Introduction
Archaeological practice takes place in a wide diversity of contexts, from fieldwork to laboratories and offices. These contexts induce various degrees of psychological and physical intimacy between practitioners, which can lead to situations of harassment, assault, bullying and intimidation (henceforth HABI). This article addresses and raises awareness about this important and intensely debated topic of international relevance in current archaeology. It does so by reporting the results of the first Europe-wide survey to assess archaeologists’ awareness of HABI, as well as the occurrence of 18 different types of HABI in various archaeological settings.
Since 2014, archaeologists have begun to speak publicly about harassment and assault within the discipline, although disclosures and empirical research on this topic have mostly taken place in a limited number of Western countries (e.g. Belgium and France: Mary et al. Reference Mary, Pasquini and Vandevelde2019; Nieto-Espinet & Campanera Reference Nieto-Espinet, Campanera, Díaz-Andreu, Gomariz and Gutiérrez2022; Canada: Muckle Reference Muckle2014; Jalbert Reference Jalbert2019; Hodgetts et al. Reference Hodgetts, Supernant, Lyons and Welch2020; Spain: Coto-Sarmiento et al. Reference Coto-Sarmiento2020, Reference Coto-Sarmiento, Díaz-Andreu, Gomariz and Gutiérrez2022; Nieto-Espinet & Campanera Reference Nieto-Espinet, Campanera, Díaz-Andreu, Gomariz and Gutiérrez2022; Sweden: Dagens Nyheter 2017; Rudd Reference Rudd2018; Berg Reference Berg, Mol and Lodwick2020; the UK: Hawkins & Rees Reference Hawkins and Rees2018; Bradford Reference Bradford2019; Andrew et al. Reference Andrew, Bryan and Watson2020; the USA: Clancy et al. Reference Clancy, Nelson, Rutherford and Hinde2014; Nakhai Reference Nakhai2017; Meyers et al. Reference Meyers2018; Radde Reference Radde2018; VanDerwarker et al. Reference VanDerwarker, Brown, Gonzalez and Radde2018; Heath-Stout Reference Heath-Stout2019). These studies have focused on verbal, psychological, physical and sexual harassment, as well as sexual assault. They mainly discuss gender-based violence, while little or no information has been collected on racial, homophobic, biphobic, transphobic or ableist discriminations. Apart from publications, archaeology students and practitioners have also shared their stories in workshops, social networks and blogs. Projects such as EveryDIGsexism (n.d.) for English-speaking archaeologists and Paye ta Truelle (n.d.) for the French-speaking world have gathered hundreds of anonymous online testimonies. The Queer Archaeology (n.d.) website also publishes stories of queer archaeologists and highlights the difficulties they face.
Recently, several research institutions and professional bodies, including the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, the Prospect Archaeologists Union, the Society for American Archaeology, the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) and the Archaeology Institute of the University of Barcelona, have begun to create services and committees to address these issues. Despite these initiatives, however, there is a scarcity of quantitative and qualitative data regarding HABI in archaeology. Following a survey on sexual harassment in Spanish archaeology (Coto-Sarmiento et al. Reference Coto-Sarmiento2020, Reference Coto-Sarmiento, Díaz-Andreu, Gomariz and Gutiérrez2022), the board of the ‘Archaeology and Gender in Europe’ (AGE) community of the EAA conducted a pilot survey in 2020 to determine the frequency of various forms of HABI in archaeology as practised in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Serbia. The results were presented at the 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting of the EAA (Coltofean-Arizancu et al. Reference Coltofean-Arizancu, Gaydarska and Plutniak2020).
In light of the results of these surveys, AGE and the Paye ta Truelle collective, which fights for equality and diversity in French-speaking archaeology, resolved in 2021 to extend the pilot survey to the whole of Europe, with the aim of exploring the extent of HABI behaviours across the continent. This represents the first Europe-wide survey on HABI in archaeology. In this article, we present and discuss some of the findings of that exercise.
Methods
A multi-disciplinary perspective is essential for a rounded approach to HABI in archaeology. Besides archaeology, our research team's expertise includes anthropology, sociology, gender studies and psychology. In addition to multi-disciplinarity, multi-national participation is also essential to ensure proper understanding of potential responses from diverse geographical and cultural contexts. Thus, we—11 women and one man—come from or live in Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Romania, Slovenia and the UK, encompassing the major cultural and geographical regions of Western, Eastern, Central, Southern and Northern Europe. Although we are affiliated with different institutions, we all practise archaeology in academic contexts or rescue archaeology.
