Disability in Archaeology

The discipline of archaeology has been shaped by the perception of “archaeologists as able-bodied adventurers.” This narrative is reinforced through fieldwork practices that emphasize physical labor as a key determinant of career advancement. For example, when I first applied to field schools, the applications required me to demonstrate that I would be physically able to perform tasks like excavation and pedestrian survey. While these tasks do require specific forms of physical labor, there are many other complementary ways to collect meaningful archaeological data in the field. Furthermore, and more importantly, there are many young scholars who would be unable to pursue a career in archaeology because they would be unable to demonstrate these abilities in their field-school applications. These practices are detrimental to the field for many reasons, including (1) it limits the pool of scholars who can participate in archaeological fieldwork, (2) it constrains diversity within knowledge production, (3) it perpetuates the exclusive, harmful history of archaeology as a discipline, and (4) it creates an unsafe field and working environment for all participants.

Interventions in disability studies in archaeology have noted the negative impact of able-bodied field environments on knowledge production, safety, and accessibility (Fitzpatrick et al. Reference Fitzpatrick, Clements, Hunt, Jones, O’Dea and Connolly2025; Fraser Reference Fraser2007; Heath-Stout et al. Reference Heath-Stout, Kinkopf and Wilkie2022; Klehm et al. Reference Klehm, Hildebrand and Meyers2021; Sneed and Shrader Reference Sneed and Shrader2024), yet an ableist-oriented archaeological practice remains the norm. Sneed and Shrader (Reference Sneed and Shrader2024) demonstrate that the exclusion of disabled researchers from archaeological fieldwork is a result of a disciplinary adherence to the medical model of disability, which suggests that a disabled body fails to conform to the “normative” standards of behavior and physicality (Sneed and Shrader Reference Sneed and Shrader2024:53). For example, many public school systems privilege certain types of learning behaviors over others, regardless of capability: an elementary student is expected to sit for up to six hours a day to be deemed “productive” or “smart.” This contrasts with a social model of disability, where society produces an environment in which a person is disabled (Sneed and Shrader Reference Sneed and Shrader2024:57–58). Fieldwork, argue Sneed and Shrader (Reference Sneed and Shrader2024), has become privileged in archaeological practice and perpetuated this exclusive, inaccessible space. Heath-Stout (Reference Heath-Stout2023) has shown that this attitude “privileges some bodies and minds over others,” particularly those without disabilities or with invisible disabilities who pass as nondisabled (Heath-Stout Reference Heath-Stout2023:17). Thus, archaeological fieldwork, especially, creates a paradox where fieldwork is required for entry into the profession and yet only certain scholars are allowed to participate in this necessary practice.

Despite the “compulsory able-bodiedness” (Heath-Stout Reference Heath-Stout2023:21–22) of archaeological practice, there are still many archaeologists with disabilities. For instance, Grace has battled ableist academic and CRM environments almost every step of the way. During her undergraduate degree she spent up to 40 hours a week fighting active discrimination: “I was fighting for my [testing/extra time] accommodations, that the university had signed off on every year, to just be enforced! I was fighting for my ability to be in school and equity to access materials I was legally required to have.” Nonetheless, her passion for archaeology led her to pursue a master’s degree in archaeology, which, she noted, was “much better, all my accommodations were provided for me as they were already provided to all students, regardless. This is how it should be.” Following her graduate degree, she worked in CRM as a project archaeologist in the US Midwest, where work conditions were repeatedly inaccessible and discriminatory and often unsafe. Companies and bosses assumed she was “weak or feeble” after disclosing her disability, and often she was automatically assumed to be unable to complete tasks. This ableist work environment made Grace hesitant to report job-related injuries: two days into a three-week CRM project, she broke her foot. In fear that she would lose her job, she masked her pain, choosing instead to finish the project. This is representative of the “hero” mentality still present in archaeological fieldwork across sectors, which forces archaeologists to mask medical symptoms and expose themselves to unsafe circumstances out of fear of workplace retaliation. During our conversation Grace noted that the barriers for disabled archaeologists are “insurmountable and it just shouldn’t be this way. We have all the accessibility at our fingertips, but there is no drive to implement these workflows because of personal choices made by higher-ups, even when at the direct peril of team members.”

