The internationalization of Chinese archaeology, accelerated after the Reform and Opening-up in 1978, is a subject of ongoing debate. Early interactions were limited, primarily involving individual scholars. However, post-1978, national policies such as the Measures for the Administration of Foreign-related Archaeological Work, the Going Out plan, the Belt and Road Initiative, and President Xi's speeches significantly promoted international collaboration. The establishment of the Center for Foreign Archaeological Research at the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, further exemplifies this trend. While qualitative assessments exist, a quantitative analysis is lacking. This study utilizes bibliometric methods, a quantitative approach increasingly used in archaeology to analyze scholarly communication, to evaluate the extent of Chinese archaeology's internationalization. The study leverages two major databases: CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Web of Science, enabling analysis of publications in both Chinese core journals (CCJs) and WCJs. This paper addresses four key research questions: (1) How well-informed were Chinese archaeologists about the international community? (2) How internationalized was Chinese archaeology regarding performance and coupling with international research frontiers? (3) What is the extent of international collaboration? (4) What are the characteristics of journals publishing Chinese archaeological papers?

Bibliometric methods, encompassing bibliometrics, scientometrics, and info-metrics, provide quantitative tools for analyzing scholarly output and knowledge diffusion. These methods have been successfully employed to assess the development of various disciplines, institutions, and countries. In archaeology, bibliometric studies have reviewed disciplinary development or specific topics. Recent work has used CNKI and WoS data to examine general trends in Chinese archaeology. This current study builds upon this foundation to focus specifically on the quantitative aspects of internationalization. The theoretical framework employs three levels of internationalization: national, institutional, and individual. This study primarily focuses on the individual level, using publications in academic journals as its primary data source, considering research content, international collaboration, and journals of publication.

The study collected data from CNKI and Web of Science's core collection. From CNKI, all archaeology-related papers in CCJs (identified based on CSCD, CSSCI, and CCP-PKU indexes) were collected. Data included publication year, journal name, authors' affiliations, and co-authorship information to assess international collaboration. Web of Science data included papers in WCJs, using keywords such as "archaeolog*," "Paleoanthropolog*," etc., and filtering for affiliations in China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. Only papers directly related to archaeology were included. The dataset was refined to include papers where the first or corresponding author was affiliated with Mainland China. Data processing utilized Excel, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace. VOSviewer generated visualizations of co-occurrence patterns, while CiteSpace mapped temporal and structural patterns. The analysis involved three key aspects: 1. **Translated Articles:** Translated articles in CCJs were categorized (foreign research, theory/method, Chinese research by foreigners) and analyzed by country of origin and publishing journals. 2. **Original Articles on Foreign Archaeology (AFAs):** Original articles in CCJs and WCJs focusing on foreign archaeology were analyzed by publication year and country. Sino-foreign collaborative projects were identified. 3. **All Original Archaeological Articles in WCJs:** Keyword analysis (CiteSpace) identified high-frequency keywords, comparing those of Chinese scholars with the global community. Further CiteSpace analysis identified highly published and cited Chinese authors and their temporal patterns. International collaboration types were defined (N-ICA: no international collaboration; ICA: international collaboration; Mainland China-led, Other-led, HK/Macao/Taiwan-led ICAs) and analyzed using VOSviewer for institutional co-authorship networks. WCJs were also analyzed by disciplinary distribution, country of publication, Journal Impact Factor (JIF) quartiles, and collaboration type.

A total of 44,047 archaeology-related papers were collected (40,865 from CCJs, 3,182 from WCJs). Key findings include: 1. **Knowledge of the International Community:** 734 translated articles (1.8% of CCJs papers) showed fluctuating trends reflecting political and policy changes. Content analysis revealed a focus on foreign research (49%), theory/method (26%), and Chinese research by foreigners (25%). Japan and the USA were prominent sources of translated articles. 2. **Internationalization of Chinese Archaeology:** 591 AFAs (1.24% of all papers) showed increased publication since the 1980s, especially since the Belt and Road Initiative. Most AFAs focused on neighboring countries. Sino-foreign collaborative project articles (n=49) were primarily published in CCJs. 3. **Publications in WCJs:** 2,260 WCJ articles (5.24% of all Chinese archaeology articles) showed a dramatic increase since the 2000s. Keyword analysis (CiteSpace) revealed substantial overlap with global research hotspots. Highly cited authors in different time periods were identified. 4. **International Collaboration:** Of 3,182 WCJ articles with Chinese authors, 60.2% were ICAs, with Mainland China-led articles comprising 71%. VOSviewer analysis revealed a strong collaboration network involving CAS (especially IVPP), Peking University, Jilin University, and international institutions, primarily in the USA and UK. 5. **Journal Characteristics:** WCJs publishing Chinese archaeology papers exhibited interdisciplinarity (especially geosciences), with a dominance of US and UK journals. Despite increases in publications in high-impact journals (Q1 and Q2), the overall proportion of Chinese archaeology in international publications remains low.

The findings reveal a complex picture of internationalization in Chinese archaeology. While significant progress has been made, particularly in the last two decades, driven by national policies and increased research funding, the overall representation in WCJs remains limited. The high overlap of keywords between Chinese and global WCJ publications suggests strong alignment with international research priorities. However, the prevalence of Mainland China-led collaborations, coupled with the reliance on CCJs for publishing collaborative project results, highlights a need for increased visibility in high-impact international journals. The impact of the recent policy shift favoring domestic journals requires ongoing observation to assess its influence on internationalization efforts. The dynamic interplay between internationalization and localization necessitates a nuanced approach, aiming for a balanced integration rather than viewing them as opposing forces.

This study provides a quantitative assessment of the internationalization of Chinese archaeology, revealing both progress and challenges. While increased publications in WCJs and alignment with global research themes are evident, the overall contribution remains relatively modest. Future research could explore gender imbalances, doctoral thesis topics, foreign scholar involvement, and the impact of large archaeological parks. Bibliometric analysis offers a powerful tool for gaining deeper insights into the field's development and international standing.

This study is limited by its reliance on publication data from CNKI and Web of Science, potentially omitting publications in other journals or formats. The focus on the first/corresponding author may overemphasize the role of individual scholars. The use of JIF as a quality indicator is subject to ongoing debates, and the study does not consider other qualitative aspects of internationalization, such as conference participation or personnel exchanges.