The questionnaire used in our survey was designed to assess whether archaeology professionals and students in Europe:
1) were aware of the existence of HABI in their work, research and study environments;
2) have been the subjects of such behaviours and, if so,
3) in which ways they were affected on a personal and/or professional level;
4) whether they reported these behaviours; and
5) whether any measures were taken as a result. Here, we report and discuss quantitative data relating to points 1, 2 and 4.
We used Google Forms survey administration software to create an online anonymous questionnaire based on the 2020 pilot survey (Coltofean-Arizancu et al. Reference Coltofean-Arizancu, Gaydarska and Plutniak2020). The questions focused on 18 types of oppressive behaviour: sexual harassment and assault; gender, racial, religious, personal, sexual orientation-based, age-based and disability-based harassment; psychological and power harassment; physical harassment and assault; online harassment; antisemitic harassment; retaliation; bullying and intimidation. Respondents could click on links leading to definitions of each type of HABI. The survey was available in English and French. English was chosen because it is the most spoken language among non-native English speakers in European archaeology. A French translation was provided in order to reach French-speaking Europeans, a group which is often unresponsive to investigations on oppressive behaviours, especially if disseminated in English (Mary Reference Mary and Algrain2020: 200).
The questionnaire was open to, and designed to accommodate responses from, victims, witnesses, non-victims and perpetrators. The survey's introductory text and dissemination campaign emphasised that even those who had not experienced HABI were encouraged to respond. The survey included 24 defined questions and 13 open-ended questions. The latter allowed respondents to share their HABI experiences in English, French or their mother tongue. The questionnaire (see section 1 in the online supplementary materials (OSM)) complied with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR—Regulation (EU) 2016/679) of the European Commission. Before answering the questions, respondents were asked to read and consent:
1) to our ‘Confidentiality and use of survey data statement’;
2) that their participation in the survey was voluntary;
3) that they could withdraw at any time before submitting their responses;
4) that once they submitted a response, the submission could not be withdrawn, but could be edited; and
5) that they agreed to the collecting, processing and analysis of the information provided.
A self-assessment of ethical practice (see OSM1.3) was also prepared to ensure that the study met the highest ethical principles as defined by the EU Horizon 2020 guidelines (European Commission n.d.).
The questionnaire was disseminated using two main channels: social media and email. The dissemination process targeted archaeology-related online communities built around the Paye ta Truelle collective and AGE, professional networks, international mailing lists, universities, unions and independent groups, among others. The dissemination process benefitted from the network built up by the Paye ta Truelle team since 2017 through its activities tackling discrimination in archaeology. In addition, a visually striking poster was created to raise awareness, and we organised a two-hour ‘hackathon’ to encourage engagement before the questionnaire closed. It was open for responses between 27 January and 30 April 2021.
The resulting quantitative data were cleaned and recoded. Any details which could lead to the identification of individuals, institutions, organisations and companies were pseudonymised. Below, we use R packages to present and analyse the data (R Core Team 2022) (for code and dataset, see OSM2). Further in-depth analysis of the data, including the answers to qualitative open-ended questions, will be the subject of future publications.
Results and discussion
Main findings and sample representativity
The survey resulted in 1134 responses: 589 for the English survey and 545 for the French survey. In total, 82 per cent (n = 928) of respondents declared at least one HABI experience. Conversely, 18 per cent of the participants (n = 206) answered that they had not been subjected to any form of HABI (see OSM7 & Table S16). The number of respondents reporting no experience of HABI is very low (n = 206), suggesting that people willing to talk about HABI were potentially more likely to participate in the survey.
To assess the representativity of the responses, and specifically the response rate, we used published estimations of the number of active archaeologists in European countries (OSM3.5 & Tables S6–7). The difficulties of gathering reliable data on the number of practitioners is well known (e.g. Aitchison et al. Reference Aitchison2014: 17–20). Using these estimates, however, enables the cautious claim that our sample covers more than 4 per cent of the active archaeologists in France, Belgium and Slovenia, and less than 4 per cent in other countries.
Various factors may explain why our questionnaire did not receive more responses. These could include: insufficient awareness of the survey; questionnaire fatigue; fear of the consequences of participation; shame; the normalisation of different types of HABI, which makes it difficult for victims to identify them; and the fact that HABI is an uncomfortable topic, considered unimportant or even non-existent by some archaeologists. Conversely, the reasons why people participated in this survey can be divided into two contrasting groups: 1) a majority who seem eager to make the voices of victims and witnesses heard; and 2) a very small minority (3 out of 545 respondents in the French survey and 1 of 589 in the English version) who seem to deny the existence of HABI.
