| The main subject of this study is how burial mounds are managed and preserved in America and how that may be compared to burial mound management in China.An increasing number of archaeologists and museum professionals from both countries have been collaborating with each other on various projects,making it necessary for them to understand both country’s heritage management laws.However,there has been a lack of comparative study on this subject.Studies on burial mound management are primarily concerned with one country’s issues,not comparing China and the U.S.This dissertation intends to explore this topic by comparing the management of one main archaeological site in the U.S with other sites from both the U.S.and China.The goal of this study is to investigate whether there are any gaps that both countries need to work on;and to assist policy makers of both countries to reinforce current laws and/or create new,more detailed policies to aide in the protection and management of burial mounds in the U.S.and China.This study is also to reveal the similarities and differences of the management of burial mounds between the two countries.The main case study is the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site(CMSHS).The other minor case sites chosen for the comparison are:In the U.S.,Dickson Mounds(DM),Burlington Mounds(BMG&WFRG),and Whitewater Mounds(MMG).In China,the comparative cases are the Qin Shi-Huang Ling(QSL)and the Han Yang Ling(HYL).Through the comparative analysis,this research intends to reveal the best practice in heritage preservation.It exposes the mistakes in the past in the hope to prevent them from happening again in the future.The main source of data come from my research study conducted at these sites or site museums,particularly my own observations.Some of the materials are from the museums’ websites.Government sources and relevant articles are also consulted for the analysis.What has been found is that a few of the comparative cases have more differences than similarities to the main case while two comparative cases hold more similarities than differences.Also being compared in this study is the federal laws and regulations of the U.S.and China on the protection of archaeological resources and the management of their corresponding institutions.Furthermore,the comparison of the policies of these countries has discovered many similarities like funding allotment,establishment of management agencies,and law violation consequences.However a few have big differences like missing funding,missing punishment of violations,and accidental law breaking.This study also demonstrates the importance of managing tourists at highly popularized sites;and the cooperation between management of archaeological sites and the local community for the development and further popularization of the site.There are challenges like overcrowding,private property,and ethnic minority rights that link together the categories of tourism,management,and conservation;and there are many other issues that have arisen in U.S.and Chinese archaeology respectively.The participation of the local community is evident at CMSHS.However,it is very different in other case sites.The change of the main case site’s undertaking was first opposed by some citizens within the local population,however,the later benefits outweighed the possible risks the locals were worried about.In U.S.sites,there is a sense of societal identity that has started to surround the case sites,especially in the main case.CMSHS was preserved because it contains the largest quantity of mounds within North America.Other U.S.sites were preserved by means of private land owners choosing not to destroy them and subsequently selling their property to museums.The Chinese burial mounds have been preserved because of the efforts of the Central Government in implementing laws to establish protection over those sites,because these sites which are unique Chinese heritage.What is lastly addressed in this study is both the U.S.and China should examine each other’s weakness,issues,and resolutions in cultural heritage management.This is recommended so the U.S.and China can enact new and/or amend existing laws to assist in bolstering the preservation and management efforts for archaeological resources.One of the findings already discovered within the laws is that some are too vague to effectively protect archaeological sites.Some other findings include insufficient law enforcement,lack in effective public education,and an increased risk of damaging archaeological sites. |
