Since the 1980s, activist archaeologists have used quantitative studies of journal authorship to show that the demographics of archaeological knowledge production are homogeneous. This literature, however, focuses almost exclusively on the gender of archaeologists, without deeply engaging with other forms of identity or adequately addressing the methodological limitations of assigning binary gender identifications based on first names. This paper rectifies these limitations through an intersectional study of inequities in academic archaeological publications by presenting the results of a survey of authors who published in 21 archaeology journals over a 10-year period (2007–2016). This survey asked them to provide their self-identifications in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation. The results demonstrate that although there has been an influx of women archaeologists in recent decades, we have not yet reached gender parity. They also show that because many women archaeologists are cisgender, white, and heterosexual, the discipline's knowledge producers remain relatively homogeneous. Furthermore, although there is demographic variation between journals, there is a strong correlation between journal prestige and the percentage of authors who are straight, white, cisgender men. This intersectional study of journal authorship demographics provides a comprehensive perspective on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the discipline of archaeology.

Field schools are essential for undergraduate students pursuing careers in archaeology, but they are expensive and, consequently, inaccessible to many. Although there have been efforts to rectify this through the creation of scholarships, there have been no systematic studies of the full cost of archaeological field schools. Here, we present a study of 208 field schools from 2019, including their tuition, room and board, and airfare, as well as the wages that students may lose by participating in them rather than working. We also explore how archaeologists interviewed for Heath-Stout's dissertation study of diversity issues in the discipline have navigated finding field experiences. We argue that scholarships are an ineffective and insufficient means of promoting equity and accessibility in the field because the root of the problem lies in institutionalized inequality and exclusivity. We provide strategies that students and faculty can use to address these problems on both individual and systemic levels. By making field schools affordable and accessible to a more diverse set of undergraduate students, we can create a more just and inclusive discipline.

Field schools are essential for undergraduate students pursuing careers in archaeology, but they are expensive and, consequently, inaccessible to many. Although there have been efforts to rectify this through the creation of scholarships, there have been no systematic studies of the full cost of archaeological field schools. Here, we present a study of 208 field schools from 2019, including their tuition, room and board, and airfare, as well as the wages that students may lose by participating in them rather than working. We also explore how archaeologists interviewed for Heath-Stout’s dissertation study of diversity issues in the discipline have navigated finding field experiences. We argue that scholarships are an ineffective and insufficient means of promoting equity and accessibility in the field because the root of the problem lies in institutionalized inequality and exclusivity. We provide strategies that students and faculty can use to address these problems on both individual and systemic levels. By making field schools affordable and accessible to a more diverse set of undergraduate students, we can create a more just and inclusive discipline.

No abstract

No abstract