Firstly, I should say, if anyone is expecting anything in
this post about historic graffiti - you are going to be sadly disappointed.
Best move on now. There's probably something good on the telly anyway.
So, the question has arisen - again - about how many people
in the UK actually work in archaeology. This shouldn't be a difficult question
to answer in many professions, but given the diversity of archaeology as a
discipline, and the shocking way in which many commercial archaeologists are
treated, it has traditionally caused a few issues. The result was a series of
studies entitled 'Profiling the Profession'. In depth analysis of exactly how
many people are employed by the sector, and how those patterns change over
time. Even as it stands the study most usually doesn't make pleasant reading.
However, I recently made a somewhat rash statement on
Twitter, replying to someone else's tweet, that caused a little bit of a stir ('Surely not?' I hear you cry...). A
tiny bit of an upset in certain quarters. So - all I actually said was that
most archaeologists do NOT work in commercial archaeology. A harmless enough
statement you might think. However, it caused a few hackles to be raised. And
why would that be? Well, because it flatly contradicts the figures published in
the 'Profiling the Profession' report.
So did I make the statement just to cause a bit of trouble
on Twitter? As you all know, that would be just SO unlike me... No, the reason
I said it is because it's true - and based upon a very large, and really
boring, piece of unrelated research I undertook about 18 months ago. It wasn't
published at the time because it was suggested it might ruffle a few feathers.
However, as feathers already appear to be ruffled... Sod them. I'll publish the
outline anyway.
According to the latest 'Profiling the Profession' figures
there are approximately 4792 individuals working in archaeology - you can read
the full report here - https://landward.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Archaeology-Labour-Market-Intelligence-Profiling-the-Profession-2012-13.pdf
Of those 41% work in non-commercial archaeology - leaving
the other 59% working in the commercial field (estimated at 2812 individuals). You can see the
full breakdown in the chart below - which I handily swiped from the report
itself.
So what the problem? Well it's a simple one. The report
MASSIVELY and demonstrably underestimates those working as archaeologists in
the academic sector. The report estimated that the actual number of
archaeologists working in academia at 690. According to my own research the
figure is somewhere between 1600 and 1900. And that is probably on the low side.
So, a few caveats to begin with. I used the same definitions
for someone working in archaeology as the 'Profiling the Profession' analysis
did. So it doesn't include volunteers, hobbyists, metal detectorists, etc -
just those who receive financial remuneration for working within one of the
many different facets of the discipline. With regards to academia - I also
didn't include honorary positions, emeritus posts (unless they were
specifically teaching), or 'associates'. Nor did I include the many postgrads
who actually undertake paid teaching within the discipline. By the definitions
of the 'Profiling the Profession' report I probably should have - even though
they usually are only part-time etc. However, had I included those individuals
the final figure would have been at least twice as high.
I would state that I also didn't get data from all the universities,
hence the variable figure above, but publicly available staff and teaching
lists are accessible for approximately three quarters of UK institutions. This
data is also out of date now, by about 18 months. I also concentrated almost solely upon archaeology departments, so missed most of those archaeologist working in other departments - such as history or museum studies. I also probably missed a lot of those working in departments associated with the science of archaeology. Sorry! The data from the 'Profiling the Profession' report was from 2012/13, whilst mine was mainly from 2018. However, I'm pretty sure academic archaeology didn't see a nearly threefold increase in those working in the area in the intervening five years. Just the opposite in fact.
To begin with, there are currently approximately 130
universities in the UK. I say approximately, as that also includes some
University Colleges - but 130 is the generally accepted figure. According to
the 'Profiling the Profession' report these 130 universities employ only 690
archaeologists. That's an average of 5.3 archaeologists per university. Sound
credible anyone? Really? So lets look at a few examples then.
Firstly, the university of Cambridge Archaeology Department.
Current staff role (not counting admins, emeritus, honorary, or associate
staff) is 216. At any one time there are also approximately 150 post-grads -
but we aren't counting them.
A similar story at Oxford, although not quite as many, with
92 on the staff roll (the same exceptions apply).
Then what about UCL? Well, leaving aside those working in
the commercial wing as Archaeology South-East, and including only the emeritus
staff who also teach (but again excluding post-grads, associates, etc.), we get
a total also of 92.
So, between those three universities alone we reach a total
of 400 of the 690, without even having to look at the other 127 UK
universities. But we are going to look at them anyway. In no particular order -
Liverpool -
52
Exeter - 29
Birmingham -
28
Winchester - 10
Newcastle -
63
Lancashire - 8
Leicester -
33
Kent - 20
Worcester -
20
Glasgow - 22
Southampton
- 55
Durham - 34
Reading - 33
Bishop Grosseteste Uni - 3
York - 70
Sheffield -
28
Queens
University Belfast - 27
Manchester -
36
Nottingham -
39
Bradford -
24
Cardiff - 21
Edinburgh -
16
Chester - 15
Bournemouth
- 25
Canterbury
Christchurch - 6
Swansea - 14
Lincoln - 16
So that takes
us to a nice round figure of 30 UK universities. 30 out of the approximately
130, and we have already reached a grand total of 1147 archaeologists. Rather a
lot higher that the current estimates of 690 for the whole of UK academia. And
the list goes on. But I hear you say that not all UK universities teach
archaeology, so not all the UK universities will employ archaeologists, so
although the estimate may be wrong, perhaps it isn't that wrong?
Wrong.
Take a university I know really quite well. The University
of East Anglia. The only archaeology really taught there these days is in the
Sainsbury Centre, yet the university still employs well over a dozen
archaeologists, who teach in areas from landscape archaeology and church
archaeology, to African archaeology and anthropology. It's the same at most
universities. Archaeologists tend to get about a bit.
So, my own research (which is admittedly a couple of years
out of date, and wasn't able to access the staff lists for every UK
university), indicated that archaeologists employed in academia to undertake
archaeology in one of its many forms, numbered between 1600 and 1900, rather
than the 690 estimated in the 'Profiling the Profession' report. Give or take.
So what does that adjustment do to the overall figures for
the profession? What percentage of archaeologists actually work in the
non-commercial sector? Well, if we take even the lowest figure indicated by my
research for the numbers working in academia (1600), things look rather
different. Suddenly there are 2888 archaeologists working in the non-commercial
sector, as opposed to the 2812 in the commercial sector. Very roughly 50/50. Take the higher figure
of 1900 working in academia and it's 3185/2812 (53%/47%). I am also absolutely sure that
these figures err on the side of caution, as most universities don't publish
details of archaeological technicians etc., so the actual figure is probably
higher. As I said at the beginning, if I had also included the post-grads who
are paid to teach in all the fields of archaeology (who would qualify as
'tutors' under the 'Profiling the Profession' definitions), the number would
probably be more than double that.
So where does that leave the debate? Well, I think the main
point here is a simple one. IT SHOULDN'T BE A BLOODY DEBATE. Get over
yourselves. We are, after all, meant to be working together, in the same
profession. Surely it benefits no one
to distinguish between what is considered to be 'real archaeology' or assume
that commercial archaeology is representative of everyone engaged in the field.
