BookPDF Available

Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe 2012-14: Transnational Report, York Archaeological Trust, ISBN 978-1-874454-70-0

Authors:
  • Landward Research Ltd
1
Discovering the Archaeologists of
Europe 2012-14: Transnational Report
Kenneth Aitchison, Efthymia Alphas, Vera Ameels, Martin Bentz, Corina Borș, Elisa Cella, Kerri Cleary,
Cláudia Costa, Paul Damian, Mariana Diniz, Cidália Duarte, Jan Frolík, Carolina Grilo, Initiative for
Heritage Conservancy, Nele Kangert, Raimund Karl, Anette Kjærulf Andersen, Viire Kobrusepp, Tina
Kompare, Eduard Krekovič, Miguel Lago da Silva, Andrew Lawler, Irena Lazar, Katheriin Liibert,
Alexandra Lima, Gavin MacGregor, Niamh McCullagh, Michaela Mácalová, Ain Mäesalu, Magdalena
Malińska, Arkadiusz Marciniak, Mārtiņš Mintaurs, Katharina Möller, Ulla Odgaard, Eva Parga-Dans,
Doris Pavlov, Vesna Pintarič Kocuvan, Doug Rocks-Macqueen, Jette Rostock, João Pedro Tereso,
Alessandro Pintucci, Elena S. Prokopiou, Jorge Raposo, Karin Scharringhausen, Tine Schenck, Marjo
Schlaman, Jeanette Skaarup, Andris Šnē, Danica Staššíková-Štukovská, Ingrid Ulst, Monique van den
Dries, Heleen van Londen, Rocío Varela-Pousa, Catarina Viegas, Armands Vijups, Nathalie Vossen,
Tobias Wachter & Ludwika Wachowicz.
York Archaeological Trust
Published by York Archaeological Trust 2014
All contents copyright © 2014 the authors listed above.
2
3
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy
of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative
Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.
Under the terms of this licence, you are free:
to Share - to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to Remix to adapt the work
to make commercial use of the work
Under the following conditions:
Attribution You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or
licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the
work).
With the understanding that:
Waiver Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the
copyright holders.
Public Domain Where the work or any of its elements is in the public
domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the licence.
Other Rights In no way are any of the following rights affected by the licence:
Your fair dealing or fair use rights, or other applicable copyright exceptions
and limitations;
The authors’ moral rights;
Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is
used, such as publicity or privacy rights.
Notice For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the licence terms of this work.
The publisher has used its best efforts in preparing this book, and the information provided herein is
provided "as is." York Archaeological Trust makes no representation or warranties with respect to
the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaims any implied
warranties of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose and shall in no event be liable for
any loss of profit or any other commercial damage, including but not limited to special, incidental,
consequential, or other damages.
ISBN 978-1-874454-70-0
The transnational Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe 2014 project was administered
by York Archaeological Trust with financial support from the Lifelong Learning Programme
of the European Commission. This report reflects the views only of the authors, and the
Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
4
Contents
Contents
Contents 4
Tables 5
Figures 5
Executive Summary 6
Introduction 8
Rationale and Background to the Work 9
Context 10
Global Economic Context 10
European Policy Context 10
Archaeological Policy Context 11
Aims and Objectives 14
Lifelong Learning Programme Priority and Objectives 15
Archaeologists in Europe, 2012-14 17
Total Numbers of Archaeologists 17
Total Numbers of Archaeologists Change over Time 20
Past Numbers of Archaeologists 22
Past Numbers of Archaeologists Change Over Time 23
Future Numbers of Archaeologists 24
Future Numbers of Archaeologists Change Over Time 25
Archaeologists’ Ages and Genders 26
Archaeologists’ Age and Gender – Change Over Time 29
The Disability Statuses of Archaeologists 31
The Disability Statuses of Archaeologists Change Over Time 32
Archaeologists’ Countries of Origin 33
Archaeologists’ Countries of Origin – Change Over Time 34
Qualifications 36
Qualifications Change Over Time 38
Salaries 39
Salaries Change Over Time 42
Contracts 44
Contracts Change Over Time 45
Working Hours 46
Working Hours Change Over Time 47
Archaeological Employers (Organisations) 48
Archaeological Employers (Organisations) Change Over Time 49
Vocational Education and Training 50
Vocational Education and Training change over time 50
Conclusions 51
Multilateral Network 52
External Data and Global Context 53
Recommendations 55
Acknowledgements 56
Bibliography 57
5
Tables
Table 1: Total Numbers of Professional Archaeologists, 2012-14 18
Table 2: Estimated Archaeologists as Percentage of Populations 19
Table 3: Total Estimated Numbers of Archaeologists and Gross Domestic Product 20
Table 4: Total Estimated Numbers of Archaeologists - change over time 21
Table 5: Past Sizes of Organisations 22
Table 6: Past Numbers of Archaeologists - change over time 23
Table 7: Future Sizes of Organisations 24
Table 8: Future Sizes of Organisations change over time 25
Table 9: Archaeologists’ Ages and Genders 26
Table 10: Archaeologists’ Ages – changes over time 29
Table 11: Archaeologists’ Genders – change over time 30
Table 12: Disability Statuses of Archaeologists 31
Table 13: Disability Status of Archaeologists change over time 32
Table 14: Countries of Origin 33
Table 15: Countries of Origin change over time 34
Table 16: Highest Qualifications Held 36
Table 17: Where Highest Qualifications Obtained 37
Table 18: Qualifications change over time 38
Table 19: Average Salaries in Archaeology and National Averages for all Occupations 39
Table 20: Aggregate Salaries and Total Expenditure 42
Table 21: Salaries - change over time 43
Table 22: Archaeologists' Contract Lengths 44
Table 23: Full-time / Part-time Work 46
Table 24: Full-time / Part-time Work - change over time 47
Figures
Figure 1: Archaeologists’ Age Distributions 27
Figure 2: Archaeologists’ Genders 28
Figure 3: Archaeologists’ Ages – changes over time 29
Figure 4: Highest Qualifications Held 37
Figure 5: Comparison of Average Archaeological Salaries with National Averages 41
6
Executive Summary
Between 2012 and 2014 representatives from 23 organisations in 21 European countries
worked together in the Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe 2014 project to gain insight
into the profile of the archaeological profession and labour market in those countries. The
results can be compared with those of a predecessor Discovering the Archaeologists of
Europe project, undertaken in 2006-08,
Employment. Across the 21 participating states, it is calculated that a total of over €1 billion
is spent on professional archaeology every year, with the majority of that expenditure being
on the salary costs of the estimated 24,740 people who work as archaeologists in these
countries. This group of professionals represents 0.006% of the combined total workforces
of those states. In many states, the absolute numbers employed in archaeology has fallen
significantly over the previous six years. It is estimated that approximately 33,000
archaeologists now work across Europe as a whole.
Growth of the sector. Across Europe, organisations employing archaeologists have typically
become smaller over the five years prior to this project, and employers are very cautious
about predicting future growth.
Nature of the workforce. A slight majority (50.3% to 49.7%) of archaeologists are women.
The proportion of women in the workforce has increased over the six years since 2006-08
from 45.9%. On average, European archaeologists are 40 years old. Very few European
archaeologists are disabled 1.1% of the total number of workers for whom data were
available, a reduction from 1.5% in 2006-08.
Countries of Origin. 94% of archaeologists work in their own countries of origin, 5% are from
other EU states and 1% from elsewhere in the world. Overall, this shows a slight decline in
sectoral transnational mobility, as in 2006-08 more archaeologists were working away from
their countries of origin.
Qualifications. In every participating state, it is normal for people working in archaeology to
hold a degree on aggregate, 94% of European archaeologists are graduates and the
majority (69%) are postgraduates. 90% of archaeologists gained their highest qualifications
in the countries in which they now work, with 9% obtaining those qualifications elsewhere
in Europe (and 1% elsewhere in the world). When compared with the figures from 2006-08,
this shows that archaeologists are increasingly educationally mobile.
Salaries. In twelve of the 21 participating states, archaeologists were paid less than the
national average for all workers. An average figure of €24,901 was calculated as the mean
salary earned by an archaeologist, but this is relatively meaningless as average salaries vary
enormously between counties, with Danish archaeologists earning on average nine times
the amount earned by their peers in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
7
Nature of the work. 78% of the archaeologists for whom data were available worked full-
time and 22% part-time. This is a marked change from 2006-08, when the percentages were
86% full-time and 14% part-time. 63% of archaeologists held permanent contracts at the
time of the research, while the remaining 37% of workers had time-limited contracts.
Structures. As was identified in the predecessor project in 2006-08, archaeological practice
in the participating states is organised on different models, with varying levels of
commercial activity balanced against state agency engagement. This is often linked to the
funding basis of archaeological practice (variation both on the basis of funding from the
state or from private sector industries, and on whether delivery is achieved by the state or
by the private sector). Different states define who can be considered to be an archaeologist
in different ways. Vocational education and training (VET) in the sector is almost universally
delivered by universities through academic degree programmes.
Skills and Training Needs. Issues relating to specific training needs were assessed in each
participating country, but, as in 2006-08, because of the variety of ways in which these
questions were asked by the project partners (in order to accommodate the differing
structures and approaches to archaeological work in each participating state), the
information obtained cannot be usefully compared transnationally.
Trends and developments. In comparison with the predecessor work undertaken in 2006-08,
the main ways that the sector has changed are that the number of jobs has decreased and
the proportion of women working in the sector has increased. Furthermore, jobs are more
likely to be part-time and for shorter contractual periods; archaeologists are more highly
qualified, but are less well-paid in comparison with other sectors.
8
Introduction
The Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission has supported a project to
investigate the labour market and skills issues in European archaeology. Discovering the
Archaeologists of Europe 2014, the successor to an earlier project undertaken six years
previously, involved 21 partner organisations and two associate partners from a total of 21
European states.
The project was launched when it was recognised that professional archaeological practice
in Europe was coming under economic pressure following the effects of the global financial
crisis and this was particularly affecting employers’ abilities to invest in vocational education
and training for their staff.
Partners collected data from sectoral employers in their own states, identifying labour
market intelligence together with vocational education and training priorities, and have
presented recommendations using this evidence to training providers.
This Transnational Report presents selected data from the 21 national reports to identify
comparisons and issues across European states and changes and trends over time.
9
Rationale and Background to the Work
This project was grounded on the basis that
“Archaeological material, sites and landscapes are non-renewable [environmental and
cultural] resources so professional education (understanding the roles of this material in the
past and its importance in the present or future) cannot treat practical skills as an optional
add-on to academic, theoretical study. Vocational education and training is critical for all
archaeologists working in Europe, whether at the entry-stage of their career or as on-going
continuing professional development” (YAT 2012, 40).
and
“The specific needs of contemporary professional archaeology as a sector in Europe are –
that archaeological practice is under economic pressure following the effects of the
global financial crisis, and this is particularly affecting employers’ abilities to invest in
VET
there is still a level of difficulty for individuals to move from country to country
because qualifications are not universally recognised“ (ibid.).