Strategies for improving accessibility and safety in archaeological fieldwork have been proposed (Fitzpatrick et al. Reference Fitzpatrick, Clements, Hunt, Jones, O’Dea and Connolly2025; Heath-Stout et al. Reference Heath-Stout, Kinkopf and Wilkie2022; Klehm et al. Reference Klehm, Hildebrand and Meyers2021; Sneed and Shrader Reference Sneed and Shrader2024; White Reference White2021), as well as in ethnographic fieldwork (Procter and Spector Reference Procter and Spector2024) and the natural sciences more broadly (Carabajal and Atchison Reference Carabajal and Atchison2020; Chasen et al. Reference Chasen, Tripp and Borrego2025) where archaeological field- and lab work overlap. Across the literature, three key areas of intervention regarding the improvement of archaeological practice are (1) increased planning and prior disclosure of fieldwork tasks to participants and applicants, (2) flexible workflows and field tasks, and (3) the inclusion of disabled people in conversations about inclusion and accessibility and the organization of fieldwork itself. The first two interventions are inherent in UAS archaeological surveys, and thus are core to this study. The third area is a necessary intervention that impacts archaeological fieldwork more broadly.

Accessibility is a spectrum, and there is no single solution to creating accessible spaces and methods. Following the principles of Universal Design, an accessible environment means it can be used by everyone regardless of ability or disability (National Disability Authority 2026). The principles of Universal Design were developed to produce environments usable for all and can—and should—be applied to data collection methods and fieldwork. Fraser (Reference Fraser2007) has demonstrated how applying the principles of Universal Design to archaeological practice can increase access to all aspects of the field. Nonetheless, archaeological fieldwork is often still conducted as an able-bodied practice, which produces fieldwork sites and data collection methods inaccessible to many researchers. Disability, like accessibility, comes in many shapes and forms. Therefore, prior disclosure of fieldwork tasks to all participants, so that they can gauge their needs and ability, is required. Most accessibility improvements proposed in this article are geared toward researchers with disabilities and circumstances that may affect mobility in the field, including (but not limited to) physical disabilities, both temporary and permanent, due to logistics inherent in UAS use. Mobility-related circumstances are specifically addressed owing to a long history of archaeological fieldwork that emphasizes data collection in which physical labor, however intense, is the norm. Nonetheless, the increased planning necessary to UAS fieldwork, combined with the adoption of flexible workflows, can increase accessibility to a diversity of researchers (Fitzpatrick et al. Reference Fitzpatrick, Clements, Hunt, Jones, O’Dea and Connolly2025; Sneed and Shrader Reference Sneed and Shrader2024).

UAS in Archaeology

Within the past decade, UAS emerged as an efficient and cost-effective way to collect aerial imagery and remotely sensed data, yielding a range of archaeological footprints that speak to larger anthropological, ecological, and environmental questions about land-use practices (Campana Reference Campana2017). Each year, commercially available UAS become less expensive, and UAS data collection and processing software become increasingly user-friendly. Although other emerging sensors such as shortwave infrared (SWIR), near-infrared (NIR), multispectral cameras, magnetometers, and ground-penetrating radar (GPR) are also being deployed, this article introduces photogrammetry, thermal imaging, and light detection and ranging (lidar), as there is a significant literature on these three techniques in archaeological practice, and they show a breadth of UAS use.

