The same archetypes exist in every person.
Carl Jung described abstract archetypes that exist in every single human being. He would not have described an archetypal taxi driver or an archetypal shoe salesman because those specific characters do not exist in the mind of every person.
Still, there is something at the core of taxi driving or shoe selling that is archetypal. In order to try to figure out how taxi driving or shoe selling might be accurately translated into a culture where taxis and shoes don't exist, you have to explore the concepts a bit.
Example 1. A house. If you go back in human development to the absolute origin of humans, of course there were no houses. So where did a person live (reside)?
First, the term "person" has to be clarified. Are we talking about someone's body? Or about their broader existence (including their body)? Their broader existence in this case. So the first deduction is that a person lives "in their body". Thus, the first relationship between the word "house" and archetypes involves the body as a dwelling.
Second, what might have been the first "house" (recognizable as such) used by primitive people? How did it originate? Were primitive people looking for a good neighborhood where property values might increase? More likely they sought shelter from hostile elements. So the second deduction is that a house makes the body (dwelling) better in some way. Safer, more comfortable etc.
So far it seems obvious that there is some sort of relationship between the word "house" and the older concept of a person's body. In order to go in the direction of "archetypes" there has to be found a concept (even if there is not a word for it) that encompasses both "house" and "body". The problem now arises that if you use a word for the concept you are taking it a step away from archetypal.
Example 2. Witness.
The word "witness" is one of those words that has a very clearly different meaning to different people, depending on various factors. In each case, regardless, an individual has taken a concept that was presented by others as associated with that word, and fit it around the pre verbal concepts that already existed in their mind. The same as with any word.
First, what would be the closest a person could get to an archetypal definition for "witness"? The best opposite of the word would probably be "actor". If you were to combine both an actor and a witness (in one) you would seem to have a paradox. But put them instead on a continuum, a person can be more actor and less witness, or less actor and more witness. Thus we have a quality (without a word) that roughly describes a person's awareness (objective, witness) vs their subjective involvement in something. A witness is above, an actor is within.
For curiosity's sake, some more words associated with "witness".
From http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=witness&searchmode=none O.E. witnes "attestation of fact, event, etc., from personal knowledge;" also "one who so testifies;" originally "knowledge, wit," formed from wit (n.) + -ness. Christian use (late 14c.) is as a literal translation of Gk. martys (see martyr).
From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/martyr [Martyr] From Middle English, from Old English, itself from Latin martyr, from Ancient Greek μάρτυρ (martyr), later form of μάρτυς (martus, “witness”). One who willingly accepts being put to death for adhering openly to one's religious beliefs; notably, saints canonized after martyrdom.
The curveball between the words "witness" and "martyr" has to do with the violence usually associated with the word martyr.
When most people look at death, it obscures their view of everything else. They are not an objective witness, but rather an actor against death. The original martyr does not bravely face death, rather they merely notice it, they witness it, are aware but not overwhelmed. The reason being (philosophically) not that they have some great courage, but simply that they know something, or have a higher perspective.
Over time, as people sought to emulate respected "martyrs", the concept became polluted until it reached its current popular meaning. It's an excellent example of why a person should be wary of words with emotional content. They most often deceive rather than describe. Some people will aspire to become a martyr (which requires violence) rather than a witness (which rejects or ignores violence).