Profile of the respondents
Respondents comprise 49 different nationalities. The majority originate from France (nearly 40 per cent; n = 455), with other well-represented countries of origin including Greece, Belgium, Germany and the UK (>50 responses each; OSM3.2 & 3.5; Table S3). Regarding countries of residence, the results are similar. Most respondents lived in France at the time of the survey (38 per cent; n = 434), and other well-represented countries (>30 responses) include the UK, Belgium, Germany, Greece and Sweden (OSM3.5 & Table S7). The large number of responses from France is probably the result of our dissemination strategy, which was built on Paye ta Truelle's existing networks and the translation of the survey into the participants’ mother tongue. The high number of respondents from Greece was unexpected, compared with the low response rate from other Balkan countries, and is probably related to the strong personal networks of our Greek team member. The most well-represented non-European country—both in terms of country of origin (n = 47; 4 per cent) and of residence (n = 25; 2 per cent)—is the USA. Most respondents from this country shared HABI behaviours experienced during their time in Europe.
In terms of gender, 72 per cent of the survey participants identified as women (n = 816), 26 per cent as men (n = 294) and 2 per cent as other (e.g. no answer, non-binary, agender, gender queer people; n = 24) (OSM3.2 & Table S1). For context, Aitchison et al. (Reference Aitchison2014: 30) estimated that in 2012–2014, some 50.7 per cent of European archaeologists were women. Among female respondents to our questionnaire, 88 per cent reported at least one case of HABI, as did 67 per cent of male respondents and 67 per cent of non-binary/gender-fluid/other respondents (OSM7 & Table S16). The high number of female respondents could be related as much to the fact that women are more often subject to HABI behaviours as to the fact that they are also more likely to report them (Women's Initiative 2018).
Most questionnaire respondents placed themselves in the 20–39 age category (Figure 1; OSM3.2). The median age is 33, with men being slightly older (median age: 36) than women (median age: 32) (OSM3.2 & Table S2). The respondents are therefore significantly younger in comparison with the average age of European archaeologists in 2014 (i.e. 40 years; see Aitchison et al. Reference Aitchison2014: 26–27). Importantly, however, Aitchison et al.'s study seemingly excluded students (it is unclear whether PhD candidates were surveyed), while they are very well represented in our survey. The younger age profile represented here might also be related to our active use of social media channels, the use of which is skewed to younger audiences.
Figure 1. Age of the respondents: count by class age and gender (note the use of different scales for the y-axis) (image credit: S. Plutniak).
The survey reached a broad spectrum of practising archaeologists involved in fieldwork, museums and research institutions, as well as archaeology students at all levels of education. Slightly fewer than three-quarters of the respondents (73 per cent) declared one or more specialisations in archaeology. Some specialisations (e.g. prehistory and field archaeology) were more commonly named than others, but HABI cases were reported in relation to all of them (for specialisations, see OSM3.3–4 & Tables S4–5).
Contexts of HABI experiences
The survey results indicate that HABI experiences vary between countries and national contexts. Some 63 per cent of respondents experienced HABI in their country of origin (n = 715; OSM5.1.1 & Table S10). Seventeen per cent of respondents who moved from their country of origin to a different country reported at least one HABI experience (n = 193). Of the latter group, those who did not experience HABI in their country of origin but only in their new country of residence are more numerous (37 per cent; n = 72) than those who experienced HABI only in their country of origin (27 per cent; n = 53) (Figure 2; OSM5.1.2). This higher incidence of subjection to HABI behaviours may be because foreigners can be more vulnerable and exposed than locals. Approximately one-quarter of the expatriate respondents (21 per cent; n = 40) reported having experienced HABI situations both in their countries of origin and of residence (OSM5.1.2 & Tables S11–12).
Figure 2. Respondents not living in their country of origin and having reported at least one HABI experience: whether it happened or not in the country of residence. Count by country of residence (image credit: S. Plutniak).