Photogrammetry is a blanket term that comprises multiple techniques that allow the researcher to take measurements of landscapes, features, and objects using images (Campana Reference Campana2017). From UAS-derived visible light imagery, archaeologists can build high-resolution 3D models, orthophotos, and digital elevation models (DEMs) of sites and features, which enable efficient and precise feature documentation and spatial analyses. The benefits of photogrammetry to archaeology are numerous, but the key highlight is the ability to document, visualize, measure, and analyze 3D representations of inherently 3D landscapes, features, and artifacts that originally would have been documented in 2D (Campana Reference Campana2017). For example, in Figure 1, a UAS pilot collects aerial imagery to create photogrammetric models throughout the excavation process. This use of UAS in fieldwork directly situates the UAS pilot(s) with the rest of the fieldwork team, actively contributing to data collection and analysis during excavation. This is important for accessibility in fieldwork, since the UAS pilot is actively contributing to the excavation process through mapping. As long as the researcher has the appropriate licensing and permits (acquired prior to field departure), they can take breaks from physically strenuous activities to conduct the mapping, or, if they cannot participate in the other physical requirements of excavation, they could lead or participate in the UAS mapping team.

Figure 1.

Dr. Hemanth Kadambi using a nano-class drone to conduct photogrammetric mapping of excavation deposits. Photograph courtesy of Andrew Bauer.

Figure 1 Long description

Dr. Hemanth Kadambi is seen operating a nano-class drone at an excavation site. He is standing to the right, holding a controller and facing the drone, which is flying above the site. The area is covered with vegetation and a red tarp is spread on the ground near the excavation deposits. The background features dense bushes and trees, indicating a natural setting.

Thermography, or thermal imaging, is the detection of temperature differences in the near-to-longwave infrared range using a thermal camera/sensor. Thus, thermal imaging has the potential to detect terrestrial and subterranean features by exploiting the different temperature signatures of materials from surrounding areas (Carmona et al. Reference Carmona, Quirós, Mayoral and Charro2020; Casana et al. Reference Casana, Wiewel, Cool, Hill, Fisher and Laugier2017; Hill et al. Reference Hill, Laugier and Casana2020). UAS are an efficient way to collect thermal imaging data and are being used more regularly to detect terrestrial and subterranean landscape features in archaeological practice (Carmona et al. Reference Carmona, Quirós, Mayoral and Charro2020; Casana et al. Reference Casana, Kantner, Wiewel and Cothren2014, Reference Casana, Wiewel, Cool, Hill, Fisher and Laugier2017; Hill et al. Reference Hill, Laugier and Casana2020; Paulsen et al. Reference Paulsen, Ferwerda, Lehner, Harrower, Zaribaf, Creamer and Casana2026). Data processing is also straightforward, as degrees in Celsius are represented as pixels, with no complex software needed for visualization. Casana and colleagues (Reference Casana, Wiewel, Cool, Hill, Fisher and Laugier2017), in an article titled “Archaeological Aerial Thermography in Theory and Practice,” note how important planning ahead is for conducting aerial thermal surveys, owing to the many factors that play into the effectiveness of thermal detection. As highlighted in archaeology-oriented disability studies literature (Sneed and Shrader Reference Sneed and Shrader2024) and guides (Fitzpatrick et al. Reference Fitzpatrick, Clements, Hunt, Jones, O’Dea and Connolly2025), prior planning, combined with the disclosure of tasks in advance, promotes accessible practice.

