutional support, was consolidated at the Anyang site of Yinxu. Between 1928 and 1937, the Institute of History and Philology at Academia Sinica conducted large-scale excavations that became foundational to Chinese archaeology. Photographs from this period document the workers’ presence and labor (Figure 1; Li and Feng Reference Li and Feng2012). A later compilation of Shi Zhangru’s notes records the biographical sketches of 147 personnel involved in these campaigns, preserving rare detail on more than a hundred workers whose labor sustained this formative stage (Shi Reference Shi2017).

Figure 1.

Group photograph of the staff at the commencement of China’s first independently conducted archaeological excavation (1928; Li and Feng Reference Li and Feng2012:6).

Figure 1 Long description

A group of 34 men is standing outdoors in two rows. The back row consists of men in uniform, while the front row includes men in varied attire. They are positioned on a dirt ground with trees visible in the background, suggesting a natural setting. The men are standing in a straight line, facing forward.

Contemporaries were aware of the close cooperation between trained scholars and local workers. In 1934, Teng Gu, sent by the government to observe the Yinxu project, remarked on the shared sense of purpose he perceived between them (Teng Reference Teng2003). Yet archaeological labor was not always harmonious. Its vulnerability was clear during wartime disruptions and periods of inadequate site protection (O’Neil Reference O’Neil1948; Peixotto et al. Reference Peixotto, Klehm and Eifling2021). In 1937, several technicians at Zhoukoudian, a famous Peking Man archaeological site near Beijing, were killed by invading Japanese forces (Jia Reference Jia1999). In 2008, a trench collapse at a Xi’an excavation caused the deaths of three temporary workers (China News Service 2008). Some incidents left long-term trauma among surviving colleagues (Jia Reference Jia1988), while others spurred improvements in governmental safety regulations (National Cultural Heritage Administration 2010).

Institutionalization and Labor Stratification

Since the mid-twentieth century, Chinese field archaeology has operated through relatively stable institutional units. Excavation teams typically combine professional archaeologists from heritage institutions with locally recruited workers (Wang and Ucko Reference Wang, Ucko, Ucko, Hubert and Lin2007), many of whom participate seasonally (Chang Reference Chang1977). This arrangement enables large-scale projects but produces discontinuous work histories, uneven skill development, and differentiated relationships between formal staff and temporary laborers (Chen Reference Chen2023).

The terminology for field laborers has shifted over time, reflecting evolving institutional distinctions. Categories such as mingong (local temporary labor) and jigong (experienced project-based workers) formalize differences in skill, mobility, and recognition. Although some workers may gain reclassification or limited access to institutional payrolls, upward mobility remains uncertain and uneven, and entry into the formal system does not necessarily ensure stable career progression (Zan and Bonini Baraldi Reference Zan and Baraldi2013). Despite the centrality of labor to archaeological work, “archaeological excavator” did not become an official occupation within China’s cultural heritage system until 2015. In 2024 the category was further divided into “archaeological survey worker” and “archaeological excavation worker.” The delayed institutional recognition stands in stark contrast to workers’ long-standing presence and their essential contribution to archaeological practice.

Since the early twenty-first century, broader changes in heritage governance, local economies, and community participation have reshaped the organization of archaeological labor (Jameson and Musteaţă Reference Jameson and Musteaţă2019). The expansion of rescue excavations, the momentum of World Heritage nominations, and the rise of public archaeology have created greater opportunities for diverse local groups to engage with archaeological projects (Wei and Shi Reference Wei and Shi2016; Wei and Zhao Reference Wei and Zhao2017). Chinese media have also reported on these dynamics, noting that labor conditions are shaped not only by distinctions between professional and nonprofessional workers, or between permanent and temporary staff, but also by project budgets, welfare schemes, and decisions made by excavation leaders (Hu Reference Hu2015; Xing Reference Xing2022). These factors produce shifting opportunities, vulnerabilities, and highly individualized work trajectories.