It might be assumed that HABI experiences are more likely in specific settings (e.g. during fieldwork); we therefore asked about the contexts in which individuals experienced HABI. Most respondents (92 per cent) reported one, two or three different environments in which they experienced HABI (OSM5.2 & Table S13). There is a statistically significant correlation between some reported type(s) of setting and the respondents’ age; for example, younger respondents mentioned ‘university classes’ and ‘fieldwork’ as frequent HABI settings, while older respondents indicated ‘museums’ and ‘research institutes’ (Figure 3; OSM5.2). The most frequently reported settings for HABI include ‘fieldwork’ and ‘universities’, which are environments more readily associated with young archaeologists (students and PhD candidates). Settings connected to research, often relating to more senior archaeologists, are reported less frequently (e.g. conferences, laboratory, research stays and research institutes). Our survey therefore reveals that HABI behaviours are more likely to happen in some settings than others, such as fieldwork, an environment where hierarchical relationships are often blurred, even though underlying relations of domination remain (e.g. Moser Reference Moser2007; Mary et al. Reference Mary, Pasquini and Vandevelde2019; Voss Reference Voss2021).
Figure 3. Boxplot of the age of the victims by setting where HABI was reported. The width of the boxplots is proportional to the sample size (indicated by the numbers at the left of the boxplots) (image credit: S. Plutniak).
Inter-disciplinary comparison of HABI perceptions
Respondents were asked about their perceptions of HABI in other disciplines compared with archaeology. With reference to seven named disciplines—history, art history, geography, literature, biology, physics and chemistry—respondents were asked to assess whether HABI occurs ‘less frequently’, ‘equally’, or ‘more frequently’ than in archaeology, or if they ‘do not know’. Through this question, we wanted to understand how archaeologists perceive their own field in comparison to others. The results indicate that the natural sciences (i.e. physics, chemistry and biology) are perceived as fields where HABI is more frequent than in archaeology. The humanities are considered to be either equally (i.e. history, art history) or less (i.e. geography, literature) exposed to HABI (Figures 4 & 5; OSM6). Thus, it appears that the humanities, which are part of the same ‘knowledge subsystem’ as archaeology, tend to be considered safer than the natural sciences.
Figure 4. Comparison between disciplines: count of observed evaluations in the respondents’ answers by discipline (image credit: S. Plutniak).
Figure 5. Comparison between disciplines: hierarchical classification of the disciplines based on the perception of their similarity with archaeology about the likelihood of HABI (distance: Euclidean; hierarchical clustering: Ward 1963 method, see Murtagh & Legendre Reference Murtagh and Legendre2014) (image credit: S. Plutniak).
Perpetrator-victim ratios
In addition to settings, individual factors related to victims and perpetrators should be considered when characterising HABI. For example, the likelihood of HABI behaviours could be related to factors such as gender and age. Regarding the distribution by gender of the reported personal HABI experiences (OSM7 & Table S16), our results show that women reported significantly more HABI than men, based on a Fisher's exact test (OSM7.2). Overall, no significant relationship between age and the experience of HABI is present. Among the respondents having experienced HABI, however, women are significantly younger than men, based on a Dunn test (Figure 6; OSM7.2).
Figure 6. Number of respondents by age and gender having or not having at least one HABI experience (image credit: S. Plutniak).
Most of the respondents with experience of HABI were women (79 per cent) and most of the perpetrators were men (83 per cent). A Fisher's exact test identifies a significant relationship between the gender of both victims and perpetrators (OSM8.1 & Tables S17–18). Details within the broader trends should not be overlooked, however: in 16 per cent of HABI situations, both perpetrators and victims were women; in 11 per cent of cases, both perpetrators and victims were men; and in 6 per cent of cases, the perpetrators were women and the victims were men. In 29 HABI cases, the victims were non-binary/gender-fluid/other, and men were the main perpetrators (n = 24), although women were also reported (n = 5). The types of HABI experienced in each of these situations will be examined elsewhere.
Most reported perpetrators were between 40 and 59 years of age (median age: 40), which generally equates with senior individuals. Victims were aged between 20 and 74 years old. The 25–30 and 30–40 age categories (median age: 33) are over-represented among victims. No significant correlation is observed between the ages of the victims and perpetrators at the time HABI was experienced (Figure 7; OSM8.2).
Figure 7. Ages of the perpetrators (by class) in the reported cases of HABI (image credit: S. Plutniak).
Awareness of HABI
One of our working hypotheses was that the frequency of HABI is partly determined by the levels of awareness of those involved in any specific setting or context. This hypothesis was addressed in the survey by asking respondents: 1) whether they had been part of an archaeological setting where a code of ethics and conduct was used; and 2) whether they considered that they may themselves have behaved as perpetrators.
