Communicating archaeology from one person or group to another is beset with problems. The media, the public and students all have different requirements, while the language in which they are addressed – both the spoken language and the intellectual framework or discourse – can act as a disincentive to understanding. Big changes are in store for archaeologists and for other members of the academic community as electronic publication takes over from traditional methods of dissemination such as the printed book. Archaeologists must be prepared for these changes, and should endeavour to put their findings across in a way that interests and stimulates their audience.

This article attempts an interpretation of an unusual assemblage of cattle skulls recovered from recent excavations at the Viking Age monumental hall of Hofstaðir in Iceland. Osteological analysis of the skulls indicates ritual decapitation and display of cattle heads, and this article seeks to explore the meanings of this practice in relation to the context of the site and the wider historical and ethnographic literature. It is argued that the beheading of cattle and display of their heads was a part of sacrificial acts conducted on a seasonal basis at the site, and primarily in the context of feasting and socio-political gatherings. The gatherings acted simultaneously as a means of both dissipating social tension and enhancing political status.

Martin Carver connects academic peer review with the new technologies of publishing, particularly ‘Open Access’. He recommends the development of four tiers of output: (1) the popular and commercial magazine printed in hard copy and supported by subscribers; (2) the national Open Access online journal, successor to the local journal and supported by local sponsorship; (3) the international Open Access peer-reviewed online journal, representing an intellectual or geographical research area and supported by subsidies and grants via authors. The European Journal of Archaeology is seen as an example. (4) The fourth tier is represented by a global journal such as Antiquity, serving all countries equally and maintaining its political, academic, and commercial independence through reader subscriptions.

This article addresses the potential of oral tradition (folklore) in the archaeological study of the past. It deals with oral traditions concerning landscape features in the area of the prehistoric and Roman site of Ajdovščina above Rodik, Slovenia. The palimpsest nature of modern landscapes can be regarded as a syncretic sum of past ways of life, land use, religious practices, and cults. In oral tradition concerning the ancient inhabitants of Ajdovščina, it is possible to discern the obscured memory of historical process. Certain sites, referred to in local oral tradition, mainly in the form of memories of religious practices performed there and of superstitions related to them, may well prove to be the remains of ancient sacred places. Methodological problems include identification of the generic and specific in oral tradition, the recognition of Christian intervention and/or censorship of ancient cults and beliefs, and the transposition and/or survival of elements of old ritual practices in popular beliefs. The aim of this article is to discuss the role of oral tradition linked to the landscape in the persistence of collective memory concerning historical circumstances and the survival and/or transformation of ancient cult or ritual sites and beliefs.

Archaeologists often enjoy the role of giving the people what the people want, at least, so long as that is information about the past. But besides the ambition to enlighten people about the past, there are at least two alternative approaches concerning the way archaeology communicates with its publics in society. One considers archaeology a business and sees people as potential customers who need to be persuaded to buy the products of archaeology. Another approach advocates democratic participation of people in archaeology and wishes to accommodate people's own preferences regarding archaeological studies. The point of this article is not to choose between these different models of communication but to ensure that future debates about the relations between archaeology and society will be informed by a better understanding of some fundamentally different approaches concerning the aims and character of archaeology's communication with various public audiences. Hopefully this discussion will also benefit very specific, future projects in public archaeology and thus ultimately serve both the archaeologists and their publics.

This article began life as a paper in the session ‘Opening Doors for Archaeologists: Making Malta Work’ at the 2006 EAA Annual Meeting in Kracow, Poland. It explores the background of the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised), also known as the Valletta Convention or the Convention of Malta. The article examines some of the major issues that were discussed and describes the drafting process of the Convention from the author's personal perspective as one of the members of the committee responsible. It concludes with a brief consideration of some subsequent developments and a plea for a more active role for the EAA at Strasbourg and Brussels.

This article reviews discussions and debates about effective communication within North American archaeology. The development of cultural resource management and the expansion of Native American control over archaeology have both influenced the practice and communication of archaeology. The concept of diverse stakeholders derives from discussions about ethics in archaeology, but is relevant to understanding the complexities of archaeological communication. Rather than focus on criticisms of archaeological communication, various examples of effective communication are provided.

Over the past few decades the mass media have increasingly shaped public awareness. For many people, television, the radio, or the press are the only sources for archaeological topics and it is essential, therefore, to be able to collaborate with the world of journalism. It is not only sensational news stories that have an opportunity of being covered by the media, but also serious issues – provided that they are well told. Communicating scientific results to an audience outside one's own specialist subject is, however, not only a question of good will, but also of skill. This article focuses on how to get the attention of the mass media, how to exert influence on the quality of a newspaper article, radio or film, and how to communicate what is really important. It provides an overview of public and media relations and tries to give some helpful suggestions.

Academic discourse has its own norms related to the national culture, but also to the academic community concerned. In a linguistic classification, discourse communities are being formed with their own conventions and their own academic languages, rhetoric and intellectual styles, sharing paradigms, goals and methods. A positive aspect of discourse communities is that they spread across different national languages and across different – mainstream and minor – communities (using the language of the leading group of researchers). Can this be seen in present-day archaeology, and can it bridge the gap in communication between mainstreams and minorities?