A more contextualized understanding of archaeological practice (Kehoe Reference Kehoe and Christenson1989)—as recent scholarship internationally has advocated—requires closer attention to labor, livelihoods, and lived experience (Holley-Kline and Mickel Reference Holley-Kline and Mickel2024; Wong and Palá Gutiérrez Reference Wong and Palá Gutiérrez2025). Situating these concerns within China’s distinctive, state-led framework clarifies how archaeological knowledge is produced and how its labor foundations have been structured, contested, and transformed over time. The Chengcun case that follows examines how these historically sedimented arrangements are enacted at the village level, where long-term participation reveals differentiated pathways of skill accumulation, mobility, and institutional incorporation.

Field Context: Chengcun within a Stratified Labor System

The Chengcun City Site of the Han Dynasty in Mount Wuyi, Fujian, has been excavated continuously since 1958, forming one of the longest-running archaeological field trajectories in southeastern China (Zhang Reference Zhang1985). As a major provincial excavation base and part of the Mount Wuyi World Heritage property (inscribed in 1999), the site operates within a stable yet evolving heritage framework (Figure 2). The Chengcun City Site is managed by a permanent, site-based institution under provincial-level heritage administration. Archaeological work at the site is primarily conducted through research-driven excavation projects organized as seasonal campaigns rather than continuous fieldwork. Funding is mainly derived from state-approved excavation projects authorized by the National Cultural Heritage Administration, supplemented by project-based research support, reflecting a typical operational model for large archaeological sites in China. Its long-term excavation history and institutional embedding have produced a layered labor structure that brings together professional archaeologists, skilled workers, seasonal laborers, university students, and heritage administrators within a single, continuous field setting.

Figure 2.

Map of the location of the Chengcun City Site of the Han Dynasty (map prepared by the authors).

Figure 2 Long description

A map highlighting the Chengcun City Site of the Han Dynasty located in Fujian Province, China. The site is marked on the map with a label. An inset map in the top left corner shows the location of Fujian Province within a larger regional context, marked by a red rectangle. A scale bar at the bottom right indicates a distance of 400 kilometers.

Research Approach and Methods

Consistent with the practice-based theoretical framework outlined above, this study employs ethnographic methods to examine archaeological fieldwork as an ongoing social practice. The methodological design therefore focuses on documenting everyday interactions, labor organization, skill transmission, and institutional negotiation through which archaeological practice is enacted and reproduced.

Data Collection: Interviews, Observation, and Documentary Sources

Participant observation focused on documenting concrete organizational practices through which labor hierarchies were enacted in daily work. Particular attention was paid to task allocation, supervision structures, wage distribution, skill training moments, safety responsibilities, and interactions during moments of conflict or decision-making. Observations were recorded in detailed fieldnotes immediately following work sessions and were used to trace how authority, expertise, and institutional recognition were differentially distributed across occupational strata.

This study draws on 22 semi-structured interviews and corresponding fieldnotes directly related to labor organization, skill differentiation, and institutional experience, which constitute a central component of the empirical material. A total of 16 participants were involved, six of whom were interviewed multiple times to enable longitudinal follow-up.

The interviewees included four skilled workers, nine hired laborers engaged in excavation work, one project director, and two heritage staff members affiliated with museum or heritage management institutions. Individual interviews averaged approximately 50 minutes in duration, with several in-depth interviews exceeding 90 minutes. These interview materials were embedded within sustained field immersion, daily workplace interactions, and systematically maintained field diaries throughout the research period. Informal conversations were documented in fieldnotes and used to contextualize and triangulate formal interview accounts. All interviews were conducted with informed consent, and identifying details have been anonymized to protect participant confidentiality.

The analysis involved cross-positional comparison across occupational roles within the excavation hierarchy. The interview guide was organized around three analytical dimensions: first, work trajectories and everyday practices, including pathways into archaeological labor and routine task organization; second, skill acquisition and knowledge transmission, focusing on processes of learning, embodied techniques, and perceptions of existing training arrangements; and third, labor perceptions and institutional experiences, addressing contractual conditions, remuneration, workplace risks, and perceptions of authority and decision-making (Table 1). In addition to field data, this study draws on site-specific archives, local documents, and institutional records to trace the evolution of archaeological practices and related policy shifts since 1958.

Table 1.

Interview Sample by Occupational Position and Employment Status.