As ethical guidelines are sometimes part of HABI prevention methods, we aimed to assess the extent to which codes of conduct were known to, and used by, practitioners of archaeology. Respondents were therefore asked whether such codes were formally introduced in one or more settings in which they worked. Here, it is important to note that some respondents reported multiple settings and that the following figures are based on the total number of settings (n = 1711), not the number of individuals (n = 1134). The existence of codes of conduct was most often reported for settings such as universities (24 per cent; n = 415) and fieldwork (16 per cent; n = 281), and less frequently (<8 per cent) for conferences, laboratories, museums, research institutes, training, research stays and other settings. This is probably because universities and fieldwork settings are formally responsible for students’ safety and well-being, and hence are more aware of possible liability issues in cases of misconduct and the mishandling of situations. Only one quarter of the respondents reported never having been introduced to such codes in any archaeological setting (26 per cent; n = 448) (OSM4 & Table S8). Variation by country of residence is, however, notable, with the majority of respondents in the UK, Greece and the Netherlands reporting having never been introduced to any codes, while almost half of respondents in France, Germany, Belgium and Sweden reported awareness of such codes (OSM4 & Table S9).
We also aimed to assess whether there was any relationship between the existence of a code of conduct in work and study settings and incidence of HABI. Among those who had not been introduced to such codes in any archaeological setting (n = 446), 79 per cent had experienced HABI behaviours (n = 354). Among those who were acquainted with such codes, 83 per cent (n = 574) reported HABI experiences. A Fisher's exact test suggests that being familiar or not with such codes makes no significant difference in respondents’ self-identification as HABI victims (OSM5.3 & Table S14).
Respondents were also asked to consider whether they identified themselves as perpetrators at any point. Those respondents self-identifying as victims perceive themselves as non-perpetrators (“no”) less frequently than expected, and more frequently than expected as potential perpetrators (“maybe”) (OSM8.3 & Tables S19–21). A possible explanation is that individuals who have experienced HABI as victims may be more reflexive about their own behaviours.
Respondents were also asked whether they had shared their HABI experiences with others, whether officially, publicly or privately. The results indicate that telling other people about HABI experiences is a common practice among our respondents. Among 928 respondents with personal experience of HABI, 84 per cent (n = 778) had shared their experience with someone. There is no statistically significant gender difference in the decision to share experiences (OSM10 & Tables S23‒25).
Relationships between different forms of HABI
Above, we have treated HABI as a set of undifferentiated behaviours. In this section, we focus on specific types of HABI. Respondents were asked about 18 different HABI behaviours and were also able to mention any misconduct that was not already included in the survey. Psychological harassment, intimidation and power harassment were the most frequently reported oppressive behaviours by all respondents—women, men and non-binary/gender-fluid/other—followed by gender harassment, bullying, sexual harassment, personal harassment and age-based harassment (Figure 8; OSM9). A chi-squared test indicates that women reported significantly more gender and sexual harassment as well as sexual assault than men, while men reported significantly more bullying than women (OSM9.1 & Table S22). We also evaluated the associations made by the respondents between various types of HABI. The five most frequently reported associations between types of HABI are gender and psychological harassment, psychological harassment and intimidation, gender and sexual harassment, gender harassment and intimidation, and psychological harassment and bullying (Figure 9; OSM9.2). These associations shed light on the complexity of HABI experiences and will be the subject of further analysis.
Figure 8. Types of HABI: number and percentage of respondents having reported the different forms of HABI, distinguished by gender (“h” stands for “harassment”) (image credit: S. Plutniak).
Figure 9. Heatmap of the distance between types of HABI (“h” stands for “harassment”) by the respondents (distance: Euclidean; hierarchical clustering: Ward 1963 method). Note that the heatmap is symmetrical and the values on the diagonal (in yellow) are equal to 0 (image credit: S. Plutniak).
