The archaeological communication process can be hard to grasp. There are laws to take into consideration, not to mention the Government structure for culture and arts. This essay explains and simplifies the Swedish organizational communication with focus on archaeology. This study is aiming to clarify all the steps archaeological research needs to pass before reaching the public. The essay will also explore why it is important to communicate archaeological results, and if it reaches out to the extent that is expected. If it is not, the study will present examples of solutions and actions that can be taken to improve the mediation. The essay only investigates the archaeology process in Sweden. There are several Government institutions that are affected by the laws that protect ancient monuments, this study will at first hand observe the ones that have a direct effect on the archaeology communication process. By a survey, interviews and literature studies, the purpose with this study has become clear. The results have been reached by positivism and empiricism as theoretical basis. The literature consisted largely of writings on the subject communication theory, Swedish law and Government structure. The conclusion is that in the archaeology process, there are many factors that effects the outcome of archaeological mediation. Laws, “cultural goals” and several Government institutions has a saying in how, why and where the archaeological research findings are distributed. The PR-model chosen by Government institutions is often “The Public Information model”, but in this case there is no specific common model used by all the institutions that have an influence on the distribution of archaeological results. There is no survey done to show how the public are receiving the results given by “The Public Information model”. According to a small survey done to complete this essay there would be much to gain for all parts if the results of archaeological investigations used another model, or if the stakeholders could agree on the issue of how archaeological results should be communicated to the population. A factor that complicates this kind of work is the attitude in the governing body that considers culture (including archaeology) a non-commercial subject. As a result, archaeology is not seen as a brand that could be marketed. A factor that can affect the popularity for the subject.

In relation to last year’s introduction of Digital Archaeological Process this study is supposed to investigate the opportunities of using quantitative methods on the archaeological material. The subject of the investigation is to problematize and process the concept of ”central places”. The investigation is based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods executed on seven different grave- and settlement areas during the Iron Age in Skåne. The archeological material is gathered through archaeological reports and later processed in tables. The concept of central places is often based on luxury finds and places with much archaeological material. Quantitative methods on archaeological material are a possibility by many reasons. For example by getting an overview of each grave- and settlement area which is an opportunity for more interpretations. DAP is an opportunity to restore the archaeological material during excavations for future research. The introduction of DAP is a step in the right direction for future archaeology.