Lidar is an active sensing technique that involves emitting regular pulses of light on the NIR spectrum at regular intervals, in which returned pulses are converted to a factor of elevation. Depending on the number of returns, lidar can penetrate tree canopies and ground vegetation, thus hitting the earth’s surface and detecting solid features. An article published by Gallagher and Josephs (Reference Gallagher and Josephs2008) deemed lidar more effective at detecting archaeological and landscape features than traditional survey techniques. Similar results were also found in Hawai’i, Colorado, New Hampshire, and New Mexico, in addition to outside of the United States in Belize, China, Finland, Italy, and Romania (Brașoveanu et al. Reference Brașoveanu, Mihu-Pintilie and Brunchi2023; Casana et al. Reference Casana, Laugier, Hill, Reese, Ferwerda, McCoy and Ladefoged2021, Reference Casana, Fowles, Montgomery, Mermejo, Ferwerda, Hill and Adler2023; Chase et al. Reference Chase, Chase, Weishampel, Drake, Shrestha, Slatton, Awe and Carter2011; Fontana Reference Fontana2022; Masini et al. Reference Masini, Gizzi, Biscione, Fundone, Sedile, Sileo, Pecci, Lacovara and Lasaponara2018; Risbøl and Gustavsen Reference Risbøl and Gustavsen2018; Roiha et al. Reference Roiha, Heinaro and Holopainen2021). Thus, lidar can be used to remotely access areas with surface features otherwise inaccessible on foot. Many of these case studies deployed lidar from UAS, all multi-propeller, with great success (Casana et al. Reference Casana, Laugier, Hill, Reese, Ferwerda, McCoy and Ladefoged2021, Reference Casana, Fowles, Montgomery, Mermejo, Ferwerda, Hill and Adler2023; Risbøl and Gustavsen Reference Risbøl and Gustavsen2018; Roiha et al. Reference Roiha, Heinaro and Holopainen2021).

Archaeological literature has discussed the benefits of UAS remote sensing, advances in UAS technologies, and lowering price points of UAS with increased commercial availability, yet none have focused on the broader implications of these technologies for improving accessibility and safety for archaeological labor practice. My experience with using UAS in the field, particularly the efficiency and vast safety improvement of employing this type of technology, demonstrated its potential for becoming an accessible data collection method. I work in the greater Mediterranean, which can reach high temperatures unsafe for fieldwork during the summer months. In summer 2024, there were heatwaves across the region, with numerous public-safety announcements advising people to limit sun exposure and to stay in air-conditioned areas. Unfortunately, academic archaeological fieldwork is restricted by academic calendars and permitting which require researchers to be in the field during specific periods of time, with little scheduling leeway. My concern was whether my asthma, which can be exacerbated in extreme weather conditions and arid environments, would impact my ability to conduct preliminary surveys during this season. Fortunately, most of the surveys this season were UAS-deployed, which enabled us to not only access land otherwise inaccessible due to ground cover but also minimized walking and sun exposure time. Furthermore, we were always near our vehicle and required a sun cover (tent or overhang), as periodically the UAS would overheat in these extreme conditions. By helping us avoid strenuous activity in these sunny, cloudless conditions, the UAS made me consider how this technology could be improved to not only promote safety but also increase accessibility to this version of fieldwork.

Fieldwork Logistics

Like all archaeological methods, the setup, collection, and processing of UAS data take training and expertise. Hence, the basic logistics of UAS surveys must be understood to produce accessible workflows. Presented here is a summary of the experiences shared through interviews. Conducting UAS surveys with lidar or a magnetometer involves heavy payloads that require a large UAS, such as the DJI Matrice RTK 300 and 350. This setup can fly for just under one hour at a time, but this is significantly shortened when carrying a large sensor such as lidar. As a result, an overlooked labor-intensive aspect of UAS workflows is the transportation of equipment. In addition to the UAS and the sensors, one needs to bring multiple batteries and/or a way to charge batteries to increase the efficiency of data collection over a multiple-hour field day. This is easily, and most often, solved by using a portable, robust generator, which does, however, add an additional item to transport, ultimately making UAS survey teams more reliant on transport vehicles than traditional pedestrian surveys (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

A UAS home-base setup demonstrating the proximity of the transport vehicle, sun cover, and access to a robust generator. Photograph courtesy of Tamas Polanyi.

Figure 2 Long description

The image shows a UAS home-base setup in a desert environment. A sun cover is supported by four poles, providing shade over equipment and boxes. A transport vehicle is parked nearby, with its rear open, containing various items. A tripod stands under the sun cover and a robust generator is positioned on the ground. Sparse desert vegetation is visible in the background.