This has led the project to aim to support closer links between vocational education and
training (VET) and working life in archaeology in order to make VET more responsive to
labour market needs (of both individuals and employers).
The project was delivered on the basis that gathering and exchanging information and
experience (providing an evidence base for the sector), as well as supporting the
dissemination and implementation of common approaches, methods and tools linked to the
New Skills for New Jobs initiative (EC 2008), would improve sectoral identification and
anticipation of skill and competence needs and their integration in VET provision. Its
outcomes promote the integration of learning with working.
Because of the global economic transformation since 2008, the project has been particularly
focussed on identifying and addressing changes and impacts caused by the economic
changes:
identifying labour market information and trends, including training investment,
recruitment and career progression difficulties
identifying training needs and skills shortages
establishing the number and profile of professional archaeologists
identifying the range of archaeological employers
providing employers with information to aid business planning and improve
organisational performance
providing individuals with information to help develop their careers
supporting VET providers with information on employers’ needs.
10
Context
This project was undertaken in the context of archaeology’s ongoing transformation from an
academic discipline to an applied, environmental practice with novel demands for
vocational education and training, set against the backdrop of the global economic changes
of the first decade of the 21st century and their effects on this profession.
Global Economic Context
Immediately following the conclusion of the predecessor Discovering the Archaeologists of
Europe project, the effects of the global financial crisis that was triggered in 2008 by
subprime mortgage losses in the United States began to impact on archaeological practice in
terms of both employment and training investment. The immediate effects of the economic
situation on the sector were reviewed at a conference in 2009 and subsequent publication
(Archaeology and the Global Economic Crisis Schlanger & Aitchison [2010]). Most of the
papers presented were opinion pieces, but some were based on new (limited) data which
clearly identified the need for more up-to-date figures to try to support recovery plans.
Several of the project partners contributed to that volume.
The effects of the global economic crisis upon archaeology were identified at European and
global levels (Aitchison 2009b, 2009c), and the subsequent Eurozone and sovereign debt
financial crises compounded the problems in many countries over the years that
immediately followed.
European Policy Context
At the highest level, the European Union seeks to improve the capabilities and skills of
workers. In the context of this project, which has aimed to present the benefits of and need
for European cooperation (as opposed to national, regional or local approaches), this has
also been linked to the development of opportunities for transnational mobility and for the
preservation and promotion of a shared European heritage, within a framework of policies
that operate at a European level.
The Treaty on European Union
Improving the capabilities and skills of workers who are protecting or curating
archaeological heritage can be justified as the principle that the European Union can act in
support of cultural heritage is enshrined in the Treaty on European Union, as the European
Union seeks to “ensure that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced” (EU
1992, article 3.3) and that it will do this by “encouraging cooperation between Member
States and, if necessary, supporting and supplementing their action” in the field of culture
(EU 2008, article 167).
11
Europe 2020
Europe 2020 is the European Union’s ten-year growth and jobs strategy which was launched
in 2010 (EC 2010). It is primarily about addressing the outcomes of the global economic
crisis that began in 2007-08, and seeks to achieve this by addressing the shortcomings of the
previous growth model and creating the conditions for a smart, sustainable and inclusive
growth.
The objectives of the strategy are supported by seven ‘flagship initiatives’, one of which is
being directly addressed by this project, ‘An Agenda for New Skills for New Jobs”.
New Skills for New Jobs
The project has followed the direction of the EC’s Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
initiative, New Skills for New Jobs (EC 2008) (which became a flagship initiative of Europe
2020), by working to “promote better anticipation of future skills needs, develop better
matching between skills and labour market needs and [to] bridge the gap between the
worlds of education and work”.
ET 2020
The project has demonstrated complementarity with ET 2020, the Education and Training
2020 Work Programme, which is the strategic framework for European cooperation in
education and training, by specifically contributing to the strategic objectives of improving
the quality and efficiency of education and training and of making lifelong learning and
mobility a reality.
In doing this, the project has provided workers and employers with reliable statistical
information that they require in order to assess and take advantage of opportunities to train
and work in states other than their own.
Archaeological Policy Context
The European Union takes a less direct role in influencing archaeological (cultural heritage)
policy when compared with natural heritage policy. However, it has been significant at the
crossover between cultural and natural heritage, when both can be perceived as being
environmental resources to be protected within the process of sustainable development.
This has meant that in terms of archaeological employment, European legislation is
important because it stimulates the need for archaeological work through the planning and
environmental assessment processes and it regulates the quality of work (through the
application of the Valletta Convention, below).
Environmental Impact Assessment
The most significant European policy to affect archaeological practice was Council Directive
85/337/EEC, published in 1985 and then updated in 1992 and 2014 (EEC, 2014), which
established the requirement for the environmental impact of any significant land use
change to be assessed, and for subsequent mitigation to take place where required and in
12
terms of archaeological practice, this was very important because cultural heritage,
including archaeological remains, was identified as an environmental component to be
considered. All member states of the Union are obliged to incorporate EU Directives into
national law, and it was following this Directive that all member states have made
arrangements for the assessment of the impact of development on environmental
resources, including archaeological remains. The actual ways in which this Directive is
implemented vary from state to state (and even regionally within decentralised member
states), which has contributed to the particular national characteristics of applied practice in
each European country.
Valletta Convention
Council of Europe (CoE) policy, specifically the (Valletta) Convention on the Protection of
Archaeological Heritage (revised) (CoE, 1992) has had more visible, popular significance in
European applied archaeology than the policies of the European Union, as it emphasises the
need for quality control, but in terms of its impact upon archaeological employment and
practice has had much less effect than the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations,
which opened up and developed a whole new, significant area of archaeological work.
Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe (2006-08)
Previously, the only significant piece of work in this area was the predecessor project,
Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe (2006-08), which profiled archaeologists working in
twelve EU member states.
The only European countries where any comparable work before that project had been
undertaken were the United Kingdom and Ireland. Following the 2006-08 project,
comparable data were collected in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Spain in 2009.
The primary focus of the 2006-08 project, which was part-funded by the European
Commission through the Leonardo da Vinci II fund, was on transnational mobility and
identifying ways to overcome any barriers facing workers in this sector. The project
produced national reports and oversight through a transnational report (Aitchison 2009a).
That project reported just before the global economic changes of 2008, and so provides
valuable benchmark data from the pre-crash economic peak which allowed changes that
had taken place to be properly evaluated in this, Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe
2014 project.
Archaeological Practice and VET
In all of the countries participating in this project, universities are the leading providers of
VET for the archaeological sector. Six of the project partners are university Departments of
Archaeology.
Two of the partnership bodies are professional associations, promoting standards and
competence within their own states. By participating in this project they have been able to
work together in order to seek to endorse individual members for their work across Europe.
13
The European Association of Archaeologists (a partner in this project) has a standing
Committee on Professional Associations in Archaeology, which is currently co-chaired by
Kenneth Aitchison, the project coordinator for this project. That Committee is charged with
advising the Association on issues relating to professionalism, training and employment
within European archaeology, and so the active involvement of project staff with that
Committee will enhance the quality of the disseminated results to individual archaeologists
and employers across Europe.
By improving understanding of the requirements for, and capacity to provide VET for
archaeologists across Europe, the benefits of the project should be relevant for
archaeologists and the broader cultural heritage sector, as well as to their clients, educators
and the wider public.
Most of the partner states do not have specifically archaeological bodies overseeing and
advising on VET, and so the national results will help governments, agencies, SMEs and
individual archaeologists structure their enterprises to promote and facilitate work in
archaeology with suitably skilled staff.
14
Aims and Objectives
The specific objective of the predecessor project (Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe)
was to form a Transnational Network of organisations with common interests and aims, and
for the members of that Network to collect, assess and share data on employment and
vocational education and training (VET). In that project, twelve partners produced
estimates of the numbers of archaeologists working in each country, with data on age and
gender, disability status, country of origin, full- and part-time employment, past and future
trend data, highest qualifications and where these were obtained, information on training
needs and skills shortages, and salaries or wages paid for archaeological work.
This project Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe 2014 - has expanded the Network
(now a Multilateral Network) in order to carry out updated research and to re-evaluate the
state of archaeological employment across Europe in the light of the previous five years’
economic changes.
The concrete Aims of the project have been:
1. To promote better anticipation of future skills needs in the sector of professional
archaeology
2. To develop better matching between skills and labour market needs in this sector
3. To bridge the gap between the worlds of education and work for this sector
The Objectives (all of which were outcome based and assessable, not task-based) were:
a) to identify labour market information and trends, including training investment,
recruitment and career progression difficulties, from both the supply (individuals’)
and demand (employers’) perspectives
b) to identify training needs and skills shortages
c) to establish the number and profile of archaeologists working in each state
d) to identify the range of archaeological employers involved in providing
archaeological services, expertise and training
e) to identify the range of providers of archaeological vocational education and training
f) to provide employers with information to aid business planning and improve
organisational performance
g) to provide individuals with information to help plan their own training and thus to
develop their careers
h) to provide vocational education and training providers with information on demand
from individuals and employers in order to allow them to calibrate their provision to
meet the needs of the world of work
The Intentions were that the situation would be changed:
i. Employers would be better informed, enabling them to better plan for future
recruitment needs and training development issues
ii. Individual archaeological workers and aspirant archaeological workers would be able
to plan their vocational education and training and thus to develop their own careers
15
iii. VET providers would be able to better match the courses and learning opportunities
that they provide to the demonstrated needs of the world of work.
Lifelong Learning Programme Priority and Objectives
The project addressed a specific Priority of the European Commission’s Lifelong Learning
Programme and also had a series of objectives that were specific to the objectives of the
Programme.
Lifelong Learning Programme Priority 1 Cooperation between VET and world of work
Since 2007-08 the global economic crisis has seriously impacted on employment in
archaeological practice across Europe. There is a clear demand for enhanced VET to help
sectoral workers and employers navigate changes in working practices, and so better
information has to be made available to VET providers. This project has identified where
employers recognise skills issues, and has made recommendations to VET providers on
transnational and national approaches to alleviate these problems.
LLP-Obj-a To contribute to the development of quality lifelong learning and to promote
high performance, innovation and a European dimension in systems and
practices in the field
Lifelong learning in professional archaeology has been subject to underinvestment. This is a
relatively modern profession, only emerging from its academic origins to become an applied
profession in the last 20-25 years, without strategic consideration having been given to
professional development.
LLP-Obj-k To encourage the best use of results, innovative products and processes and
to exchange good practice in the fields covered by the Lifelong Learning
Programme, in order to improve the quality of education and training
The project has actively shared results across Europe on the issues of professional
archaeologists' current qualifications and the areas of where skills development needs are
identified by employers. These data are being actively provided to VET providers to develop
new and best practice in delivering education and training for professionals (and aspirant
professionals) in this field and in doing so is also seeking to enhance transnational
applicability of qualifications.
