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

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

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 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%

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%

-60%

Estonia

no data

Greece

-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%

-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%

21%

Flanders (Belgium)

+24%

+16%

+5%

-31%

-23%

21%

Cyprus

+23%

+29%

6%

-22%

-67%

Czech Republic

+30%

+23%

+6%

15%

6%

0%

Germany

+8%

0%

-2%

18%

10%

11%

Greece

+11%

+2%

-10%

-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%

-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%

Estonia

no data

Greece

-8%

-17%

Spain

-18%

9%

Ireland

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%

-6%

Czech Republic

+11%

+21%

14%

10%

Germany

-2%

-12%

-19%

-27%

Greece

+2%

+39%

-8%

-17%

Ireland

+26%

+42%

+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, 20–29, 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

30

20

34

37

48

58

25

41

5

10

Bosnia & Herzegovina

0

47

55

76

96

22

44

17

59

2

6

Flanders (Belgium)

0

1

5

6

0

2

0

2

Cyprus

0

17

4

28

13

8

9

3

4

2

Czech Republic

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

9

13

5

8

9

2

4

Estonia

0

22

9

12

11

8

3

0

4

0

2

Greece

0

24

12

190

46

178

58

45

17

4

Spain

3

7

51

36

151

248

75

83

15

17

1

Ireland

0

2

9

2

35

38

15

24

10

7

4

3

Italy

0

114

42

273

96

58

41

33

17

14

7

Latvia

0

6

1

2

1

5

3

2

4

Netherlands

0

37

22

94

44

26

22

7

8

7

6

Norway

0

21

14

76

107

67

78

35

86

33

85

Poland

0

26

12

43

21

22

5

4

0

1

Portugal

0

11

10

19

39

10

21

4

5

0

4

Romania

0

4

2

16

7

12

7

5

1

Slovenia

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

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%

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%

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%

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 w