A four-wheel-drive truck or SUV with quality tires, significant storage space, a full tank of gas, and extra gasoline (for both the truck and generator) are often essential to UAS survey. While a less heavy-duty vehicle could transport these items, an all-wheel-drive truck can allow teams to access more remote field and survey areas. This is also important for safety, as many archaeological landscapes are in remote areas or locations with difficult terrain, so a reliable 4×4 vehicle can reduce the risk of getting “stuck” in the field. Additionally, a truck bed cover is recommended, as it protects the equipment from the elements. Field archaeologists are often required to carry upwards of, or even more than, 20 kg of equipment at a time, so easing this burden through increased vehicle access could improve safety for all participants. Likewise, this means that researchers with disabilities that affect mobility or the ability to access remote sites on foot can rely on vehicle transportation to and from the site, while also having direct access to a vehicle and generator. Preplanning routes to survey areas with feedback from local collaborators and community members could reduce the labor and time burdens associated with travel and accessing survey sites. For researchers with medications that require refrigeration or have specific temperature needs, they can be stored in the vehicle in a cooler and easily accessed throughout the workday.

A standard UAS survey day, like excavation and other forms of fieldwork, starts by ensuring all the technology and associated equipment are charged and packed. To ensure these tasks are accomplished, the CRM archaeologists interviewed stressed the importance of a checklist, which should be referenced the night before the survey, and on the morning of it, to ensure the batteries are charged and the necessary maps downloaded onto the field computer. John also emphasized the importance of being prepared, and not just with checklists but also by practicing setting up and taking down the UAS and sensors prior to field departure. Furthermore, he noted the importance of organization and labeling. This makes packing more efficient and prevents the loss of items that can be difficult to acquire in remote regions, such as specific UAS rotors and cables. Here, organization, planning, and preparedness are necessary to eliminate error and inefficiency.

Grace noted that she always wrote a health and safety checklist and distributed it to her team prior to field departure. This included emergency contacts and environmental scenarios that might be a risk to the crew, including contaminated soils, rocky impasses, and the weather. She also included routes to the nearest hospitals from the potentially hazardous areas. This not only prioritized the health and safety of the crew but also made data collection more efficient. She stressed that workday injuries can greatly impact data collection, but health and safety plans decrease time spent dealing with injuries, thus promoting more effective and efficient data collection. As demonstrated by Grace, preparedness and planning, so necessary to UAS surveys, can be easily altered to include health and safety measures, ultimately improving accessibility, safety, and efficiency for all team members.

Planning ahead is also necessary for understanding restrictions surrounding UAS use. For example, a UAS pilot’s license (commercial remote pilot’s license in the United States), is required to conduct UAS surveys, and place-based regulations dictate what types of UAS can be deployed, what airspaces can be flown in, and who can fly the UAS. Not unlike archaeological permitting, there are many regulations and procedures that impact UAS surveys, making planning a necessity; all contracts, permits, and licenses must be acquired prior to use and followed diligently.

Once in the field, it is important to park as close as possible to the field or area that one will survey. The equipment is heavy, and long-distance transport by hand increases the risk of breaking the equipment and can be a safety hazard for those carrying it. Thus, getting to areas accessible by car and setting up a home base are important for both the archaeologists and the UAS. Sometimes UAS requires a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver for real-time kinematic flight path accuracy to increase the UAS’s spatial awareness. It is also important to set up the computer, tablet, or phone with the flight paths and be in an area where the UAS, while flying, is always visible. Many surveys require archaeologists to set the UAS flight paths in advance, which functions as an “autopilot” where the UAS flies along preplanned transects that are monitored by the remote pilot. UAS surveys include downtime or periods of minimal work as one monitors the UAS fly over preset areas. John says it is good to have a seat and sun cover, so you do not have to stand while waiting to switch out the UAS batteries after it lands (Figure 2). Supplying seating at excavations is advised by the Enabled Archaeology Foundation to improve field accessibility, as is including ramps and steps (Fitzpatrick et al. Reference Fitzpatrick, Clements, Hunt, Jones, O’Dea and Connolly2025:16). A ramp, like the seats recommended by John, can easily be packed into a vehicle on UAS surveys to ease movement at sites.