LEO-SpObj-a To support participants in training and further training activities in the
acquisition and the use of knowledge, skills and qualifications to facilitate
personal development, employability and participation in the European
labour market
The project has identified the VET issues that sectoral employers prioritise and is using these
to make recommendations to VET providers who can then better match the training they
16
provide to the needs of the current and future workforce. This will lead to improved support
for participants' skills-based training, including access to vocational qualifications, thus
enhancing their individual employability and their opportunities to access and participate in
a sectoral European labour market.
LEO-SpObj-b To support improvements in quality and innovation in vocational education
and training systems, institutions and practices
The outcomes of the project are ensuring that VET is aiming to be delivered against defined
and quantified needs, rather than on ad-hoc or anecdotal accounts of demand. This will
allow training institutions to demonstrate that they will deliver skills that will maximise
training participant's employability. Where vocational qualifications for the sector exist that
can be mapped against the European Qualifications Framework, the transnational
application of these is being encouraged and endorsed.
LEO-OpObj-2 To improve the quality and to increase the volume of co-operation between
institutions or organisations providing learning opportunities, enterprises,
social partners and other relevant bodies throughout Europe
The project has brought together 23 organisations from 21 European states all of which
have worked to improve opportunities for people to work and learn in archaeology. The
partners who have cooperated represent a wide range of types of organisations involved in
providing training and learning opportunities (professional associations, small or medium
enterprises, social partners [a trade union, social enterprises], universities, museums,
regional government and national government departments).
LEO-OpObj-4 To improve the transparency and recognition of qualifications and
competences, including those acquired through non-formal and informal
learning
The predecessor project which initially formed the Network that this project has supported
particularly focussed on transparency and recognition of academic qualifications. This
project has particularly focused on the VET needs of workers, and is making
recommendations to VET providers on national and transnational approaches to improving
delivery and to ensuring that the skills gained and any qualifications awarded can be
recognised transnationally.
17
Archaeologists in Europe, 2012-14
The project focussed on the identification of practitioners within professional archaeology
and so through doing this has aimed to identify and support any needs they have to improve
or maintain necessary skills. Gathering data from 21 countries has shown that while there is
not a significant diversity of practice when it comes to obtaining primary evidence about
human activities in the past, there is a great deal of variation in the approaches taken to
curating or managing that evidence, which lead to significantly different skills needs in
different parts of Europe.
Total Numbers of Archaeologists
Project partners produced estimated totals for the numbers of archaeologists in paid
employment in each country. It is important to note that these are estimated totals, not the
specific numbers that were directly identified in surveys.
While the overall approach used was a form of probability sampling, using closed
populations, as slightly different methodologies were applied by each partner to gathering
data and to defining who could be considered to be a professional archaeologist, there is
potential for some coverage errors and non-response errors to have been introduced. These
terms are explained by Aitchison & Edwards (2008, 25) in the introduction to the
methodology used in the predecessor project’s UK component.
”…as the mailing list was not likely to be perfect, there will have been some coverage
error (omission, duplication or wrongful inclusion of population elements) but minimal
sampling error (where only a subset of the total population is sampled). The levels of non-
response may have introduced some non-response error (all error definitions after
Groves, 1989) if the non-respondents had differed significantly from the respondents,
but the authors and project board are confident that the non-responding
organisations would not have provided data that would have been significantly
different in qualitative terms”.
The profession of ‘Archaeologist’ is not legally Regulated in many countries (see
Archaeologists’ Countries of Origin below), and so for the purpose of this project,
‘Archaeologist’ was defined and justified as appropriate in each country. Definitions aimed
to be as broad as possible, and educational achievements were not automatically regarded
as being of primary importance in determining whether an individual can be regarded as an
archaeologist or not.
18
Partners were asked to present the estimated number of archaeologists in their country,
with an account of how confident they were in the estimated number (in terms of their
professional judgement, not as statistical confidence levels) and a note on whether this was
the number of ‘archaeologists’ or of ‘people working in archaeology’.
Estimated numbers of
professional archaeologists
United Kingdom
4,792
Germany
4,700
Italy
4,383
Greece
1,528
Netherlands
1,335
Austria
1,219
Poland
1,004
Portugal
862
Romania
858
Spain
796
Norway
641
Czech Republic
530
Flanders (Belgium)
483
Denmark
453
Ireland
338
Slovenia
257
Slovakia
224
Estonia
121
Cyprus
96
Bosnia & Herzegovina
60
Latvia
60
Total
24,740
Table 1: Total Numbers of Professional Archaeologists, 2012-14
Within the 21 participating countries, where nearly 25,000 archaeologists are in
employment, the largest estimated populations of archaeologists are in the United
Kingdom, Germany and Italy, with more than 4,000 individual archaeologists working in
each of these countries, while there are only estimated to be 60 archaeologists working in
either Latvia or Bosnia and Herzegovina.
These figures, combined with data from France (Salas-Rossenbach 2014) and best guesses
for other countries that were not part of the Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe 2014
project suggest that it could be cautiously estimated that there were approximately 33,000
professional archaeologists in Europe at any given time in the period 2012-14.
Comparing the estimated numbers of archaeologists with the total national populations
gives an indication of archaeologists’ significance within the working population (Table 2:
19
Estimated Archaeologists as Percentage of Population, below. Relatively, the highest
‘density’ of archaeologists within a national population is in Austria, but even in that country
only one in every 6,750 people is an archaeologist.
Estimated
Professional
Archaeologists
Total
Population1
% of Total
Population
United Kingdom
4,792
63,700,000
0.008%
Germany
4,700
81,000,000
0.006%
Italy
4,383
61,700,000
0.007%
Greece
1,528
10,800,000
0.014%
Netherlands
1,335
16,900,000
0.008%
Austria
1,219
8,200,000
0.015%
Poland
1,004
38,300,000
0.003%
Portugal
862
10,800,000
0.008%
Romania
858
21,700,000
0.004%
Spain
796
47,700,000
0.002%
Norway
641
5,100,000
0.013%
Czech Republic
530
10,600,000
0.005%
Flanders (Belgium)
483
6,400,0002
0.008%
Denmark
453
5,600,000
0.008%
Ireland
338
4,800,000
0.007%
Slovenia
257
2,000,000
0.013%
Slovakia
224
5,400,000
0.004%
Estonia
121
1,300,000
0.009%
Cyprus
96
1,200,000
0.008%
Bosnia & Herzegovina
60
3,900,000
0.002%
Latvia
60
2,200,000
0.003%
Total
24,740
409,300,000
0.006%
Table 2: Estimated Archaeologists as Percentage of Populations
An alternative approach used to obtain an indication of the importance of archaeologists
within countries has been to compare the relative numbers of archaeologists with the Gross
Domestic Product for each country gives an indication of whether more economically active
countries need to have more archaeologists. Table 3: Total Estimated Numbers of
Archaeologists and Gross Domestic Product, below, shows that there is a level of correlation
more archaeologists work in richer countries but it is not an absolute equation, as other
factors will also influence this (eg Greece, the 11th richest country by GDP of the 21
examined, but with the 4th largest estimated population of professional archaeologists.
1
Population data from CIA World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
2
Flanders population calculated from in Belgium CIA World Factbook population;
http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/modules/publications/statistiques/bevolking/bevolking_-_cijfers_bevolking_2010_-
_2012.jsp states Flanders is 6.4m, 57.5% of Belgian population
20
Estimated
professional
archaeologists
Gross Domestic
Product ($US)3
Estimated
archaeologists
population rank /
GDP rank
United Kingdom
4,792
$2.49 trillion
1 / 2
Germany
4,700
$3.59 trillion
2 / 1
Italy
4,383
$2.07 trillion
3 / 3
Greece
1,528
$243.3 billion
4 / 11
Netherlands
1,335
$722.3 billion
5 / 5
Austria
1,219
$417.9 billion
6 / 8
Poland
1,004
$513.9 billion
7 / 7
Portugal
862
$219.3 billion
8 / 13
Romania
858
$188.9 billion
9 / 15
Spain
796
$1.356 trillion
10 / 4
Norway
641
$515.8 billion
11 / 6
Czech Republic
530
$194.8 billion
12 / 14
Flanders (Belgium)
483
$291.7 billion4
13 / 10
Denmark
453
$324.3 billion
14 / 9
Ireland
338
$220.9 billion
15 / 12
Slovenia
257
$46.82 billion
16 / 17
Slovakia
224
$96.96 billion
17 / 16
Estonia
121
$24.28 billion
18 / 19
Cyprus
96
$21.78 billion
19 / 20
Latvia
60
$30.38 billion
=20 / 18
Bosnia & Herzegovina
60
$18.87 billion
=20 / 21
Total
24,740
Table 3: Total Estimated Numbers of Archaeologists and Gross Domestic Product
Total Numbers of Archaeologists Change over Time
Previous estimated figures for the total numbers of working archaeologists are available for
13 countries (Table 4: Total Estimated Numbers of Archaeologists - change over time),
although in 2006-08, data were collected for the whole of Belgium, rather than for Flanders
alone as in 2012-14, and the Bosnia & Herzegovinian and Spanish data were collected in
2009. The major difference in the German figures is considered to relate more to changes of
3
GDP data Official Exchange Rates, 2013 (est) from CIA World Factbook
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
4
Flanders GDP is CIA Belgium figure; recalculated at 57.5% of CIA figure
21
methodology than an actual change at this scale in the total numbers of individual
professional archaeologists.
Across the thirteen countries for which comparable data exist, the total number of
archaeologists in work has fallen by 11%, with major falls in Ireland, Spain and the United
Kingdom, all of which can be directly attributed to the effects of the economic changes of
the previous five or six years.
2006-08
2012-14
change
Austria
743
1,219
+476
+64%
Flanders (Belgium)
765
483
-282
-37%
Bosnia & Herzegovina5
30
60
+30
+100%
Cyprus
52
96
+44
+85%
Czech Republic
425
530
+105
+25%
Germany
2,500
4,700
+2,200
+88%
Greece
1,856
1,528
-328
-18%
Spain6
2,358
796
-1,562
-66%
Ireland
1,709
338
-1,371
-80%
Netherlands
761
1,335
+574
+75%
Slovenia
175
257
+82
+47%
Slovakia
186
224
+38
+20%
United Kingdom
6,865
4,792
-2,073
-30%
Total
18,425
16,358
-2,067
-11%
Table 4: Total Estimated Numbers of Archaeologists - change over time
5
Bosnia & Herzegovina 2009 figure (Lawler 2010, 8)
6
Spain 2009 figure (Parga-Dans & Varela-Pousa 2014, 8)
22
Past Numbers of Archaeologists
Partners sought data that answered whether “Were more or fewer people employed in
archaeology one year ago, three years ago and five years ago?
