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.

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.

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 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?