Home bases, as depicted in Figure 2, can and should be modified to reflect the needs of the team present. UAS surveys are team-based, with people performing different tasks to increase the efficiency and success of data collection. Due to the necessary proximity of the vehicle, transporting the equipment is easy but should include at least one individual who is physically able to lift the equipment out of the vehicle. Multiple tasks are required during UAS survey setup, including setting up the computer and flight paths. This means a diverse set of researchers with varying levels of physical ability can participate in both the setup and piloting of UAS surveys. Operating the UAS requires the pilot to have the ability to fully control the remote control (a handheld device with buttons, control sticks, and a central screen). Even if the UAS is following a preplanned path, the remote pilot must be ready to intervene if the need arises, especially during takeoff and landing. Piloting the UAS can be accomplished sitting or standing up, as long as the remote pilot can maintain a visual line of sight with the UAS. Additional observers are also recommended to maintain sightline with the UAS at all times. The visibility necessary when piloting UAS may pose a challenge for researchers who are blind or low-visibility, or who are otherwise unable to maintain line of sight. Color blindness (most often associated with reduced ability to distinguish between green and red light bands) can also prove difficult when piloting UAS and processing remotely sensed data, as many technologies rely on green and red bands to demonstrate data differences. Additionally, many UAS use green and red navigation lights to help pilots and observers identify the UAS’s position (especially at night). Here, prior disclosure of tasks and adjustments to workflow could help mitigate concerns related to visibility.

Discussed above are only a few examples of some of the tasks associated with flying the UAS in the field, which are often varied and contingent upon project needs. The exact needs of each UAS survey should be communicated prior to field departure to best prepare for the data collection and needs of the research team.

Accessibility and Safety

John was first introduced to UAS-deployed remote sensing technologies when he worked with the National Guard. The incentive of this form of data collection was desirable because it allowed for safety and increased access to survey areas on military land. For example, many survey areas could not be accessed on foot for safety reasons, such as toxic chemicals, explosives, and shrapnel. UAS offered a unique solution to limiting exposure to hazardous and inaccessible areas while still being able to map them. As a CRM field researcher who also worked in the US Southwest, John noted that environmental and archaeological surveys are particularly dangerous in this region (a hot, arid landscape), and there are strict rules about how much water needed to be brought to the field, the number of water breaks, and how many miles and hours teams could traverse in a day. This, he noted, is almost entirely transformed by UAS surveys.

The benefit of UAS for field safety is key to its potential for accessibility. Years of handheld magnetometry had left John with a chronic injury impacting his mobility and causing him pain, particularly in field settings. Seeking treatment for this injury is complicated by childcare duties and fieldwork requirements as part of his CRM work, making it impossible to find time to receive the necessary surgery without impacting his career or the care of his child. When asked about how UAS has improved his fieldwork, he highlighted UAS-deployed magnetometry as a comfortable alternative to the handheld version. Regarding UAS more generally, he states: “They make surveys accessible, since you need a flatbed truck, sun protection to keep the drone from overheating, cooler boxes, extra gasoline, cables, water, food, music, and comfort items. Someone with a physical disability or limited mobility can control the drones, monitor the computer work, and set up the flight plans—the bulk of the work.” Grace thinks the implementation of UAS in CRM, even just for mapping proposed survey areas in advance, could greatly improve accessibility and limit work-related injuries:

In their 2025 guide, the Enabled Archaeology Foundation highlights flexibility as essential to developing accessible archaeological fieldwork (Fitzpatrick et al. Reference Fitzpatrick, Clements, Hunt, Jones, O’Dea and Connolly2025:5), something that is also necessary for UAS surveys. For example, some sensors are more effective than others in certain conditions, and each requires different care. Furthermore, team members can switch tasks, having someone monitor the UAS, someone set up flight routes, and other personnel be available to walk in case the UAS crashes in a field far away. In my experience, the person performing survey roles switched duties based on day-to-day needs and comfort. When with the UAS, sometimes I was monitoring the flight, sometimes I was talking to local community members about their land, and other times I was collecting ground control points (coordinates that can be input into processing software to improve data accuracy). Flexible workflows are not only key to field success but necessary for UAS surveys.