Most partners gathered these data by asking employers whether more or fewer people had
been employed by them at these points in the past. The figures presented in Table 5: Past
Sizes of Organisations, below are calculated from the number of organisations in each
country reporting that they had more employees five, three or one year previously minus
the number that had less employees, as a percentage of all responses received. Positive
figures equate to growth over time, so a figure of 100% would mean that 100% of
organisations in that country had grown since the period that the data refer to.
5 years before
3 years before
1 year before
Austria
16%
16%
21%
Bosnia & Herzegovina
no data
Flanders (Belgium)
-31%
-23%
21%
Cyprus
6%
-22%
-67%
Czech Republic
15%
6%
0%
Germany
18%
10%
11%
Denmark
-20%
-20%
-60%
Estonia
no data
Greece
-25%
-25%
0%
Spain
-63%
-61%
-40%
Ireland
18%
6%
0%
Italy
no data
Latvia
Netherlands
18%
no data
-1%
Norway
56%
44%
24%
Poland
no data
Portugal
Romania
-19%
-24%
0%
Slovenia
11%
14%
0%
Slovakia
-6%
-6%
-8%
United Kingdom
-23%
-6%
-3%
Total
-13%
-14%
-9%
n=
746
680
777
Table 5: Past Sizes of Organisations
Across Europe, organisations have become smaller; the aggregate figures show that
organisations were typically smaller when they were polled than they had been one, three
or five years before.
23
The figures from Spain are the most negative, although Denmark has also reported
significant proportions of organisations becoming smaller over this period. By contrast, the
figures from Norway show that archaeological organisations have grown over that period.
It is also noticeable that in Ireland, where there has been a serious reduction in the total
population of individual archaeologists (see Table 4: Total Estimated Numbers of
Archaeologists - change over time), and where many businesses were forced to cease
trading, those that are still operating tend to report that they are now seeing growth over
the previous few years.
Past Numbers of Archaeologists Change Over Time
In almost all participating states, archaeology had recently expanded in 2006-08, with
exceptions being Austria and Germany, and to a lesser extent Slovenia, where significant
growth had been seen over five years although this had slowed in the year prior to the
study, and in Greece.
As shown in Table 6: Past Numbers of Archaeologists - change over time, below, the
changed economic situation is very clear as the retrospective picture is much more negative
(figures below zero mean that a net number of organisations have become smaller over the
time period being examined) from the viewpoint of 2012-14 than it was in 2006-08.
2006-08
2012-14
5 years
before
3 years
before
1 year
before
5 years
before
3 years
before
1 year
before
Austria
-18%
-22%
-14%
16%
16%
21%
Flanders (Belgium)
+24%
+16%
+5%
-31%
-23%
21%
Cyprus
+23%
+29%
+29%
6%
-22%
-67%
Czech Republic
+30%
+23%
+6%
15%
6%
0%
Germany
+8%
0%
-2%
18%
10%
11%
Greece
+11%
+2%
-10%
-25%
-25%
0%
Ireland
+39%
+32%
+21%
18%
6%
0%
Netherlands
+61%
+54%
+36%
18%
no data
-1%
Slovenia
+45%
+4%
-4%
11%
14%
0%
Slovakia
+20%
+11%
+2%
-6%
-6%
-8%
United Kingdom
+18%
+17%
+10%
-23%
-6%
-3%
Table 6: Past Numbers of Archaeologists - change over time
24
Future Numbers of Archaeologists
Employers’ future outlooks were examined by asking “Is it expected that more or fewer
people will be employed in archaeology next year and in three years time?
The figures presented in Table 7: Future Sizes of Organisations, below are calculated from
the number of organisations in each country reporting whether they anticipate having more
employees one or three years in the future, minus the number that expect less employees,
as a percentage of all responses received. Positive figures equate to growth over time, so a
figure of 100% would mean that 100% of organisations in that country expect to grow over
the period that the data refer to.
1 year in the
future
3 years in the
future
Austria
-11%
11%
Bosnia & Herzegovina
40%
75%
Flanders (Belgium)
0%
23%
Cyprus
-33%
-6%
Czech Republic
14%
10%
Germany
-19%
-27%
Denmark
20%
20%
Estonia
no data
Greece
-8%
-17%
Spain
-18%
9%
Ireland
13%
13%
Italy
no data
Latvia
no data
Netherlands
-4%
1%
Norway
21%
6%
Poland
no data
Portugal
no data
Romania
0%
8%
Slovenia
-14%
2%
Slovakia
17%
15%
United Kingdom
4%
9%
Total
-2%
7%
n=
750
741
Table 7: Future Sizes of Organisations
Overall, slightly more (net 2%) employing organisations expect to become smaller in the
year after they were surveyed than expect to grow, although organisations are more
optimistic for three years in the future. The responses from Bosnia & Herzegovina are
25
particularly positive, although this was a small sample, while the responses from Germany
are the least optimistic.
Future Numbers of Archaeologists Change Over Time
Opinions formed in 2007-08 (the typical dates of returns to the predecessor project) were
formed by the ongoing positive nature of the global and European economies; the economic
transformation that would begin in 2008 had not yet begun to affect respondents.
Employers had much less positive expectations for future growth in 2012-14 than they held
in 2006-08, reflecting the change in sentiment from what was still an ongoing period of
growth and expansion for the sector, before the global economic transformation of 2008
and subsequent economic crises. The more circumspect expectations reported in 2012-14
will have been shaped by the experience of the economic changes that took place in the
previous six years (and that continue to take place in some countries).
2006-08
2012-14
1 year in the
future
3 years in the
future
1 year in the
future
3 years in the
future
Austria
+4%
-3%
-11%
+11%
Flanders (Belgium)
+3%
+12%
0%
+23%
Cyprus
+33%
+33%
-33%
-6%
Czech Republic
+11%
+21%
14%
10%
Germany
-2%
-12%
-19%
-27%
Greece
+2%
+39%
-8%
-17%
Ireland
+26%
+42%
+13%
+13%
Netherlands
+27%
+38%
-4%
+1%
Slovenia
+13%
+32%
-14%
+2%
Slovakia
+9%
+3%
+17%
+15%
United Kingdom
+14%
+26%
4%
9%
Table 8: Future Sizes of Organisations change over time
26
Archaeologists’ Ages and Genders
Partners collected data on the age and gender of individuals working in archaeology,
identifying ages in ten-year bands, <20 years old, 2029, 30–39 etc, then ‘60 and over’.
These are actual, reported rather than estimated figures.
<20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
>=60
f
m
f
m
f
m
f
m
f
m
f
m
Austria
0
0
30
20
34
37
48
58
25
41
5
10
Bosnia & Herzegovina
0
0
47
55
76
96
22
44
17
59
2
6
Flanders (Belgium)
0
0
1
5
6
0
2
2
2
0
0
2
Cyprus
0
0
17
4
28
13
8
8
9
3
4
2
Czech Republic
0
0
62
58
83
151
58
69
53
61
38
39
Germany
2
1
59
42
68
74
81
110
64
113
13
34
Denmark
0
0
0
0
9
9
13
5
8
9
2
4
Estonia
0
0
22
9
12
11
8
3
0
4
0
2
Greece
0
0
24
12
190
46
178
58
45
17
4
4
Spain
3
7
51
36
151
248
75
83
15
17
1
1
Ireland
0
2
9
2
35
38
15
24
10
7
4
3
Italy
0
0
114
42
273
96
58
41
33
17
14
7
Latvia
0
0
6
1
2
2
1
5
3
3
2
4
Netherlands
0
0
37
22
94
44
26
22
7
8
7
6
Norway
0
0
21
14
76
107
67
78
35
86
33
85
Poland
0
0
26
12
43
21
22
5
5
4
0
1
Portugal
0
0
11
10
19
39
10
21
4
5
0
4
Romania
0
0
4
2
16
7
12
7
5
5
1
1
Slovenia
0
0
21
9
36
65
9
17
14
17
6
23
Slovakia
0
1
27
23
93
83
52
88
49
91
15
38
UK
0
0
74
20
149
130
97
155
61
109
19
35
Total
5
11
589
378
1344
1187
765
748
403
567
151
276
Table 9: Archaeologists’ Ages and Genders
As Figure 1: Archaeologists’ Age Distributions (below) shows, when examined by 10-year
age bands, the largest group of archaeologists are those aged in their 30s, followed by those
aged in their 40s. There are almost exactly the same numbers of working archaeologists
aged in their 20s as in their 50s.
27
Figure 1: Archaeologists’ Age Distributions
On average, professional archaeologists in Europe at the time of the survey were aged 40.3
years; female archaeologists were 38.9 years old (on average), and male archaeologists
41.8.
A slight majority of archaeologists, across the whole set of 21 survey populations, were
women. 50.7% of European professional archaeologists are women and 49.3% men.
Distributions vary by country (Figure 2: Archaeologists’ Genders, below) the highest
proportions of women were in Greece 76.3%, Italy - 70.8%, Portugal 69.1% and Cyprus
68.8%, while the countries with the highest proportions of men in the archaeological
workforce were Romania 64.2%, Poland 61.5%, Bosnia & Herzegovina 61.3% and
Slovakia 60.4%.
28
Figure 2: Archaeologists’ Genders
29
Archaeologists’ Ages and Genders Change Over Time
The 2006-08 data presented results in terms of age separately from gender.
2006-08
2012-14
<20
89
1.1%
16
0.3%
20-29
2,053
24.8%
967
15.1%
30-39
2,522
30.4%
2,531
39.4%
40-49
1,899
22.9%
1,513
23.5%
50-59
1,285
15.5%
970
15.1%
>=60
442
5.3%
427
6.7%
n=
8,290
6,424
Table 10: Archaeologists’ Ages changes over time
Figure 3: Archaeologists’ Ages changes over time
The average age of all working archaeologists in Europe in 2012-14 was 40.3 years; six years
earlier, the equivalent figure was 38.7 years. So the archaeological population as a whole
has aged, with decreases in the proportion of the population aged under 30, a marked
increase in the population aged in their 30s, and an increase in the proportion aged 40-49.
The relative proportion aged in their 50s has fallen slightly, and those aged in their 60s has
risen slightly, but the biggest transformation has been in which two age bands are the
largest; in 2006-08, it was archaeologists aged in their 20s and 30s in 2012-14, it is those
aged in their 30s and 40s.
30
In light of the loss of significant numbers of posts over this period, these data can be
interpreted to suggest that less young people have entered the profession, and those
individuals that were working in it six years earlier are likely to still be there so the
profession as a whole has aged, as the individual archaeologists have aged in their jobs. As
well as a reduction in the number of posts, there has been a reduction of ‘churn’ of new
people coming in as more senior people leave.
