This article introduces a special volume of Advances in Archaeological Practice dedicated to the interpretation and presentation of archaeology. It provides an overview of several essays that came out of a session at the European Association of Archaeology Conference in 2017, which focused upon how interpretation can be implemented within daily practices of (cultural resource management) archaeology in a way that provides heritage value. We bring the arguments together into a call for a creative, interpretive archaeology that does not take compliance or academic publications as its end goal but will speak to a far wider range of audiences through the development and presentation of stories and narratives that truly engage and inspire people. We argue that this can be achieved by implementing “emotion design” methods that dynamically differentiate between information, message, emotion, and media, by working closely together with creatives, interpretive experts, communities, and partners and, ultimately, by integrating interpretation firmly at the core of planning processes, archaeological workflows, and our daily practices.

This article discusses the way development-led archaeology in the Netherlands disseminates archaeological knowledge to and with the public using the way archaeological projects were designed in Dalfsen (Netherlands) as a case study. In the early days of contract archaeology, which in the Netherlands was designed after the Valetta Convention, archaeologists were primarily concerned with the financial and planning aspects of projects, and there was little room for public archaeology. We suggest that this caused archaeologists to forget to involve the public in their projects. In time, it became almost impossible to rectify this mistake because archaeological contractors became extremely bureaucratic. In the case of Dalfsen, a spectacular project was needed to change this situation. The project, and especially its media value, inspired the municipality to invest in community archaeology and make choices that an archaeologist would not primarily be concerned with. Thus, we discuss the effects of these choices and archaeologists’ actions in this process. We conclude that it is important for archaeologists to act as facilitators because it improves the success rate of community archaeology projects.

During the 2014 excavation campaign at Vignale an impressive late antique mosaic depicting Aion, the God of Time, was discovered. This artifact of 100 m2 became a milestone for outreach activities; fund-raising, theatrical performances, and archaeological trekking sessions were tailored to this finding, in collaboration with local associations. The discovery of the mosaic consolidated the promotional lines followed for this project, on-site and off-site, capable of engaging different audiences. Taking into account the recent debate about emotion as an essential constituent of the heritage-making process, a preliminary analysis of these initiatives questions the existence and the development of an emotional connection between the public and the archaeological site. Since an emotional connection emerged, further analyses and studies need to specify the kinds of emotive connection that occur. Assessment of the emotional impact intrinsic to public outreach will provide clues to transforming the “intellectual” emotion of discovery into a shared and valuable emotion for the benefit of both the archaeological project and its stakeholders.

“Heritage interpretation” is generally conceived as the development and presentation of knowledge about the past for public audiences. Most obviously evidenced in descriptive signs, guides, and related media installed on archaeological and cultural sites, heritage interpretation has more than a half century of theory and applied practice behind it, yet it continues to sit uncomfortably within the typical archaeological workflow. While the concept can be criticized on many fronts, of concern is the lack of recognition that it is of equal relevance to both nonexpert and expert audiences (as opposed to nonexpert audiences alone). Our profession appears to rest on an assumption that archaeologists do their own kind of interpretation—and, separately, nonexperts require a special approach that heritage interpreters must facilitate but that field specialists have no need for—or from which little obvious expert benefit can be derived. For this reason, it is rare to find heritage interpreters embedded in primary fieldwork teams. Here I call for a rethinking of the traditional workflow, with a view to integrating the heritage interpretation tool kit and heritage interpreters themselves into our basic field methodologies. Their direct involvement in disciplinary process from the outset has the potential to transform archaeological interpretation overall.

Quantitative analyses of how the past and archaeological professionals are being depicted in, for example, exhibitions and popular books offer valuable—and sometimes confronting—insights about how presentation practices continue to reflect gender stereotypes. It turns out that very often archaeology and the archaeological past are still almost exclusively associated with males and masculine activities. This, of course, distorts the truth about what actually happened in past societies. It also raises the questions of whether or not such biases have an influence on public participation in archaeology and if they may hinder the sector's ambition to foster inclusivity. In this article, we will share some of the preliminary results of an ongoing systematic evaluation of presentation practice in Dutch archaeology and on the public perception of gender stereotypes in the past.

Gorée Island is Senegal's first site on the UNESCO World Heritage List. It is associated with the infamous Atlantic slave trade, and over the past few decades, Gorée has become a prime destination for global tourism, particularly for the African diaspora from the New World but also for many Europeans and African nationals. Today, Gorée is a forum where different stakeholders battle over the role, place, and significance of the island in the Atlantic slave trade and its enduring legacies in the present. While Gorée owes much of its reputation to its heritage, including architecture, archaeology, and monuments, recent controversies over site preservation and policy compliance raised questions about heritage presentation and consumption. This article analyzes stakeholders’ attitudes toward archaeology and heritage to gain insights on how they are presented and consumed by different stakeholders and eventually destroyed by them as well. The discussion shows ambiguous attitudes toward site presentation and preservation, which might be linked either to stakeholders’ subjectivities or hypocrisy or to poor and uncoordinated communication strategies by heritage professionals.

Westgate Oxford is a commercial redevelopment of a large shopping complex in the center of Oxford, with clients Westgate Oxford Alliance and principal contractor Laing O'Rourke. The excavations, carried out by Oxford Archaeology, between 2014 and 2016, were required as part of UK Planning Guidelines and were the largest ever undertaken in the city and principally focused on a large medieval suburban friary. The project won Best Archaeological Project 2016 at the prestigious national British Archaeological Awards, and the outreach program, which included an evolving pop-up museum, was a significant contributing factor. This essay will demonstrate how to set up a pop-up museum in eight steps. The essay will look at how to work with different partners of a project. It will discuss choosing a story to tell and how to deal with a changing narrative on an archaeological site in “real time.” It will show how the Pop Up museum became the principal location for dissemination for the Westgate Oxford project. The essay will conclude with how to keep the story alive and plans for the future of the Westgate Oxford Pop Up Museum.

The problem for archaeologists doing public outreach could be that we do not know who our audience is. Marketing to just the public at large is an extremely broad approach filled with the pitfalls of not engaging enough of the public, so it might be necessary to first find out who within the general public would have the most interest in your discovery and then tailor your presentation to that audience. At the podcast Cooking with Archaeologists we are using digital media, social media marketing, and our experience from the business world to do just that. Podcasting has been a trial-and-error project filled with uncertainty and doubt, and for archaeologists engaged in public archaeology it might be a practical approach to reaching the public and a medium to build an engaged and interested audience. In this “how-to” article, we will reveal what we have learned from this exciting and somewhat demanding venture and suggest how podcasting is a democratizing venture that connects the public to archaeology and the archaeologist.

Teaching and public engagement with the results and implications of bioarchaeological research have increasingly attracted more varied and social media-savvy audiences. Since 2010, the social media platform Instagram has also flourished, with millions of users forming untold numbers of communities of practice. Here, I seek to address the intersection of bioarchaeology and the virtual “stage” that social media represents. How is the discipline of bioarchaeology and the act of being a bioarchaeologist represented on Instagram? How do practicing bioarchaeologists (and enthusiastic supporters of the field) communicate about their own and others’ research, fieldwork, laboratory work, et cetera? With ever-greater amounts of scientific communication and public outreach conducted over social media (e.g., Gura 2013; Kling and McKim 2000; Wheat et al. 2013), it is worth investigating how the living who study the dead interact with each other, form community, and engage online audiences that increasingly contain descendants of the dead being studied. The review below is short; hence, the nature and depth of inquiry is restricted. Nevertheless, enough data are available to allow broader speculation and to suggest that there is space for more concerted future research.