RESEARCH
Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress (Ó 2014)
DOI 10.1007/s11759-014-9261-8
National and Transnational Labour Markets
in European Archaeology
Katharina Möller, School of History, Welsh History and Archaeology, Bangor
University, College Road, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2DG, UK
E-mail: k.moeller@bangor.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
________________________________________________________________
The EU-funded project ‘‘Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe 2014’’
(DISCO 2012–2014) has recently gathered data about the archaeological
labour market in 21 European countries. A set of core questions was
included in the national surveys, and one of these questions regarded
the nationality of the archaeological workforce. As a result, it has become
obvious that the archaeological labour market is a national market in
some countries whereas it is a transnational one in others. This paper
will examine the reasons behind this development through three case
studies.
ARCHAEOLOGIES Volume 10 Number 3 December 2014
________________________________________________________________
248
Résumé: Le projet financé par l’UE « À la découverte des archéologues en
Europe 2014 » (2012-2014) a récemment recueilli des données sur le marché
du travail de l’archéologie dans 21 pays européens. Une série de questions
de base ont été incluses dans les enquêtes nationales et l’une de ces
questions concernait la nationalité de la main-d’œuvre de l’archéologie. Il
est apparu, par conséquent, que le marché du travail de l’archéologie est un
marché national dans certains pays et international dans d’autres. Le
présent document examine les raisons de ce développement à travers trois
études de cas.
________________________________________________________________
Resumen: El proyecto financiado por la UE ‘‘Descubriendo a los arqueólogos
de Europa 2014’’ (DISCO 2012-14) ha reunido recientemente datos sobre el
mercado de trabajo arqueológico en 21 paı́ses europeos. Se incluyó un
conjunto de preguntas fundamentales en las encuestas nacionales y una de
estas preguntas se referı́a a la nacionalidad de la mano de obra
arqueológica. Como resultado, ha quedado claro que el mercado de trabajo
arqueológico es un mercado nacional en algunos paı́ses, mientras que es un
mercado transnacional en otros. El presente documento examinará los
motivos de este desarrollo mediante tres estudios de casos.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ó 2014 World Archaeological Congress
National and Transnational Labour Markets in European Archaeology 249
KEY WORDS
Archaeology, Labour market, Europe
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
One of the aspects the transnational Discovering the archaeologists of Europe
2014 project focused on was mobility of workers on the European archaeology labour market. Given that archaeology in many European countries
is a quite small discipline (Figure 1), being able to tap into an international
or at least European market would increase chances for employment for
archaeologists. That is, as long as the archaeological labour market is a
transnational one which is attractive for foreigners and allows them
entrance into the profession rather than a national one which does not
permit foreign nationals to gain access.
To determine the composition of the national labour markets regarding
transnationality, one of the 12 core data questions in each of the national
surveys requested information about the nationality of the employees in
the archaeology sector. The results of the answers to this question in the
21 countries which participated in the project were quite varied (Figure 2).
For example, there are no foreign archaeologists working in Latvian archaeology (Šn
e et al. 2014:15), and all Greek archaeological organisations
reported in total just one archaeologist (0.4%) with a foreign nationality
(not counting employees of foreign archaeological schools in Greece) (Initiative for Heritage Conservancy 2014:18). Conversely, in Cyprus, 23% of
all archaeologists are of non-Cypriot origin (Prokopiou and Alphas
2014:67), and with 25%, Austria has the highest reported percentage of foreign nationals employed in archaeology (Karl and Möller 2014:59).
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the percentage of foreign nationals working
in archaeology is also quite high (24%). However, three of the seven
archaeologists with foreign nationality working in this country are
employed by institutions primarily based abroad and were included in the
Bosnia and Herzegovina study because they work there for more than
1 month per year (pers. com. A. Lawler). If these are excluded, only 13.8%
of archaeologists permanently working in Bosnia and Herzegovina are of
foreign nationality.
The above figures clearly demonstrate that there are limits to the mobility of archaeologists in some countries, and by looking at others more closely, it becomes clear that there are certain factors which encourage
mobility. The latter, however, do not affect employees from all other European countries alike. In some countries, they might even form a barrier
preventing mobility from or to certain other countries. For example, the
250
KATHARINA MÖLLER
Number of archaeologists
47924700
4383
152813351219
1004 862 858 796
641 530 483 453 338
257 224 121 96 60 60
Figure 1. Number of archaeologists
average yearly wage for archaeologists in Poland is c. e7,000 (Liibert et al.