2006-08
2012-14
Female
4,183
45.9%
3,257
50.7%
Male
4,926
54.1%
3,167
49.3%
n=
9,109
6,424
Table 11: Archaeologists’ Genders change over time
In 2006-08, the majority of archaeologists were men, and this was the case in most of the
participating countries. In 2012-14, there was a small majority of female archaeologists.
Women now make up the majority of the archaeological working population in most of the
countries surveyed, and, by age profile, this is a trend that is likely to continue, as much
larger majorities of archaeologists aged in their 20s and 30s are women.
31
The Disability Statuses of Archaeologists
Data were obtained for the actual number of disabled individuals reported to the survey,
the total number of people for whom this information was provided, and the total number
of people covered by each national survey - eg ‘the survey gave information about 1000
archaeologists, but the disability question was only answered for 800 archaeologists, of
whom 20 were disabled’.
Partners were also asked to provide any relevant information about employment of
disabled people in their country, or the way that disability is defined in their country. Data
were not available in all countries.
Disabled
Able
Disabled %
Able %
Austria
3
737
0.4%
99.6%
Bosnia & Herzegovina
0
24
0.0%
100.0%
Flanders (Belgium)
No data available
Cyprus
1
95
1.0%
99.0%
Czech Republic7
1
372
0.3%
99.7%
Germany
No data available
Denmark
0
61
0.0%
100.0%
Estonia
No data available
Greece
0
274
0.0%
100.0%
Spain
3
704
0.4%
99.6%
Ireland
3
127
2.3%
97.7%
Italy
7
688
1.0%
99.0%
Latvia
0
29
0.0%
100.0%
Norway
1
124
0.8%
99.2%
Poland
3
907
0.3%
99.7%
Portugal
No data available
Romania
3
121
2.4%
97.6%
Slovenia
0
60
0.0%
100.0%
Slovakia
1
223
0.4%
99.6%
Netherlands
26
493
5.0%
95.0%
United Kingdom
14
785
1.8%
98.2%
Total
66
5,824
1.1%
98.9%
Table 12: Disability Statuses of Archaeologists
Across Europe, very few archaeologists are disabled; in total, data were gathered for 5,890
individuals, of whom 1.1% were disabled. Different countries use different criteria for
identifying whether a worked is disabled, which may have contributed to the range of
responses (5.0% of Dutch archaeologists were considered to be disabled, but no Danish,
Greek, Latvian or Slovenian archaeologists were). Overall, this suggests that disabled people
may be excluded from working in the archaeological sector in many countries.
7
Czech Republic data for people with “altered working abilities
32
The Disability Statuses of Archaeologists Change Over Time
2012-14
2006-08
Disabled
Able
Disabled %
Disabled
Able
Disabled %
Austria
3
737
0.4%
3
479
0.6%
Cyprus
1
95
1.0%
2
475
0.4%
Czech Republic
1
372
0.3%
11
663
1.7%
Greece
0
274
0.0%
5
735
0.7%
Ireland
3
127
2.3%
3
796
0.3%
Netherlands
26
493
5.0%
0
499
0.0%
Slovenia
0
60
0.0%
5
292
1.7%
Slovakia
1
223
0.4%
0
126
0.0%
United Kingdom
14
785
1.8%
38
2,635
1.6%
Total
66
5,824
1.1%
122
7,946
1.5%
Table 13: Disability Status of Archaeologists change over time
Over the six years between the two Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe projects, the
relative proportions of disabled members of the archaeological workforce has decreased
further from an extremely low base (1.5% in 2006-08 to 1.1% in 2012-14). Overall it can be
seen that disabled people are still under-represented in the archaeological workforce.
33
Archaeologists’ Countries of Origin
As shown in Table 14: Countries of Origin, below, movement between countries is relatively
low in professional archaeology; across all 21 participating countries, 93.6% of
archaeologists are nationals of the country that they are working in, and in only three
countries are more than 10% of professional archaeologists not from that country. Of those
three, there are relatively high numbers of Germans working in Austria and of Greeks
working in Cyprus. The very high number of individuals identified as being non-national in
Bosnia & Herzegovina can be largely explained by the questionnaire asking about
individuals’ to self-identify their country of birth and as most (if not all) respondents were
born before the foundation of Bosnia & Herzegovina as an independent country, this has
affected the results considerably.
National
EU
non-EU Europe /
other
Austria
285
74.8%
89
23.4%
7
1.8%
Bosnia & Herzegovina
12
42.9%
5
17.9%
11
39.3%
Flanders
292
92.7%
19
6.0%
4
1.3%
Cyprus
74
77.1%
21
21.9%
1
1.0%
Czech Republic
361
96.8%
8
2.1%
4
1.1%
Germany
771
90.4%
77
9.0%
5
0.6%
Denmark
56
94.9%
3
5.1%
0
0.0%
Estonia
69
95.8%
0
0.0%
3
4.2%
Greece
241
99.6%
1
0.4%
0
0.0%
Spain
679
96.4%
9
1.3%
16
2.3%
Ireland
121
83.4%
22
15.2%
2
1.4%
Latvia
689
99.1%
4
0.6%
2
0.3%
Italy
29
100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Netherlands
479
92.3%
33
6.4%
7
1.3%
Norway
255
90.7%
21
7.5%
5
1.8%
Poland
904
99.2%
4
0.4%
3
0.3%
Portugal
545
95.3%
17
3.0%
10
1.7%
Romania
114
93.4%
8
6.6%
0
0.0%
Slovenia
57
95.0%
3
5.0%
0
0.0%
Slovakia
292
99.3%
2
0.7%
0
0.0%
UK
803
92.5%
30
3.5%
35
4.0%
Total
7,128
93.6%
376
4.9%
115
1.5%
Table 14: Countries of Origin
Article 45 of the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (European Union, 2012) establishes the rights of individual workers to freely move
and work within the member states of the European Union. Two of the participating
countries in Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe 2014 are outside the EU (Norway and
Bosnia & Herzegovina), but in theory there should be no legal barriers preventing individuals
that are citizens of member states from moving transnationally within the Union.
34
Archaeology is not a “Regulated Profession” in most European states, being listed on the
European Commission’s Regulated Professions Database
8
as being regulated in only the
Czech Republic, Greece, Ireland, Poland and Slovakia, where there might be legal barriers to
practice (although these would have to be based on professional qualifications and/or
language skills rather than nationality).
Archaeologists’ Countries of Origin – Change Over Time
Over the six years since the previous project, the proportion of archaeologists who are not
working in their own national country has fallen transnational mobility has decreased.
In 2006-08, 8% of archaeologists were either nationals of other EU states or of other
countries; this had fallen to 6% by 2012-14 (Table 15: Countries of Origin change over
time).
2006-08
2012-14
national
EU
other
national
EU
other
Austria
433
90%
37
8%
9
2%
285
75%
89
23%
7
2%
Flanders (Belgium)
121
98%
3
2%
0
0%
292
93%
19
6%
4
1%
Cyprus
41
79%
9
15%
2
4%
74
77%
21
22%
1
1%
Czech Republic
306
98%
7
2%
0
0%
361
97%
8
2%
4
1%
Germany
1773
95%
56
3%
29
2%
771
90%
77
9.%
5
1%
Greece
1560
99%
8
1%
2
<1%
241
97%
1
<1%
0
0%
Ireland
269
55%
202
42%
14
3%
121
83%
22
15%
2
1%
Netherlands
476
95%
16
3%
7
1%
479
93%
33
6%
7
1%
Slovenia
120
95%
6
5%
0
0%
57
95%
3
5%
0
0%
Slovakia
171
98%
2
1%
1
1%
292
99%
2
1%
0
0%
UK
2342
93%
130
5%
49
2%
803
93%
30
3%
35
4%
Total
8085
92%
501
6%
123
1%
7128
94%
376
5%
115
2%
Table 15: Countries of Origin change over time
The countries that had previously had the highest proportions of non-national workers
(Ireland 45% and Cyprus 21%) still had relatively high proportions of archaeologists from
other countries working there (Ireland 17%, Cyprus 23%), but the country with the
highest proportion of archaeologists from other countries was now Austria (25%). The
Austrian figure can be largely explained by the cultural and linguistic ease of movement
from neighbouring Germany (and adjacent German-speaking South Tyrol, in Italy). The
remarkable decline of the Irish figure is strongly linked to the economic changes; where
previously, there had been so many well-paid fieldwork jobs that people had actively moved
there to take them up, those jobs had largely disappeared, and with that much of the
mobile workforce.
8
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/regprof/
35
The three countries with the lowest levels of inward mobility in 2006-08 (Greece 1%,
Slovakia 2%, Czech Republic 2%) continued to be in that position in 2012-14, with some
slight variations in the overall percentages. Notably, in 2006-08 Belgium also only reported
2% non-national workers; in 2012-14, 7% of archaeologists in Flanders were from not
Belgian.
36
Qualifications
Partners identified the highest qualification obtained by individuals, to include post-doctoral
level Habilitation or equivalent, identifying whether this qualification was obtained a) in the
partner country, b) in another European country, or c) elsewhere.
Overall, archaeology has a very highly qualified workforce, with 94% of archaeologists being
graduates.
School
U/g Degree
Masters
PhD
Post-Doc
Austria
7.0%
3.0%
32.7%
37.6%
19.7%
Bosnia & Herzegovina
6.9%
27.6%
55.2%
6.9%
3.4%
Flanders
17.4%
7.0%
61.4%
14.2%
0.0%
Cyprus
0.0%
16.8%
43.2%
32.6%
7.4%
Czech Republic
2.9%
3.4%
62.6%
22.6%
8.6%
Germany
27.2%
11.8%
36.4%
22.1%
2.5%
Denmark
0.0%
0.0%
63.2%
36.8%
0.0%
Estonia
12.3%
30.1%
41.1%
16.4%
0.0%
Greece
0.0%
49.0%
30.4%
20.5%
0.1%
Spain9
17.3%
66.0%
0.0%
16.6%
0.0%
Ireland
1.4%
38.9%
43.1%
9.7%
6.9%
Latvia
0.0%
3.4%
58.6%
37.9%
0.0%
Italy
0.0%
6.4%
71.3%
16.0%
6.4%
Netherlands
3.3%
12.6%
73.2%
10.9%
0.0%
Norway
0.0%
6.6%
85.1%
8.3%
0.0%
Poland
0.1%
0.2%
53.6%
28.4%
17.6%
Portugal
0.0%
47.1%
40.6%
12.3%
0.0%
Romania
0.0%
2.4%
36.3%
60.5%
0.8%
Slovenia
10.0%
45.0%
20.0%
25.0%
0.0%
Slovakia
0.0%
0.5%
58.6%
32.3%
8.6%
UK
5.8%
48.6%
26.5%
18.6%
0.5%
Total
6.0%
25.0%
43.2%
20.9%
4.9%
Table 16: Highest Qualifications Held
9
Spain data for "university qualification" - no distinction between undergraduate and masters degrees
37
Figure 4: Highest Qualifications Held
Data were also sought on where highest qualifications were obtained (as an alternative
indicator of mobility, and to identify where training was being sought outside the countries
involved, and so to potentially stimulate VET providers in those countries. Not all partners
were able to provide these data.