Table 1 Long description

The table provides data on interview samples categorized by occupational position and employment status, highlighting the number of participants, gender distribution, and years of experience. Hired laborers have the highest number of participants at 9, with a gender distribution of 6 males and 3 females, and experience ranging from 2 to 7 years. Skilled workers, with 4 participants, have the longest experience range of 40 to 45 years and consist of 3 males and 1 female. The project director category has only 1 male participant with 15 years of experience. Heritage staff includes 2 male participants with experience ranging from 9 to 25 years. Employment status varies, with skilled workers on project-based terms, hired laborers on daily wages, and both project directors and heritage staff in institutional roles.

Analysis focused on recurring patterns related to work trajectories, skill acquisition, and institutional experience across both formal interviews and participant observation. Themes were developed through close reading of the material and comparison across occupational roles within the excavation hierarchy, without relying on predefined categories. Through this process, three distinct labor trajectories were identified, reflecting patterned differences in access to skills, employment stability, and decision-making authority.

From Early Laborers to “Technicians”: An Initiated Yet Unfinished Path of Professionalization

In the history of archaeological excavations in Chengcun, the earliest participating villagers formed the original “core labor group.” In the absence of a formal training system, they acquired operational skills through long-term collaborative work with archaeological teams, a process that may be understood as a form of local professionalization (Hamilakis Reference Hamilakis2014; Shanks and McGuire Reference Shanks and McGuire1996).

Participant D (2023) represents this generation. He recalled how small teams of villagers worked intensively alongside archaeologists, gradually mastering skills such as soil identification, drilling, and recognizing wuhua tu (mottled soil). Over time, these competencies differentiated them from ordinary wage laborers. Archaeologists reportedly intended to “take this group of local technicians out” to other sites for further development. As he described, with visible pride: “We worked on the palace city and the cemetery area. Back then, we were known as the ‘Eight Jingangs of Chengcun Archaeology.’”Footnote ¹ Such narratives echo similar formations elsewhere in Chinese archaeology, where groups of locally trained workers—such as the “Ten Brothers” at Yinxu (Li and Li Reference Li and Li2019) or the “108 Generals” at Zhouyuan (Tang Reference Tang2005)—became semi-recognized technical cohorts within excavation systems.

Yet despite the real possibility of professionalization, the pathway did not fully materialize. The informant could have become a formal professional by being “taken out” to other sites but chose to remain in the village owing to family obligations, thereby missing the institutionalized channel for formal training. His skills continued to be mobilized—he was repeatedly invited back to “guide” during later excavations—but this remained an informal and noninstitutionalized form of professionalization. At the age of 30, he injured his leg during a survey in the mountains, sustaining a serious injury that required a long period of recovery. He emphasized that before the 1980s China lacked rural pension systems, and farmers relied entirely on “self-reliance” for security. He could only seek rudimentary treatment at the township clinic, because he could not afford a major hospital.

Unlike Participant D, Participant E (2023)—also among the first generation of excavation workers—successfully converted long-term field experience into formal institutional status. Through sustained participation in provincial excavation projects, he was incorporated into the state system in 2001 and moved beyond the rank of technician. Even after retirement, he continues to serve on excavation sites as a mentor and supervisor. His trajectory illustrates that professionalization was possible but highly selective (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

The technician (Participant E), who began as a farmer, came to be regarded as “a highly respected senior excavation technician in Fujian archaeology” (photo courtesy of the Fujian Minyue State Capital Site Museum).

Figure 3 Long description

Two men are engaged in an archaeological excavation. They are kneeling on the ground, surrounded by scattered rocks and using tools to work on the site. One man is wearing a blue shirt and the other a dark shirt. Various tools are visible around them and a tarp is partially covering the area.

Existing scholarship similarly notes that archaeological labor can facilitate technical transformation through on-site training and selective cultivation of local workers. Existing studies document training classes designed to develop drilling, surveying, restoration, and soil-recognition skills, enabling some workers to circulate across excavation sites (Wang Reference Wang2021). Such training created pathways for increased mobility and participation in fieldwork (Xu Reference Xu2020).