2014:48, Table 30), while in Austria it is c. e27,000 (Karl and Möller
2014:63). Compared to the national average salary, which in Poland is c.
e11,000 and in Austria c. e25,000, this imbalance is further exacerbated
by the fact that living expenses in Poland, while generally lower than in
Austria, will still be higher when compared to the average salary an archaeologist working in Poland commands, than they will be in Austria when
compared to an average Austrian archaeologist’s salary. Thus, it might be
attractive for Polish archaeologists to look for work in Austria, but hardly
vice versa.
Case Studies of National and Transnational Archaeology
To determine why certain labour markets are more national or transnational in terms of the composition of the archaeological workforce, we will
examine three of the countries participating in the DISCO 2012–2014
study in detail in the following section of this paper. Being the only country participating in this study with no foreign nationals being employed in
archaeology, Latvia is the perfect example of a purely national archaeological labour market. Austria, on the other hand, is the country with the
highest percentage of foreign employees in the archaeology sector and thus
an excellent example for a very transnational labour market. Last but not
least, Ireland shows how the labour market can change in terms of its
transnationality, even in a relatively short time. Since 2008, the percentage
of foreign nationals in Irish archaeology dropped from 44.5% to 15.9%.
National and Transnational Labour Markets in European Archaeology 251
Archaeologists with foreign nationality
(in %)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 2. Percentage of foreign nationals
Latvia: A National Archaeology
Latvia is the only country in the 2012–2014 DISCO study which reported
no foreign archaeologists. 100% of the archaeological workforce in the
country are Latvians and were born in Latvia (Šne et al. 2014:15). As that
report further states, even though foreign archaeologists have participated
in archaeological research in Latvia, none of the archaeological institutions
in Latvia have ever employed non-Latvian archaeologists (Šne et al.
2014:16). One of the reasons might be the strict language policy in Latvia,
which requires ‘‘a good level of knowledge of Latvian as the official language’’ (Šn
e et al. 2014:16) and also applies to, for example, excavation
documentation. This makes it hard if not impossible for foreign archaeologists to be suited for a job in Latvian archaeology as Latvian is not one of
the languages typically studied in most European countries.
However, one also has to keep in mind that employment in Latvia
might not be overly attractive to foreign archaeologists. The mean annual
salary of an archaeologist in Latvia in the year 2013 was c. e6,400 (Šne
et al. 2014:22, Table 6). Compared to annual salaries reported by the other
project partners, archaeologists in Latvia earn less than archaeologists in all
but one country represented in this study (Figure 3).
In addition to the language barrier and the ‘‘closed character of the
research community in Latvia’’ (Šn
e et al. 2014:16), this might be an
important factor limiting immigration of archaeologists to Latvia.
252
KATHARINA MÖLLER
Average salaries of archaeologists (in Euro)
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Figure 3. Average annual salaries of archaeologists reported in the DISCO studies
Ireland: Economic Boom and Bust
In 2008, the Irish Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe project
reported that 44.5% of people employed in Irish archaeology were of nonIrish nationality (McDermott and La Piscopia 2008:28). This was due to
the so-called Celtic Tiger, a period of rapid economic growth in Ireland,
which boosted the construction industry and hence the archaeology labour
market linked to the development trade. The increased demand for archaeologists resulted in immigration, mostly from other EU member states,
with almost a quarter (23.5%) of all immigrant professional archaeologists
coming from Poland (McDermott and La Piscopia 2008:28–29).
In the 2014 DISCO study, the number of non-nationals working in Irish
archaeology has declined to 15.9% (Cleary and McCullagh 2014:28). However, Ireland has not only lost her foreign archaeologists. The number of
employees in archaeology in general has dropped drastically. In 2008, 1,635
archaeologists were reported (McDermott and La Piscopia 2008:14),
whereas in 2013, there were only 338 individuals employed in Irish archaeology, thus indicating a loss of 80% of the workforce (Cleary and McCullagh 2014:25).