As discussed above, planning and checklists are key to UAS fieldwork success, which overlaps with improving accessibility. Sneed and Shrader (Reference Sneed and Shrader2024:61) note:

UAS surveys must be planned well in advance not only to determine viable survey tracts but also to acquire necessary permitting and licenses. This is the same for all archaeological fieldwork, yet many plans are not effectively disclosed to field participants prior to departure and/or on a day-to-day basis. In UAS work, however, planning, checking, and double-checking that all permits, licensing, field tracks, flight plans, and equipment are secured and prepared is the norm. Therefore, checking in with field participants and including safety and accommodation measures within this planning can become streamlined.

As is the case with most technologies or gear that pose high price points, anxiety levels can elevate. This is especially true in archaeological field settings where researchers are often separated from their homes, families, pets, and other daily comforts, working in laborious conditions. Reducing anxiety-triggers by being flexible and understanding that technologies, especially with multiple moving parts, require adjustments in workflows is important to improving field safety. It is also necessary to limit outside pressures while both acknowledging and accepting that trial and error are nothing out of the ordinary. When asked how he safely mitigates stress, John stated, “Pay attention and plan ahead. When aware of the dangers, it’s a highly predictable survey situation.” This statement further highlights the necessity of prior planning. Nonetheless, anxiety is a real safety concern in the field, and it is necessary to understand potential triggers before entering these settings. Taking the time to not only plan ahead but to take breaks, take one’s time, and even change plans is key to reducing anxiety and promoting safety in potentially high-stress situations.

Community-Engaged Research

Improving accessibility in fieldwork is in line with the priorities of community-engaged archaeology, which is not limited to public archaeology (often bound to the communication of archaeological results to broader publics), but rather spans the entire archaeological process, from research design to fieldwork, to the dissemination of results (Atalay Reference Atalay2012). By enabling a more accessible community-engaged archaeology, UAS surveys can promote larger archaeological labor management goals, particularly as they relate to the use of low-impact methodologies (see Gonzalez Reference Gonzalez2016) that limit destruction of the archaeological record while promoting community-defined heritage goals. For example, a professor shared their experience working with an Indigenous community in the United States, where their team mapped a large portion of the community’s reservation lands using UAS-deployed sensors. Before they flew the UAS, they worked with the Tribal council to define the targeted survey area, establish a Tribal monitoring procedure, and determine how results would be shared. This collaboration proved effective in mapping the archaeological landscape while minimizing risk and destruction to cultural heritage.

In addition to enabling a nondestructive approach to archaeological fieldwork, UAS technologies, virtual reality, and high-resolution 3D features and artifact scanning can help community members engage with their cultural heritage when they cannot physically visit these sites. For example, multiple archaeologists I spoke with expressed the opinion that UAS aerial scanning and documentation could be easier for community elders to access than physically visiting sites. Furthermore, archaeologists from the government sector noted that they are actively educating their communities, archaeological and otherwise, on the benefits of UAS for heritage preservation and land management. These same archaeologists are especially excited about its potential community-engaged use for monitoring coastal and high-impact climate areas susceptible to heavy erosion, and which are unsafe to access on foot. Here, archaeologists have identified an area of concern where UAS could improve both site protection and surveyors’ safety. Overall, what these community-engaged sentiments have in common is that UAS surveys can improve accessibility to cultural heritage through the digital documentation of archaeological sites that are difficult to access or are inaccessible on foot. Furthermore, their minimally invasive nature limits the destruction of heritage sites altogether.