Yet mobility and professional incorporation were not determined by technical competence alone. In rural contexts, labor decisions remained embedded in enduring family obligations and land attachment. As Participant D (2024) remarked, local custom dictates that one must “prepare a coffin from birth,” requiring a dedicated room within the household. Such practices reflect a deeply rooted orientation toward place and intergenerational responsibility. These obligations subtly constrained the capacity to detach from the village and pursue intersite mobility, thereby shaping who could convert field expertise into institutional status.

Seasonal Migrant Workers: Circulating between Agriculture and Archaeology

The second trajectory involves the largest, yet least visible, group: seasonal migrant workers who shift between agricultural tasks and archaeological excavation. Their movements follow the agricultural calendar, forming a typical “part-time farming, part-time wage labor” pattern. This arrangement endures because it aligns with rural life: wages are immediate, the worksite is nearby, and one can withdraw when the farming season begins. For many households, this flexibility provides an important and dependable addition to household income. As several respondents explained, they joined the excavations because they could “earn a little during the slow season,” “stay close to home,” or work in conditions perceived as “cleaner than jobs outside” (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

A women’s work team participating in archaeological excavations during the agricultural off-season (photo courtesy of the Fujian Minyue State Capital Site Museum).

Figure 4 Long description

Five women are engaged in an archaeological excavation. They are spread across the site, each focused on digging and examining the ground. The site is uneven, with visible trenches and exposed earth. Some women are crouched down, while others are standing, using tools to assist in their work. The area is shaded by a canopy and a fan is positioned nearby, suggesting efforts to manage the heat. The women are wearing hats for sun protection and the site is surrounded by ropes and stakes marking the excavation boundaries.

Institutionally, this labor force forms the operational backbone of most excavations in China. Yet its high replaceability limits meaningful skill accumulation. Archaeological institutions tend to be reluctant to invest in training and instead rely on the constant availability of “usable labor.”

Seasonal trajectories in Chengcun are not uniform. For some, excavation is a short-term income buffer; for others, repeated participation cultivates familiarity with excavation routines, creating increasing dependence on excavation income and making it difficult to return to agriculture. The experience of Participant F (2022), a villager in his thirties, illustrates this shift. He began excavating in his early twenties merely to “earn some pocket money,” but as agricultural returns declined, he came to rely on the excavation as his main income. When fieldwork concluded in 2021, the contrast was stark: “A whole year of farming can’t match three months on the site,” he remarked.

Although still young, he hoped to secure a stable position within the heritage management office. However, he believed that his limited educational background and lack of examination credentials effectively barred him from entering a formal post. “People like us can’t pass those exams,” he explained. At the same time, income from excavation work had become increasingly insufficient to support his household expenses.

Faced with rising financial pressure, he eventually left for construction work in Africa with several fellow villagers, while his wife and child remained at home. He described the decision as “reluctant, but necessary.” His case illustrates a form of structural constraint: repeated participation in archaeological labor generates expectations of stability, yet formal incorporation depends on educational credentials and examination systems beyond the reach of many rural workers. When income from excavation and diminishing agricultural returns can no longer sustain family reproduction, outward migration becomes a compelled choice.

In archaeological practice in China, the uncertain meanings carried by such terms as “technician” or “entering the system” show how institutional categories remain unstable and are continually reinterpreted locally. Rural labor mobility is also shaped by nested village structures, where family obligations, place-based attachment, and low-cost social reproduction sustain a pattern of circular and seasonal mobility (Lu Reference Lu2007). This dynamic reflects broader patterns of project-based and loosely integrated labor in archaeological practice (Beck Reference Beck2021).

From the perspective of local labor structures, this circular movement reveals three features of archaeological labor in Chengcun. First, the seasonal character of excavation enables a “reversible mobility” between fieldwork and agriculture, but this mobility rarely leads to a cumulative professional trajectory. Second, as rural labor becomes increasingly mobile and aging accelerates, reliance on local workers has grown even stronger, yet institutional pathways for participation have not expanded accordingly. Third, villagers’ growing dependence on excavation income elevates the role of archaeological work within the local economy, leading to abrupt income gaps and heightened social pressure once excavations cease.