With the economic depression, not only has the overall percentage of
foreign nationals in the Irish archaeological workforce changed, but also
the composition of this group. The 2012–2014 report identified UK nationals (62.5%) as the majority of non-Irish archaeologists in the country
(Cleary and McCullagh 2014:28). Polish archaeologists are now in
second place with only 12.5% of the foreign nationals working in Irish
National and Transnational Labour Markets in European Archaeology 253
archaeology. This change poses the question of what motivation foreign
archaeologists had when they decided to come to Ireland?
The high number of Polish archaeologists in 2008 seems to have been
largely financially motivated. The first Irish DISCO study reported an average annual salary of archaeologists of e37,680 (McDermott and La Piscopia 2008:43). Even though there are no data available for the annual salary
of Polish archaeologists for the year 2008, the Polish DISCO 2012-2014
survey shows that the difference in salary is huge. While in 2012 the average annual income of an archaeologist in Ireland was e36,450, which is
1.3% higher than the national average salary (Cleary and McCullagh
2014:39), Polish archaeologists earned on average only c. e7,000 (Liibert
et al. 2014:48, Table 30). According to these data, working in Ireland from
a financial point of view would still be attractive for Polish archaeologists.
However, as the 2008 survey showed, 71% of the foreign nationals working
in Irish archaeology were employed as site assistants; and the 12% of
immigrants who were employed in project management did not include
any Polish archaeologists (McDermott & La Piscopia 2008:29). Polish
immigrants thus seem to have filled mostly lower posts in Irish archaeology. These posts usually are the first ones to be cut once there is less work
available which, with the completion of many big building projects (for
example, the M3 motorway in 2010) and the cessation of EU Objective
One Structural Funds to Ireland, was certainly the case.
The change in the composition of the nationalities of foreign archaeologists working in Ireland indicates that archaeological immigration to Ireland is no longer primarily financially motivated. Other factors, like
common language and geographic proximity, would seem to be the driving
force for the many UK nationals who are currently working in Ireland.
After all, with an average salary of c. e34,800 per annum (Aitchison and
Rocks-Macqueen 2014:107), archaeologists in the UK earn only slightly less
than those in Ireland.
Austria: A Transnational Labour Market in Archaeology
In contrast to Ireland, the percentage of non-nationals working in Austrian
archaeology has increased since the first DISCO study. In 2008, just 10%
of archaeologists working in Austria were foreign nationals (Karl 2008:62).
Now, during the second DISCO study, 25% of the Austrian archaeological
workforce are foreign nationals (Karl and Möller 2014:59). The majority of
non-Austrians working in Austrian archaeology were German, in both
studies—46% of all non-Austrian archaeologists came from Germany (Karl
2008:64; Karl and Möller 2014:59). This is hardly surprising considering the shared language of the two neighbouring countries. A similar
254
KATHARINA MÖLLER
explanation can be found for archaeologists with Italian nationality. They
probably include a high percentage of South Tyroleans, whose native tongue is also German. Corresponding to this, in 2014, 10% of the archaeologists in Germany were foreign nationals, and c. 50% of these are from
Austria (Bentz and Wachter 2014:61).
However, immigration in both these cases does not primarily seem to
be financially motivated. In Austria, the average gross annual archaeological
salary in 2008 was c. e31,500 (Karl 2008:74) and in 2014 c. e27,100 (Karl
and Möller 2014:63); while in Germany, archaeologists on average earned
c. e31,100 in 2008 (Aitchison 2009:23), and c. e30,700 (Bentz and Wachter 2014:65 Table 44) in 2014. So rather than significantly different wages,
factors like the common language, geographical proximity, and a very similar higher education system might be suggested as reasons for the high
number of German archaeologists who live and work in Austria and vice
versa, as well as a shared culture and—to some extend—history.
Particularly the shared culture and history also includes that of archaeology as academic disciplines, as Austrian and German archaeology is very similar in many prehistoric and historic periods; theoretical and methodological
approaches are mostly shared; and archaeology degrees in both countries frequently have very similar contents and use examples from both countries—whether finds, sites or publications—freely without much regard to
their respective country of origin. After all, if one wants to study the ‘Celtic’
Iron Age in southern Germany, it is nearly impossible to do so without also
considering the archaeology of neighbouring regions of France, Switzerland
and Austria to get a fuller picture, rather than limiting oneself to just the
study of south Germany. While there may be a language barrier when it
comes to France and to a lesser extent to Switzerland, there is none when it
comes to Austrian archaeology. The shared heritage and the same language
also result in a high degree of academic exchange. For instance, many Austrian archaeologists publish in German journals and vice versa.