While these digital technologies can improve accessibility for communities and researchers with mobility limitations, these technologies can also introduce new barriers around the sharing and use of the data produced. Digital data and the creation of large digital datasets have the potential to limit access as a result of disparities in digital literacy and access to the necessary technology needed to view high-resolution images and datasets (Faniel et al. Reference Faniel, Austin, Kansa, Kansa, France, Jacobs, Boytner and Yakel2018). This is something to be aware of when creating digital datasets: accessible data collection, analysis, and dissemination might not all look the same and, thus, require flexibility, planning, and consultation to confirm that the research design is accessible and effective. Ultimately, accessible archaeological fieldwork and productive, safe labor management are multifaceted; they should include a diversity of researchers, prioritize community engagement, and utilize a suite of archaeological methods to promote maximal knowledge production and distribution of results, with minimal impact on all communities and laborers participating or sharing in the research.

Conclusion and Future Directions

Throughout this article I have outlined three main benefits of UAS fieldwork for improving the accessibility of archaeological fieldwork: (1) planning and disclosure of tasks ahead of field departure, (2) flexibility in workflows to accommodate the varying needs of both the field team and form(s) of data collection, and (3) increased reliance on vehicles and minimized physical labor. Preplanning and the disclosure of tasks related to UAS surveys enable archaeologists to determine what accommodations they may need to participate in this type of fieldwork. The disclosure of tasks should be communicated prior to field departure and during fieldwork itself. To support ease of planning, a checklist is included here as Supplementary Material 1, which can be modified by archaeologists to best support their research project and accessibility needs. Similarly, flexibility in workflows allows archaeologists to switch tasks and change plans to best suit the safety and abilities of the research team. Finally, increased reliance on vehicles and minimized physical labor associated with UAS use can enable a wider range of archaeologists to participate in data collection in archaeological fieldwork environments, not just able-bodied researchers. Furthermore, the reliance on vehicles improves safety, as it reduces the risk of physical-labor-related injuries. I would like to further emphasize that planning/disclosure of tasks and flexible workflows are two key areas of improvement proposed by disability studies in archaeology literature, and they promote accessible fieldwork practices at large (Fitzpatrick et al. Reference Fitzpatrick, Clements, Hunt, Jones, O’Dea and Connolly2025; Sneed and Shrader Reference Sneed and Shrader2024). Likewise, including disabled archaeologists in the creation of fieldwork plans would best support the accessibility of research projects (Fitzpatrick et al. Reference Fitzpatrick, Clements, Hunt, Jones, O’Dea and Connolly2025; Heath-Stout et al. Reference Heath-Stout, Kinkopf and Wilkie2022; Sneed and Shrader Reference Sneed and Shrader2024).

Although place-based UAS regulations impact how research is completed, the three key takeaways regarding accessible UAS surveys listed above are not specific to North America. The experiences discussed in this article were those of archaeologists based in North America, yet their research and field sites are globally situated. Furthermore, the UAS research articles analyzed here present the effectiveness of UAS-deployed remote sensing worldwide, including the Netherlands, Oman, Romania, Spain, Turkey, and multiple US states. Nonetheless, to further account for differences in applications of UAS technologies, a more globalized perspective could gauge specific strategies, needs, or limitations present at different sites and institutions worldwide.

Accessible UAS workflows that emphasize planning, safety, and flexibility can be used to make data collection and archaeological fieldwork more inclusive of disabled researchers, as well as safer for everyone. To improve the application of UAS in promoting archaeological practice, one that “involves the active recruitment and inclusion of disabled people in archaeological fieldwork,” we must prioritize feedback and input from a diversity of disabled researchers (Sneed and Shrader Reference Sneed and Shrader2024:51). It is important to highlight that UAS may not be the accessible alternative for everyone, as there is no one-size-fits-all solution, hence the importance of promoting accessibility in fieldwork across methods and sectors. Here, the methods and labor management practices learned from the accessibility of UAS can, and should, be applied to archaeological practice at all scales: UAS fieldwork should not be the sole accessible alternative with other aspects of fieldwork remaining ableist. In line with the principles of Universal Design, by prioritizing disability accessibility we improve labor management and safety in the field for everyone.