Este artículo es el segundo de una serie de dos partes que analiza la investigación actual sobre el acoso en la arqueología. Estudios cualitativos y cuantitativos, como también relatos de activistas y testimonios de sobrevivientes, han establecido que el acoso ocurre a tasas epidémicas en la arqueología. Estos estudios han identificado patrones clave en relación al acoso y señalan posibles intervenciones para prevenirlo, para apoyar a les sobrevivientes y para responsabilizar a les perpetradores. Este artículo discute cinco obstáculos clave a superar en la cultura disciplinaria de la arqueología: normalización, prácticas excluyentes, confraternización, gatekeeping e impedimentos para la presentación de denuncias. Con base en dos paradigmas de salud pública —el modelo socioambiental y los enfoques basados en el trauma— se identifican intervenciones potenciales aplicables a todos los niveles de la práctica arqueológica: individual, relacional, organizacional, comunitario y social.

This article is the second in a two-part series that analyzes current research on harassment in archaeology. Both qualitative and quantitative studies, along with activist narratives and survivor testimonials, have established that harassment is occurring in archaeology at epidemic rates. These studies have also identified key patterns in harassment in archaeology that point to potential interventions that may prevent harassment, support survivors, and hold perpetrators accountable. This article reviews five key obstacles to change in the disciplinary culture of archaeology: normalization, exclusionary practices, fraternization, gatekeeping, and obstacles to reporting. Two public health paradigms—the social-environmental model and trauma-informed approaches—are used to identify interventions that can be taken at all levels of archaeological practice: individual, relational, organizational, community, and societal.

Human fascioliasis infection sources are analysed for the first time in front of the new worldwide scenario of this disease. These infection sources include foods, water and combinations of both. Ingestion of freshwater wild plants is the main source, with watercress and secondarily other vegetables involved. The problem of vegetables sold in uncontrolled urban markets is discussed. Distinction between infection sources by freshwater cultivated plants, terrestrial wild plants, and terrestrial cultivated plants is made. The risks by traditional local dishes made from sylvatic plants and raw liver ingestion are considered. Drinking of contaminated water, beverages and juices, ingestion of dishes and soups and washing of vegetables, fruits, tubercles and kitchen utensils with contaminated water are increasingly involved. Three methods to assess infection sources are noted: detection of metacercariae attached to plants or floating in freshwater, anamnesis in individual patients, and questionnaire surveys in endemic areas. The infectivity of metacercariae is reviewed both under field conditions and experimentally under the effects of physicochemical agents. Individual and general preventive measures appear to be more complicated than those considered in the past. The high diversity of infection sources and their heterogeneity in different countries underlie the large epidemiological heterogeneity of human fascioliasis throughout.