Skip to content

Blog

By Sebastian Gerberg Hostrup, Abigail Hunt and Sarahjayne Clements

In August 2024 Sebastian, Abi, and Sarahjayne participated in The European Archaeologists Association (EAA) Annual Meeting in Rome, Italy. One of the themes of this year’s conference was persisting with change, so with that in mind we organised a round table session asking ‘why should we persist in making archaeology accessible and inclusive to all’. This session sought to clarify the critical importance of continuing efforts to promote equity, diversity, and inclusivity (EDI) within the field of archaeology. The session brought together a diverse range of participants, showcasing a wide range of expertise and perspectives. Although sadly we did lose some participants, which would have meant even greater diversity across the panel. We embraced the notion that diversity of thought and lived experience is particularly vital when addressing inclusivity, a complex and sometimes challenging topic.

We wanted to share the key aspects of our discussions with the wider archaeology community and so we have produced this short summary and invite people to share their thoughts and to keep the conversation going.

Defining Inclusivity
Inclusivity defies easy definition, as evidenced by the broad range of interpretations and keywords shared during the discussion. Participants described inclusivity as encompassing respect, equality, access, frameworks, and feelings of belonging. Examples included creating access for neurodivergent individuals and integrating everyone into daily tasks. Notably, inclusivity was exemplified by actions such as inviting a young archaeologist with no prior experience to co-organise a session at EAA, highlighting how inclusivity can manifest in opportunities and mentorship.

Barriers to Inclusivity
Several challenges to inclusivity in archaeology were highlighted. The nature of commercial archaeology often limits accessibility and may attract and meet the needs of a workforce that is non-disabled, white, middle class, straight presenting, and male rather than a more diverse group of individuals. Practical issues such as Personal protective Equipment (PPE) and workplace environments, including the inadequacy of facilities like toilets and exposure to hazards and injury, were also discussed. These barriers demonstrate the need to reimagine the archaeological workplace to better support a varied workforce.

Progress and Positive Examples
Despite ongoing challenges, the discussion highlighted encouraging examples of inclusivity in practice. Projects involving Alzheimer’s patients or using engaging formats such as comics for dissemination demonstrate how archaeology can reach broader and more diverse audiences. Additionally, the COVID-19 lockdowns, while challenging, forced the profession to innovate and find new ways to engage with people. These examples provide valuable models for moving forward in our bid to become more inclusive.

The Role of Interdisciplinarity
An increased focus on interdisciplinarity was identified as essential for fostering inclusivity. Collaborative projects that bridge archaeology with fields like psychiatry and mental health can create meaningful progress. However, the need for more data to support these initiatives was emphasised, highlighting the importance of evidence-based approaches to inclusive archaeology.

Gender Disparities in Archaeology
The discussion also addressed the disproportionate abandonment of the field by women, a trend attributed to factors such as sexism, limited career progression, and challenges related to balancing family life with professional ambitions. This issue was linked to outdated perceptions of archaeological field work and systemic barriers, such as the scarcity of permanent positions. However, examples from Denmark, where the field appears more female-dominated, highlight the variability of these challenges across regions and the potential for cross-cultural learning.

Regional Variability and Hidden Inclusivity
Inclusivity needs vary significantly by region, complicating efforts to implement universal solutions. While this diversity of needs presents challenges, it also offers opportunities for mutual learning and adaptation. Additionally, the concept of “hidden, or embedded, inclusivity” was explored, questioning whether overt inclusivity initiatives might paradoxically exclude some individuals.

Avoiding Harmful Inclusivity
Participants discussed the potential for inclusivity efforts to become harmful, particularly when applied without consideration for unintended consequences. Social media was noted as a challenging space for archaeology, often amplifying harmful rhetoric. However, examples from museums demonstrate how archaeology can counter harmful narratives and foster greater acceptance and understanding through thoughtful dissemination.

Building Community Connections
Improving connections with local communities was another key theme of the discussions. Archaeologists are often perceived as distant and disruptive; greater efforts to engage with local stakeholders, such as dining in local restaurants or participating in community activities, could help bridge this gap and foster mutual understanding.

Sector Collaboration
The lack of cohesion among different sectors of archaeology—academic, commercial, and others—was identified as a significant barrier to inclusivity. Strengthening collaboration across these sectors is critical for addressing the multifaceted nature of inclusivity. Participants recognised, however, that complete agreement and universal satisfaction are unattainable, and that ongoing debate and dialogue are integral to progress.

Conclusion
The round table brought the complexity and importance of persevering with EDI in archaeology to the forefront of participants’ minds. While significant challenges remain, the session highlighted inspiring examples of progress and provided a platform for critical reflection. Inclusivity in archaeology is not a destination but a continuous process, requiring collaboration, innovation, and adaptability to meet diverse and evolving needs.

Contact us
Please contact the lead author, Abigail Hunt Abigail.hunt@nottingham.ac.uk