Transformers: Local Pathways from Archaeological Labor to Heritage Governance

The third trajectory involves a transition from site-based participation to positions within local heritage governance. Unlike technicians who advanced through accumulated field skills, individuals in this category entered archaeological work from relatively independent positions in village society—such as schoolteachers or locally appointed cadres—and gradually shifted toward administrative or cultural roles.

Participant G (2024) exemplifies this pathway. Born into a farming household, he later became a village schoolteacher and eventually a full-time heritage administrator. His involvement began peripherally—assisting archaeological teams with coordination, documentation, and communication—rather than through manual excavation. Over time, sustained interaction with archaeologists embedded him within heritage networks and reoriented his occupational trajectory. As he explained, long-standing pride in the village’s historical significance and repeated exposure to excavation work gradually deepened his commitment to heritage affairs.

This transition involves not only occupational change but also a restructuring of social identity. Such individuals embody the authority of the national heritage system while remaining deeply rooted in local society, where they continue to be regarded as “one of us.” Participant G (2024) repeatedly emphasized that “we have gone through the most chaotic periods,” and thus he was often the first to mediate unresolved disputes over land acquisition or conflicts involving outside actors. As he recounted: “Sometimes people block the road. Most of the time, I go persuade them first; if needed, I bring in the village cadres.” His position illustrates what Huang (Reference Huang2005) describes as the “dual identity” and “collaborative relationships” through which local elites navigate between the state and the village.

This case also points to a broader phenomenon: archaeological labor generates a new category of local cultural workers. Their life histories form the fine-grained textures through which heritage institutions take root at the local level. Through sustained participation in excavation, museum work, and site interpretation, they convert archaeological labor into community identity and cultural capital (Brito Reference Brito2024). Their practices constitute an ongoing site where state–local relations are renegotiated, materially and symbolically, through the everyday labor of heritage governance.

Structural Limits of Localized and Seasonal Labor Systems

Long-term fieldwork at the Chengcun City Site reveals a set of structural tensions embedded in the organization of archaeological labor in contemporary China. These tensions are not reducible to local contingencies; rather, they emerge from the intersection of rural livelihood strategies, fragmented institutional arrangements, and a fieldwork regime structured around short-term, project-based employment (Bowlus and Sicular Reference Bowlus and Sicular2003; Knight and Song Reference Knight and Song2003). While such arrangements allow archaeological projects to synchronize with village temporalities and mobilize local participation efficiently, they simultaneously reproduce forms of labor precarity, uneven skill consolidation, and constrained professional horizons (Arendt Reference Arendt2013). The following discussion identifies several interrelated patterns that structure the everyday realities of field labor and shape the long-term trajectories of those who sustain archaeological practice on the ground.

At the level of everyday field operations, the first tension arises from the seasonal logic that governs the availability of fieldworkers. Agricultural schedules continue to define when villagers can or cannot join excavation teams. Labor is abundant in the late autumn and winter months, yet thins dramatically during spring plowing or when opportunities for short-term migrant work emerge. Archaeology thus remains, for many workers, a supplementary livelihood between farming and wage labor rather than a sustained occupation. As a result, the composition of work teams is continuously reconfigured, with individual workers rotating in and out across seasons instead of whole-team replacement. This pattern requires continual reinvestment in basic training and constrains the formation of a stable, technically mature workforce. Comparable issues have been noted in archaeological labor systems elsewhere—van Oeveren (Reference van Oeveren2025) discusses the precarious nature of “excavation laborers” in the Netherlands, while McGuire and Walker (Reference McGuire and Walker1999) highlight the difficulty of maintaining skilled field crews under intermittent employment conditions—but the effects are intensified in rural China, where land responsibilities, kinship expectations, and seasonal migration exert strong pressures on labor mobility. This cyclical instability situates archaeological labor within broader patterns of rural livelihood diversification, where households strategically oscillate between subsistence agriculture, migrant work, and temporary cultural employment.