From observations to actions
Our survey shows that HABI is still a sensitive issue in European archaeology. We are at the beginning of a process of naming misconduct for what it is. Much work remains to be done in terms of laws and regulations (which often exist but are not enforced), the availability of resources in workplaces and universities, and the reform of disciplinary processes. While oppressors are often well-known to many, most victims do not dare to talk to their institutions because of the general lack of awareness about HABI, as well as the shame and fear of consequences on their careers. When victims do manage to overcome these obstacles, the behaviours of their abusers are played down by the institutions, and penalties, if imposed at all, are minimal. The examples reported in the press in Belgium (e.g. Bergmans & Vanderkerckhove Reference Bergmans and Vanderkerckhove2022), the UK (e.g. Weale & Batty Reference Weale and Batty2016) and France (e.g. Boutboul & Bredoux Reference Boutboul and Bredoux2019) show that abusers’ identities are withheld to protect their careers, while their institutions do not openly and transparently communicate about cases unless the press publicises them. Institutions most often ignore, cover up or remain silent about HABI cases. These attitudes can no longer be tolerated and should stop.
Our survey has documented the extent of HABI in European archaeology. After raising awareness, the next step is action. It is possible to act as an individual (victim or witness), as a manager or as an institution to prevent HABI. Several initiatives already exist. Among them, the Chantier-Éthique guidelines (Ethical Fieldwork, designed by the Paye ta Truelle project and the Archéo-Éthique Association (n.d.); see https://archeoethique.wixsite.com/association/charte-chantier-ethique) offer a label to identify fieldwork projects committed to fighting discrimination. Thanks to this label, volunteers can identify certain projects as safe environments for their summer fieldwork. This approach aims to:
1) raise awareness among fieldwork participants and prevent the occurrence of HABI situations;
2) support victims by facilitating the recognition, exposure and reporting of abusive behaviour; and
3) serve as a tool for supervisors and equality and diversity officers who must deal with misconduct whether they have received formal training or not.
The Chantier-Éthique guidelines include a procedure to be followed in HABI cases and applied regardless of the status of the individuals involved. For the UK, we should also mention the RESPECT guide against harassment in archaeology (Hawkins & Rees Reference Hawkins and Rees2018), while in the USA, useful resources include the guide for addressing harassment and violence released by the Society for American Archaeology (2015), the Title IX Training (ATIXA n.d.) and the Fieldwork Initiative (https://fieldworkinitiative.org).
Conclusions and perspectives
This article discusses some of the quantitative data resulting from the first Europe-wide survey of HABI behaviours in archaeology. It covers 18 different forms of HABI and received over 1000 responses, making it the largest and most comprehensive survey conducted so far on the subject. Despite some limitations (e.g. its representativeness of the professional archaeology community and biases towards Western Europe and to the 20–39 age group), the number of responses of those reporting HABI experiences alone is telling. HABI misconduct in European archaeology is clearly endemic: these behaviours are experienced by individuals of all genders and generations, and in multiple professional settings and in many different countries. Further in-depth analyses of the quantitative, and especially the qualitative, data collected will reveal a more detailed understanding of HABI experiences. These analyses will also focus on examining more precise correlations between different types of HABI, the settings where these occurred, and the ages of the victims and perpetrators.
The results of our survey show that women are more likely to be victims of HABI than men, and that men are more likely to be perpetrators, regardless of the victims’ gender. Students and young archaeologists in their undergraduate and graduate studies are also more likely to be HABI victims than senior archaeologists. We also identified patterns about specific types of HABI: for example, psychological harassment, intimidation and power harassment seem to be universal in European archaeology and are equally reported by men, women, non-binary/gender-fluid/other respondents. Some types of HABI, however, are more frequently encountered among specific groups; this is the case with gender-based harassment, sexual harassment and sexual assault, which are more often reported by women.
Our survey is a step forward in raising awareness about HABI behaviours in European archaeology. It highlights that HABI is not a specifically local, institutional, organisational or national problem; it exists throughout European archaeology. Given the scale and extent of HABI, its prevention should be addressed through a coordinated European set of measures, protocols, training and action. We hope that our results will accelerate the recognition of the existence of HABI within the field and the implementation of preventive and reporting mechanisms for ensuring safe and empowering study, research and work environments. Finally, we also hope that our initiative will be extended to other geographical areas beyond Europe, which would provide a much-needed overview of, and help to prevent, HABI in archaeology across the world.
Acknowledgements
We are deeply grateful to the respondents who participated in our survey and shared their experiences with us, as well as to colleagues who disseminated the survey within their networks. Their support for this and similar surveys is essential. We thank John Chapman for careful language revisions and editing. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the entire team behind the research for believing in, and committing to, this project, and for the tremendous amount of unpaid work invested in it, despite personal struggles and criticism for researching HABI in archaeology.
Funding statement
We thank Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek for covering the Open Access fees of this article via the project 11F1122N.
Data availability
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6407331
Open access