national
EU
other
Austria
401
86.6%
61
13.2%
1
0.2%
463
Bosnia & Herzegovina
10
38.5%
9
34.6%
7
26.9%
26
Cyprus
18
18.8%
74
77.1%
4
4.2%
96
Czech Republic
367
98.4%
5
1.3%
1
0.3%
373
Germany
221
96.9%
5
2.2%
2
0.9%
228
Denmark
54.5
92.4%
4.5
7.6%
0
0.0%
59
Ireland
105
73.9%
28
19.7%
9
6.3%
142
Latvia
27
93.1%
2
6.9%
0
0.0%
29
Poland
724
98.8%
8
1.1%
1
0.1%
733
Romania
110
93.2%
5
4.2%
3
2.5%
118
total
2037.5
89.9%
201.5
8.9%
28
1.2%
2267
Table 17: Where Highest Qualifications Obtained
In total, 90% of archaeologists gained their highest qualifications in their home country, 9%
elsewhere in the EU and 1% in another country. The only countries where a minority of
practitioners had qualified in that country were Bosnia & Herzegovina and Cyprus; in both of
these countries, the establishment (or re-establishment) of higher education has happened
relatively recently, and so some archaeologists would not have had the opportunity to
complete their education in their own country at that time.
38
Overall, a higher proportion of archaeologists gained their highest qualification outside their
own country than are working in other countries, suggesting educational mobility is more
common in this sector than mobility of labour.
Qualifications Change Over Time
By comparing the data reported in the predecessor report (Aitchison 2009) with the data
captured in this project, the relative percentages of individual archaeologists who have
attained particular levels of qualifications can be calculated for the eleven countries where
both datasets exist (and comparing the total figures presented in the two reports).
School
U/g Degree
Masters
PhD
Post-Doc
Austria
-41%
2%
10%
16%
14%
Flanders (Belgium)
17%
7%
-26%
1%
0%
Cyprus
0%
9%
-1%
-15%
7%
Czech Republic
1%
-1%
-7%
7%
1%
Germany
-18%
7%
11%
2%
-3%
Greece
0%
-4%
1%
4%
-1%
Ireland
-19%
0%
6%
7%
6%
Netherlands
-3%
12%
23%
-32%
0%
Slovenia
-2%
-9%
6%
7%
-2%
Slovakia
0%
-1%
-3%
10%
-6%
United Kingdom
2%
-6%
-3%
8%
-1%
Total
-7%
-7%
6%
5%
3%
Table 18: Qualifications change over time
In total, it can be seen that archaeologists have typically become more highly qualified over
the six years since the predecessor project. More archaeologists are graduates, and there is
an overall increase in the percentage that hold post-graduate qualifications as their highest
levels of achievement. This change is most marked in Austria (where previously a high
percentage of archaeologists were not graduates) and in Ireland, while in only Flanders
(comparing with all of Belgium in 2006-08) and Cyprus are there relatively less
postgraduates.
39
Salaries
Data on gross (tax included) annual salaries were collected for full-time archaeologists.
The range of average salaries, when ranked by countries, is remarkable on average, an
archaeologist in Denmark earns more than nine times as much as an archaeologist working
in Bosnia & Herzegovina does. Overall, the average salary earned by an archaeologist across
the 21 countries is €24,901; this figure is higher than the average earned in 12 of the
participating countries.
Overall, average archaeological salaries are highest in the participating Scandinavian
countries and in north-western Europe (plus Cyprus); they are lowest in central, south-
eastern and Baltic countries.
Average
archaeological salary
National average (all
occupations)
Archaeological as % of
national avg. salary
Denmark
€ 56,916.00
€ 51,029.30
111.5%
Norway
€ 53,478.31
€ 59,369.77
90.1%
Cyprus
€ 39,593.00
€ 29,796.00
132.9%
Netherlands
€ 38,941.00
€ 35,800.00
108.8%
Ireland
€ 36,450.00
€ 35,970.00
101.3%
UK
€ 34,182.57
€ 40,187.32
85.1%
Flanders (Belgium)
£ 30,804.00
€ 37,596.00
81.9%
Germany
€ 30,669.60
€ 35,233.00
87.0%
Austria
€ 27,092.00
€ 24,843.00
109.1%
average of all
€ 24,901.30
Greece
€ 22,389.96
£ 19,807.00
113.0%
Slovenia
£ 19,284.96
€ 18,313.32
105.3%
Spain
€ 15,483.33
€ 22,726.00
68.1%
Portugal
€ 12,500.00
€ 15,900.00
78.6%
Estonia
€ 11,065.00
€ 11,376.00
97.3%
Czech Republic
€ 10,819.26
€ 12,045.38
89.8%
Italy
€ 10,687.00
€ 18,000.00
59.4%
Slovakia
9,262.00
€ 11,196.00
82.7%
Romania
€ 7,012.44
€ 6,196.80
113.2%
Poland
€ 6,972.00
€ 10,770.00
64.7%
Latvia
€ 6,402.92
€ 8,580.00
74.6%
Bosnia & Herzegovina
€ 6,289.00
€ 5,074.00
123.9%
Table 19: Average Salaries in Archaeology and National Averages for all Occupations
10
In general, the geographical distribution of salary averages matches reasonably closely to
national average salary figures for all occupations; the highest paid archaeologists (in
Denmark and Norway) are working in the two participating countries with the highest
10
Ordered by average archaeological salary
40
national average salaries for all occupations, and the lowest-paid archaeologists (in Bosnia &
Herzegovina) are working in the country with the lowest overall average salary figure.
As shown in Table 19 and
Figure 5, archaeologists are typically paid less than national averages for all occupations; in
only nine countries are archaeologists more generously rewarded than the national average.
The most striking outliers are in Cyprus, where archaeologists are paid considerably more
than the national average, and in Italy, Poland and Spain where they are paid considerably
less. Notably, in Bosnia and Herzegovina where archaeologists are more poorly paid than in
any other country (in absolute terms), in comparison with the national average, they are
more highly paid than in any country except Cyprus.
-
10,000.00
20,000.00
30,000.00
40,000.00
50,000.00
60,000.00
70,000.00
IT PL ES LV PT BE SK UK DE CZ NO EE IE SI NL AT DK EL RO BA CY
archaeological
national
41
Figure 5: Comparison of Average Archaeological Salaries with National Averages
Salaries should be considered in terms of the nature of archaeological practice and the
number of jobs in each participating country in countries where there is a significant
private sector element, there are many jobs (eg United Kingdom, Italy, Spain), but salaries
are typically below the national norm (although this is not the case in the Netherlands or
Ireland). The reverse is also true in countries where the state plays a very significant role,
with Cyprus as the clear example there are few jobs, but they are very well rewarded.
The total amounts spent in each participating country on salaries can be easily calculated, by
multiplying the average salary in each by the estimated total number of archaeologists
working there. Using a tested rule-of-thumb that considers salary expenditure to typically
represent 60% of the costs of running an archaeological organisation (Hinton & Jennings
2007) therefore the total costs can be calculated as salaries multiplied by 1.67, these
figures can then be used to calculate the total cost of operating these organisations thus
the total amount spent (by whoever the funders of archaeological practice might be) on
archaeology in each participating country is presented in Table 20 with the total figure of
spent on archaeology in the 21 Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe 2014 countries
being estimated at slightly more than one billion Euro per annum.
Estimated
individuals
Avg. salary
Aggregate
salary cost
Expenditure (=
salaries*1.67)
United Kingdom
4,792
€ 34,183
163,802,875
€ 273,004,792
Germany
4,700
€ 30,670
€ 144,147,120
€ 240,245,200
Netherlands
1,335
€ 38,941
€ 51,986,235
€ 86,643,725
Italy
4,383
€ 10,687
€ 46,841,121
€ 78,068,535
Norway
641
€ 53,478
€ 34,279,597
57,132,661
-
10,000.00
20,000.00
30,000.00
40,000.00
50,000.00
60,000.00
70,000.00
IT PL ES LV PT BE SK UK DE CZ NO EE IE SI NL AT DK EL RO BA CY
archaeological
national
42
Greece
1,528
€ 22,390
€ 34,211,859
€ 57,019,765
Austria
1,219
€ 27,092
€ 33,025,148
€ 55,041,913
Denmark
453
€ 56,916
€ 25,782,948
€ 42,971,580
Flanders (Belgium)
483
€ 30,804
€ 14,878,332
€ 24,797,220
Spain
796
15,483
€ 12,324,731
€ 20,541,218
Ireland
338
€ 36,450
€ 12,320,100
€ 20,533,500
Portugal
862
€ 12,500
€ 10,775,000
€ 17,958,333
Poland
1,004
€ 6,972
€ 6,999,888
€ 11,666,480
Romania
858
€ 7,012
€ 6,016,674
€ 10,027,789
Czech Republic
530
€ 10,819
€ 5,734,208
€ 9,557,013
Slovenia
257
€ 19,285
€ 4,956,235
€ 8,260,391
Cyprus
96
€ 39,593
€ 3,800,928
€ 6,334,880
Slovakia
224
€ 9,262
€ 2,074,688
€ 3,457,813
Estonia
121
€ 11,065
€ 1,338,865
€ 2,231,442
Latvia
60
€ 6,403
€ 384,175
€ 640,292
Bosnia & Herzegovina
60
€ 6,289
€ 377,340
€ 628,900
total
24,740
€ 616,058,066
€ 1,026,763,443
Table 20: Aggregate Salaries and Total Expenditure
Salaries Change Over Time
In absolute terms, archaeological salaries in Europe across all sample countries (21 in 2012-
14, 11 in 2006-08) have fallen; this is primarily explained by archaeologists in the majority of
the countries that were newly surveyed in 2012-14 that had not been part of the 2006-08
project (eight of the ten ‘new’ countries - Bosnia & Herzegovina, Latvia, Estonia, Romania,
Spain, Portugal, Italy, Poland) being relatively poorly paid in comparison with their peers in
other states.