With the Schengen Agreement and the open borders resulting from it,
there is now very little difference for somebody from Bavaria between
working in Berlin or in Innsbruck. In fact, working in Innsbruck may well
mean that one can stay much closer to, or even commute from, one’s
home town, which is much harder if working in Berlin; making working in
Austria even more attractive for someone from southern Germany.
Analysis
As shown above, the archaeology labour market in some European countries is a very national one, where none or only very few foreign nationals
are involved, whereas in other countries, it is quite a transnational market,
National and Transnational Labour Markets in European Archaeology 255
where non-natives represent a sizable part of the total archaeological workforce. As the case studies in this article show, there are various reasons for
national and transnational labour markets in archaeology. An important
factor is obviously the salary. Earning more in another country than one
would in one’s own seems to be one reason that encourages archaeologists
to leave their home. Significantly lower salaries, on the other hand, discourage immigration.
Another factor seems to be language. A common language makes it easier for archaeologists to gain employment in another country, because
there is no language barrier. On the other hand, in some countries, like
Latvia, language can prove to be a barrier which practically blocks access
to the national labour market for non-nationals or those who do not have
Latvian heritage and thus speak the language.
Like language, a shared history and culture, which might also include a
shared archaeology, can be another factor which encourages foreign archaeologists to seek employment in another country.
Last but not least, the most important factor is probably the accessibility
of job adverts from a foreign country. After all, it is only feasible to move
to a foreign country to find work if one knows that there are jobs available. But how do archaeologists, especially foreign ones, know where to
find work? Besides internet job databases, for example, the database on the
International Austrian Archaeology Forum (http://archaeologieforum.at/
index.php/cb-jiob-anzeige) or the British Archaeological Jobs and Resources website (http://www.bajr.org/), word of mouth is probably an important instrument for gaining knowledge of work that is available in another
country.
Hopefully, the recent reports of the Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe 2014 project will do their bit to inform archaeologists of requirements
and structures of foreign labour markets and thus prove to be an instrument that can enhance archaeologists’ chances of finding work in other
countries if necessary.
Acknowledgments
The project ‘‘Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe 2014’’ was funded by
the Life-long Learning Programme of the European Union and managed
by York Archaeological Trust. The author would like to thank the project
managers Dr. Kenneth Aitchison and Dr. Gavin McGregor for their support as well as the other project partners for the data they gathered and
shared so generously. Without these, this article would not have been possible. Furthermore, the author would like to thank Prof. Raimund Karl for
his support and editorial help.
256
KATHARINA MÖLLER
References
Aitchison, K.
2009. Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe: Transnational Report, Institute for
Archaeologists, Reading.
Aitchison, K, and D Rocks-Macqueen
2014. Discovering the Archaeologists of the United Kingdom 2012–14. Landward
Research Ltd, Sheffield.
Bentz, M, and T Wachter
2014. Discovering the Archaeologists of Germany 2012–14, Universität Bonn –
Institut für Archäologie und Kulturanthropolgie. Abteilung für Klassische
Archäologie, Bonn.
Cleary, K, and N McCullagh
2014. Discovering the Archaeologists of Ireland 2012–2014. Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland, Dublin.
Initiative for Heritage Conservancy.
2014. Discovering the Archaeologists of Greece 2012–14, Initiative for Heritage
Conservancy.
Karl, R
2008. Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe: Austria. Historica Austria, Wien.
Karl, R, and K Möller
2014. Discovering the Archaeologists of Austria 2012–2014. Verlag für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kultur des Österreichischen Archäologie Bundes,
Wien.
Liibert, K, M Malińska, L Wachowicz, and A Marciniak
2014. Discovering the Archaeologists of Poland 2012–14. Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań.
McDermott, C, and P La Piscopia
2008. Discovering the Archaeologists of Europe: IRELAND. Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland, Dublin.
Prokopiou, E, and E Alphas
2014. Discovering the Archaeologists of Cyprus 2012–14. Department of Antiquities, Nicosia.
Šne, A, A Vijups, and M Mintaurs
2014. Discovering the Archaeologists of Latvia 2012–14. Faculty of History and
Philosophy of the University of Latvia, Riga.