At the level of knowledge production, the second tension concerns the gap between skill acquisition and formal recognition. Many long-term fieldworkers at Chengcun have developed considerable technical competence, including in trench-cleaning, stratigraphic observation, artifact recovery, and site maintenance. Their expertise is widely acknowledged in practice: team leaders often rely on them to stabilize daily operations, resolve subtle stratigraphic situations, or handle fragile materials. Yet this accumulated knowledge rarely translates into institutional status or a recognizable professional identity. The absence of a credentialing system or clear advancement pathway is reflected in a recurring sentiment across interviews: “I can do this, but this is all I can do.” As scholars have argued, field labor often operates through embodied knowledge that is essential and yet undervalued within formal archaeological hierarchies. In the Chinese context, this misalignment between practical competence and institutional visibility turns experienced fieldworkers into a highly relied on yet structurally marginal group (Table 2; Edgeworth Reference Edgeworth2006).

Table 2.

Structural Differences between Project-Based Labor and In-Post Staff.

Table 2 Long description

The table compares project-based labor and in-post staff across various employment dimensions. Project-based labor is characterized by temporary employment tied to specific projects, daily wages, and irregular benefits, leading to unstable job security and limited career advancement. In contrast, in-post staff enjoy permanent positions with monthly salaries, standardized benefits, and stable job security, supported by a clear promotion ladder. Training for project-based labor is informal and on-the-job, whereas in-post staff receive structured institutional training. These differences highlight the disparity in job stability, income, and career development opportunities between the two groups.

At the institutional level, the third tension emerges from the structural gap between two distinct logics of valuation within Chinese archaeology. On excavation sites like Chengcun, workers gain recognition through demonstrated competence—the ability to read stratigraphy, to identify subtle features, to handle finds with care—skills accumulated through years of hands-on practice. Yet when opportunities arise for stable employment in heritage parks or cultural institutions, entry is governed by credential-based criteria: educational qualifications, formal examinations, graded titles. As a result, many local workers who have developed deep familiarity with a site through years of excavation find themselves with no clear place within the heritage sector they have helped sustain (Mickel Reference Mickel2021).

A further complication stems from the temporal gap between national policy mandates and local institutional implementation. Even after the establishment of the heritage park at Chengcun, by the third year following its designation as a National Archaeological Site Park the number of formally established institutional positions had not increased. This “institutional lag,” common across large-site management in China, produces prolonged uncertainty for workers, who move between excavation projects, temporary park work, and agricultural labor without clear expectations regarding long-term prospects. The result is a labor system that remains structurally fragile even when substantial public investment is directed toward heritage development. Comparable mismatches between national heritage regimes and local execution have been analyzed in studies of Chinese heritage governance more broadly (Li et al. Reference Li, Krishnamurthy, Roders and van Wesemael2020), underscoring the systemic nature of such gaps. According to a field director, the high turnover rate among workers rendered the purchase of individual insurance practically impossible, and archaeological site insurance was not offered by any insurer.

The materialization of this dual structure is evident in wage differentiation. According to publicly available information from an archaeological management unit in China in 2021 (Table 3), formally appointed staff received stable monthly salaries under the institutional payroll system, whereas site-based workers were remunerated on a daily basis, with additional stratification by skill level and gender. Rather than reflecting purely technical distinctions, this income hierarchy mirrors the broader segmentation between authorized positions and project-based labor.

Table 3.

Comparative Wage Levels by Employment Category (2021).

Table 3 Long description

The table compares wage levels across different employment categories in 2021, showing significant disparities. Senior professionals earn 7,020 RMB per month, while entry-level staff earn 4,500 RMB monthly. Skilled workers receive 220 RMB daily, whereas male and female general laborers earn 120 and 100 RMB per day, respectively. The data indicates higher wages for in-post staff compared to site-based workers, with a notable gender wage gap among general laborers. These figures reflect pre-tax earnings and are institution or site-based, suggesting potential variations in net income.

Across these domains—seasonal labor rhythms, incomplete professionalization, informal arrangements, and implementation delays—a structural pattern becomes evident. Field archaeology depends on the accumulated expertise of rural technicians, yet the fiscal and staffing architecture of heritage governance provides limited mechanisms to stabilize or formally recognize their participation. This segmentation is not incidental but institutionally reproduced.

Reworking Structure from Within: Stabilization and the Making of Labor Continuity