43
Country
Avg salary for
archaeologists
(2006-08)
Avg salary for
archaeologists
(2012-14)
change
Avg
archaeological
salary
% of
national avg
(2006-08)
Avg
archaeological
salary
% of
national avg
(2012-14)
change
Austria
31,518
€ 27,092
-14%
122%
109%
-13%
Flanders
(Belgium)
28,819
£ 30,804
7%
104%
82%
-22%
Cyprus
40,656
€ 39,593
-3%
175%
130%
-45%
Czech
Republic
10,145
€ 10,819
7%
108%
90%
-18%
Germany
31,071
€ 30,670
-1%
108%
87%
-21%
Greece
28,925
€ 22,390
-23%
108%
113%
+5%
Ireland
37,680
€ 36,450
-3%
97%
101%
+4%
Slovakia
€ 6,030
€ 9,262
54%
83%
83%
0%
Slovenia
16,827
£ 19,285
15%
111%
105%
-6%
United
Kingdom
34,392
34,183
-1%
78%
85%
+7%
Avg. of all
participating
states
31,134
24,901
-20%
Table 21: Salaries - change over time
In the countries where comparable data exist, salaries have typically fallen, although they
have risen very notably in Slovakia and also in Slovenia, the Czech Republic and in Flanders.
In only three of the countries where comparable data are available have average
archaeological salaries risen when compared with national averages for all workers (UK,
Ireland and Greece); in Slovakia they have risen at the same rate, but in the other six
countries (Austria, Flanders, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany and Slovenia), archaeologists
are relatively poorer within their own countries than they were in 2006-08.
44
Contracts
Information was gathered about the kinds of contracts held by employed archaeologists;
this particularly related to whether people are on short-term, temporary (time-limited)
contracts or on permanent contracts.
This caused confusion for some partners between the issue of the length of contract and the
nature of the number of contracted hours (part-time or full-time).
Permanent
Limited
Permanent%
Limited%
Austria
60
84
41.7%
58.3%
Bosnia & Herzegovina
18
6
75.0%
25.0%
Flanders (Belgium)
193
89
68.4%
31.6%
Cyprus
69
25
73.4%
26.6%
Czech Republic
124
190
39.5%
60.5%
Germany
535
240
69.0%
31.0%
Denmark
47
10
82.5%
17.5%
Estonia
57
15
79.0%
21.0%
Greece
877
412
68.0%
32.0%
Spain
252
267
48.6%
51.4%
Ireland
65
41
61.3%
38.7%
Italy11
101
346
22.6%
77.4%
Latvia
25
2
92.6%
7.4%
Netherlands
326
71
82.1%
17.9%
Norway
274
847
24.4%
75.6%
Poland
873
19
97.9%
2.1%
Portugal
161
46
77.8%
22.2%
Romania
89
32
73.6%
26.4%
Slovenia
50
74
40.0%
60.0%
Slovakia
167
21
88.8%
11.2%
UK
676
150
81.9%
18.1%
Total
5,038
2,987
62.8%
37.2%
Table 22: Archaeologists' Contract Lengths
Across Europe, approximately two-thirds of archaeologists work on permanent (or “open-
ended) contracts; the other third work on temporary or time-limited contracts.
Permanent contracts are almost universal in Poland (97.9%) and Latvia (92.6%); in contrast,
the majority of archaeologists in Austria, Czech Republic, Spain, Italy, Norway and Slovenia
are employed on time-limited contracts; Italian and Norwegian archaeologists have
particularly limited job security, as in both of those countries over 75% of archaeologists
work under such contracts.
11
Italian limited contract total includes “freelancers”
45
Contracts Change Over Time
These data were not universally collected in 2006-08, and so there are no time-series
datasets to illustrate change over time in this area.
46
Working Hours
Data were gathered on whether individuals were employed part-time or full-time, so
identifying whether archaeological work was the only source of income for individual
workers.
Full-time
Part-time
FT %
PT%
Austria
141
12
92.2%
7.8%
Bosnia & Herzegovina
77
2
97.5%
2.5%
Flanders
193
89
68.4%
31.6%
Cyprus
95
1
99.0%
1.0%
Czech Republic
243
130
65.1%
34.9%
Germany
625
454
57.9%
42.1%
Denmark
49
7
87.5%
12.5%
Estonia
53
19
73.6%
26.4%
Greece
253
21
92.3%
7.7%
Spain
434
85
83.6%
16.3%
Ireland
47
36
56.6%
43.4%
Italy
315
134
70.2%
29.8%
Latvia
28
1
96.6%
3.4%
Netherlands
184
189
49.3%
50.7%
Norway
386
35
91.7%
8.3%
Poland12
847
24
97.2%
2.8%
Portugal
183
1
99.5%
0.5%
Romania13
89
32
73.6%
26.4%
Slovenia
48
5
90.6%
9.4%
Slovakia14
167
21
88.8%
11.2%
UK
691
145.6
82.6%
17.4%
Total
5,148
1,443.6
78.1%
21.9%
Table 23: Full-time / Part-time Work
Three-quarters of professional archaeologists across the 21 countries studied work as full-
time archaeologists, but there is significant national variation. At one extreme, 99% of
Cypriot archaeologists work full-time, while at the other less than half of Dutch
archaeologists do so.
The effects of the financial crises have affected the working patterns in many sectors, in
many countries. It could be reasonable to interpret the relative decrease in full-time work in
archaeology as a response to the changing economic situation. It is also noticeable that this
has coincided with a trend towards women making up a larger part of the workforce, but it
12
Polish data for permanent positions only
13
In Romania, "Temporary contract (part-time)"
14
In Slovakia respondents could identify describing posts as permanent, temporary (FT), temporary (PT)
47
cannot be demonstrated that a more female workforce is a causal factor in the increase in
part-time positions not can the increase in part-time positions be demonstrated to be a
causal factor in the gender balance shift in the sector.
Working Hours Change Over Time
FT 2006-08
FT 2012-14
PT increase /
FT decrease
PT 2006-08
PT 2012-14
Austria
76%
92%
-16%
24%
8%
Flanders (Belgium)
90%
68%
+22%
10%
32%
Cyprus
95%
99%
-4%
5%
1%
Czech Republic
75%
65%
+10%
25%
35%
Germany
75%
58%
+17%
25%
42%
Greece
98%
92%
+6%
2%
8%
Ireland
97%
57%
+40%
3%
43%
Netherlands
73%
49%
+24%
27%
51%
Slovakia
87%
89%
-2%
13%
11%
Slovenia
98%
91%
+7%
2%
9%
United Kingdom
89%
83%
+6%
11%
17%
Total
86%
78%
+8%
14%
22%
Table 24: Full-time / Part-time Work - change over time
Over the six years since the predecessor project, it has become more common for
archaeologists across the eleven countries for which we have data from both this and the
predecessor study to work in part-time positions. Only in Austria, the Czech Republic and
Slovakia has the percentage of archaeologists in full-time (rather than part-time)
employment increased (it is perhaps significant to note that in all three of these countries,
the total number of archaeologists in work has increased over this period - see Table 4).
These data may be closely related to broader, societal economic changes, as the nature of
work has changed in the post- and ongoing-economic crisis period. It is also possible that
there is a correlation between the increase in the number of women working in archaeology
and the increase in part-time work, but this cannot be demonstrated statistically and
certainly cannot be considered to be causal.
48
Archaeological Employers (Organisations)
Partners provided “Data about the types of organisation operating in archaeology in country
by activity and organisational basis”.
Specifically, these were data about how organisations are constituted (eg part of national
government, part of local / municipal government, universities, private companies etc) and
what kind of work they do broken down into the categories of doing fieldwork, giving
advice, providing education, providing museum services.
These data cannot be presented in a transnational, tabulated form
It is clear that the sector is organised on different models, which manifest in variable
employment patterns exist within the sector across Europe.
However, these models are all fundamentally underpinned by structures that recognise
archaeological work as being something of public benefit, as seen by the stimulation of
archaeological work through the Environmental Impact Assessment process (above) (which
is then variably extended to other land-use change development), and by the requirements
of the Valletta Convention, above).
It is clear that across Europe, the majority of archaeologists undertake work that relates to
protecting archaeological heritage in the land-use development process. These people may
be undertaking fieldwork, and so recording archaeological deposits and materials, or they
may be involved in managing the process, interacting with the organisations that are
directly causing the land-use change (whether those organisations are public sector or
private bodies). What varies by country to country is how the organisations that the
archaeologists work for whether these are private sector organisations, working to
requirements set by state or local government agencies, or whether they too are state or
local government agencies. In some countries third sector, or NGO, bodies also play a role
but they essentially act as though they are commercialised, private-sector bodies.
The variation between countries (and in some case, between regions) is the degree to which
commercialisation is encouraged. The commercialised model is not one which is entirely
without state influence in terms of environmental economics, this is about requiring the
developers (those that are affecting the archaeological resource) to comply with legal
requirements. To do so, the developers have to pay (in some form) to mitigate for the
damage they are causing, and this will be accomplished either by redesign (minimising
damage) or by record (engaging archaeologists to undertake investigations and to curate
the results of those investigations). Whether the work is paid for directly by the developers
or whether it is paid for from the public purse, the fundamental nature of the work is
unchanged.
Models of archaeological delivery cannot be simplified into two ‘socialist’ and ‘capitalist’
models as Kristiansen (2009) suggests; the different models used can be imagined as being
49
plotted two dimensionally, with one axis representing funding source public to private
and the other representing the constitution of the delivery bodies again, public to private.
There are no countries where the only funders are private; the state is always ultimately a
‘client’ in every European country. Sometimes this is through the state commissioning
private enterprises to undertake work, and sometimes it is through the state engaging other
organisational arms of the state, or elements of local or regional government. In Denmark,
archaeological investigations are provided by public services (regional museums), funded by
the public purse a state service, whether the ultimate beneficiaries (the developers) are
public or private entities.
In countries where private enterprises undertake the majority of development, and so are
the principal funders, the archaeological work can then be either delivered by state agencies
(funded through hypothecated taxation on the developers, or from general taxation
thereby breaking the link between the ‘polluter’ and payment for their actions) or by private
enterprises through being directly commissioned. In the United Kingdom, most
archaeological activities are delivered by organisations that compete with each other
commercially (whether those organisations are constituted as profit-making private
companies, or more commonly as not-for-profit, ‘charitable’ enterprises), and they are
funded on the basis of fees for work done, whether the clients are private or public sector
organisations.
Details of the models applied in each participating country within the Discovering the
Archaeologists of Europe 2014 project are presented in the national reports.
Archaeological Employers (Organisations) Change Over Time
These data were not collected in a consistent way in 2006-08, and so there are no time-
series datasets to illustrate change over time in this area.
50
Vocational Education and Training
Data were collected on training needs and skills shortages from the perspectives of
employers (VET demand). While this was a core data area, owing to variations of national
practice there was no specific, shared methodological framework (eg skills lists) provided to
the Partners.
Data have been collected from employers (and in some cases from individual workers) on
training needs, skills gaps and shortages within archaeology on a nation-by-nation basis, and
for each participating state, particular skills issues (gaps or shortages) were identified, both
in skills areas that are vocationally specific to archaeology and in areas of generic non-
archaeological skills. These data were gathered by using differently framed questions by the
project partners in each state, taking in to account the differing approaches to delivery of
practice in the participating countries, and this then means that while this information is
presented in the national reports at www.discovering-archaeologists.eu, direct
transnational comparisons are not possible.
In terms of VET delivery, throughout Europe, the principal deliverers of vocational education
and training in archaeology are university schools or departments of archaeology. This has
meant, and continues to mean, that vocational education and training is delivered in the
context of being a complementary component of academic training, which is delivering
knowledge about the physical traces of past human lives and environments. There are few
alternative VET providers.
Vocational Education and Training change over time
Comparisons of national data from 2006-08 and 2012-14 are made where available in
national reports, all of which are available at www.discovering-archaeologists.eu.
51
Conclusions
Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe 2014 has achieved significant results, in terms of
gathering information on the working practices and skills needs of approximately 25,000
working archaeologists, the overwhelming majority of a total estimated European
population of 33,000. It has identified that this is an economic sector worth over €1bn per
year, and it has recognised a changing working population, which is becoming more female,
with changing working practices particularly more part-time working.
The project has provided information and recommendations to employers, individual
archaeologists and policy makers in the 21 participating countries and beyond, both within
Europe and globally (in large part due to the contributions of the European Association of
Archaeologists).The Multilateral Network of participating organisations has expanded and
become stronger.
As is discussed below, there are few other sources of comparable data in Europe or
elsewhere in the world, and so the project as a whole is having a global international
impact.
52
Multilateral Network
Specific evaluation comments from the European Commission on the completion of the
predecessor project (Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe, in 2006-08) stated that the
Commission had been impressed by the content and materials produced, and the specific
point that two countries had joined the project midway through and had contributed
without receiving Commission funding was impressive, and “encouraging for the future
widening of the network across Europe”.
The Network was initially formed of 21 co-beneficiary Partners (including two from non-EU
member states, emphasising the breadth of the Network), but the Hungarian Partner had to
withdraw before contractualisation, and their place was taken by an Estonia Partner. Two
associate Partners, from the Netherlands and Denmark, joined the project after work had
commenced (and funded their contributions entirely from national, not European
Commission, sources). In total the 23 Partners and associate Partners were based in 21
separate European states, 19 of which were within the European Union.
The network of partners has been maintained through the annual meetings of the European
Association of Archaeologists; partners met and updated each other at EAA Annual
Meetings in Plzen and in Istanbul, which have been formal valorisation opportunities (with
conference sessions organised). These have coincided with formal partner meetings, which
took place privately before the conferences.
The partners have discussed the possibility of a further iteration of a project similar to this
one, updating and disseminating information about employment and skills needs in
archaeology after a further period of five years. This could also involve new partners and
European states which are not part of the currently proposed partnership.
As all of the information used about the methodology and results are freely and publicly
available through the project website at www.discovering-archaeologists.eu, other
organisations are encouraged to undertake their own, similar projects, as happened
following the 2006-08 predecessor project, when separate research was carried out in
Bosnia and Herzegovina. The results of that were then promoted via the project website,
www.discovering-archaeologists.eu and this led directly to the involvement of a partner in
this project representing Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Partnership is strong, and the Partners are actively seeking bilateral and multilateral
opportunities to continue to work together. At the final project meeting, all reiterated their
support for the idea of a further repetition of the project in five years’ time, in order to
ensure that archaeology continues to address VET issues and to expand and enhance the
time-series datasets that have been collected.
53
External Data and Global Context
Few comparable external data are available from other European states; the Archaeology in
Contemporary Europe project, supported by the European Commission the Culture
Programme 2007-13 aimed to identify the archaeologists of Europe through quantitative
aspects. Comparable data is sought across Europe on who counts as an archaeologist in
each country (institution), with what diplomas, specialisations and employments, as well as
the numbers of archaeologists per surface, GDP, sites, and volume of infrastructure
activities (ACE, no date), but at the time of writing, these results had not been made
publicly available. An estimated figure for the total numbers of archaeologists working in
France - 4,050 - has been published (Depaepe, 2013).
The Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe projects have been global exemplars for the
sector, as there are few comparable datasets collected anywhere else.
In Australia a series of comparable studies have been undertaken, directly influenced by the
previous UK component of the first Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe project (Ulm et
al 2013, 32), with the most up-to-date figures presented in Ulm et al (2012), which
estimated that in 2010 there were between 500 and 600 professional archaeologists
working in Australia.
Data have also been collected for what may be the two largest global sectoral workforces,
Altschul & Patterson (2010) presented an estimate of 11,350 people working as professional
archaeologists working in all sectors across the USA; the number of people working in the
sector in Japan declined from a peak in 2000 of 7,111 individuals to 6,255 in 2008 (Agency
for Cultural Affairs 2009).
It has been recognised that the approach used by the Discovering the Archaeologists of
Europe projects has value beyond simply estimating total populations of archaeologists, as it
is in fact a key tool for measuring capacity and thus can be part of a capacity building
process.
ICOMOS (2013) sees the development of people as a tool that enhances protection of the
historic environment: Capacity Building through education and training refers to
strengthening the knowledge, abilities, skills, and attitudes of people with direct or indirect
responsibilities for heritage conservation and management.”, while to the United Nations’
agencies, skills, experience and knowledge are the building blocks of individual
performance, which can be acquired formally through education and training, and
informally through doing and observing and which lead to social and economic change.
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP 2009, 2010) sees this process as best
carried out through a five stage capacity development process, which includes
measurement both before and after capacity development programs are implemented. The
predecessor Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe project collected data in twelve
countries in 2008, just before the onset of the global financial crisis, and the cycle has now
54
recorded what the crisis has done giving individual archaeologists, employers, educators
and policy-makers data to work with as they plan for the future.
The value of this model has led to discussion of a potential Discovering the Archaeologists of
the Americas project, collecting and sharing information for professional archaeology in
every country in South, Central, Caribbean and North America (Majewski 2014), and this
could all combine with further cycles of national or regional projects to be part of an
ongoing macro-project, a Discovering the Archaeologists of the World that can identify and
support professional archaeological practice and education globally.
55
Recommendations
The project presents recommendations to individuals (both professional archaeologists and
aspirants), to employers, to vocational education and training providers, to policy makers
and to the co-beneficiary members of the project’s Multilateral Network partnership.
To individuals
Use the data provided to consider your own career trajectories (including the
potential for working in countries other than your own) and the skills that you will
need to achieve their goals.
To employers
Use the data provided to have a better anticipation of future skills needs for each
business unit.
Explore opportunities to share knowledge and expertise with vocational education
providers.
To vocational education and training providers
Use the data provided to recognise where employers have identified their skills
demands, and to design and deliver training that matches those labour market needs
in order to enhance the employability of trainees.
To Policy Makers
Seek to ensure that an ongoing cycle of projects is supported that continues to
gather data on a five-yearly basis so that up-to-date information to individual
archaeologists, archaeological employers, policy makers and other interested bodies
can be made constantly available.
To members of the Multilateral Network partnership
Continue to seek opportunities to work together, bilaterally or multilaterally in order
to maintain the Multilateral Network that this project has established.
Strongly consider expanding the Multilateral Network in any future iteration of this
project in order to bring in participants from states that did not contribute to this
project in 2012-14, particularly (but not exclusively) France, Scandinavian and west
Balkan states in order to further enhance the quality and applicability of the project’s
results.
56
Acknowledgements
The project wishes to gratefully acknowledge the financial support partners received from
the following national funding agencies or organisations.
The Government of the Republic of Cyprus
Deutscher Archäologen-Verband
University of Tartu
University of Kent
Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht
Coopfond Fondo mutualistico Legacoop
Associazione Nazionale Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro
Cooperativa Archeologia
Matrix 96 s. c. a r. l.
Topografia Archeologica s. c. a r. l.
Ministerul Culturii Romania
Nederlandse Vereniging van Archeologen, NVvA
Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (RCE, Cultural Heritage Agency)
English Heritage
Historic Scotland
Cadw
Northern Ireland Environment Agency
The project also wants to acknowledge the contributions provided by the following
individuals
Anna Stewart, York Archaeological Trust project administrator
Jon Brownridge, York Archaeological Trust project administration and IT support
David Jennings, York Archaeological Trust Chief Executive
Michael Davies, project logo designer
Conor McDermott, designer and maintainer of the project map
Rachel Edwards, Arboretum Archaeological Consultancy, external evaluator
and John Walker, the former York Archaeological Trust Chief Executive who had faith
in the idea of the project
We also want to thank the supportive staff of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture
Executive Agency of the European Commission.
And all of the authors of the report want to thank all of the respondents who provided us
with the data we needed to present this transnational picture of your profession.
57
Bibliography
ACE (Archaeology in Contemporary Europe). No date. The Archaeological Profession
[accessed 15th October 2014].
Aitchison, K. 2009a. Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe: Transnational Report.
[accessed 15th October 2014].
Aitchison, K., 2009b, ‘Archaeology and the global financial crisis’, Antiquity 83, issue 319.
[accessed 15th October 2014].
Aitchison, K., 2009c. ‘After the “gold rush”: global archaeology in 2009’, World Archaeology
41(4), 659-671.
Aitchison, K. & Edwards, R. 2008. Archaeology Labour Market Intelligence: Profiling the
Profession 2007-08, Reading: Institute for Archaeologists [accessed 22 October
2014].
Aitchison, K. & Rocks-Macqueen, D. 2014. Discovering the Archaeologists of the United
Kingdom 2012-14. Landward Research Ltd. [accessed 15th October 2014].
Altschul, J.H. & Patterson, T.C. 2010. ‘Trends and employment in American archaeology’, in
W. Ashmore, D. Lippert & B.J. Mills (eds) Voices in American Archaeology, 29-101.
Washington DC: SAA.
Ameels, V. 2014. Discovering the Archaeologists in Flanders 2012-2014. Flemish Heritage
Agency. [accessed 15th October 2014].
Bentz, M. & Wachter, T. 2014. Discovering the Archaeologists of Germany 2012-14.
Universität Bonn Institut für Archäologie und Kulturanthropolgie, Abteilung für
Klassische Archäologie. [accessed 15th October 2014].
Borș, C. & Damian, P. 2014. Discovering the Archaeologists of Romania 2012-14. Muzeul
Național de Istorie a României. [accessed 15th October 2014].
Cleary, K. & McCullagh, N. 2014. Discovering the Archaeologists of Ireland. Institute of
Archaeologists of Ireland. [accessed 15th October 2014].
CoE (Council of Europe). 1992. European Convention on the Protection of the European
Heritage (revised). [accessed 15th October 2014].
Costa, C., Duarte, C., Pedro Tereso, J., Viegas, C., Lago da Silva, M., Grilo, C., Raposo, J., Diniz,
M. & Lima, A. 2014. Discovering the Archaeologists of Portugal 2012-14. Associação
Profissional de Arqueólogos. [accessed 15th October 2014].