A Good Story Never Dies An exploration of storytelling utilisation in public archaeological outreach in the Netherlands

(1)

A Good Story Never Dies

An exploration of storytelling utilisation in public archaeological outreach in the Netherlands

REMA THESIS

Author: Merel van den Hoek (s2164221)

Supervisors: prof. Dr. H. Groenendijk & prof. Dr. S. Voutsaki August 2019

(2)

1

Acknowledgements

Once upon a time, I set out to write my master thesis. A long and troublesome process with many obstacles along the way. Fortunately, on this quest I was aided by many talented individuals, all of which I would like to thank for making this thesis a reality.

First of all, I want to thank my superb supervisors Henny Groenendijk and Sofia Voutsaki, who provided me with valuable feedback and advice along the entire thesis-process. Even before I started writing my thesis, one of the courses presented by them (Archaeology Today) sparked my interest for this topic. Additionally, I am very grateful for their enthusiasm, patience and positivism. After every meeting I left their offices with more confidence in myself and what I was doing then before the meeting.

Next, I want to thank Eline Amsing, from the Stichting Archeologie en Publiek, for the initial brainstorm about this thesis and for providing me with the application forms from three editions of the Grote Archeologie Prijs that served as the dataset for this thesis.

I want to thank my family, in particular my parents, for always supporting me in whatever way possible. They were with me every step of the way, not only while working on this thesis, but during my entire studies. I would not have managed without their love and encouragement. My appreciation of their support goes beyond that what can be put into words.

To my archaeology sidekicks along this journey, Anna-Elisa and Mathilde, thank you for not only being great friends, but also for providing me with feedback, brainstorming with me, listening to my worries and concerns, and encouraging me to pull through.

Last but not least, I want to thank my other friends, in particular Iris and Marriëtte, for supporting me and distracting me with fun activities as to keep my sanity.

(5)

4

1. Introduction

What do Pope Francis, Donald Trump, Bill Gates, Sheryl Sandberg and Elon Musk have in common? What sounds like the beginning of a bad joke, is actually a legitimate question, to which the answer is: all have been labelled as being successful (partly) because of their storytelling abilities (Gallo 2015; Gallo 2016; Morgan 2016). Storytelling has become one of the buzzwords of the current century, and it appears in an abundance of contexts and disciplines, where it always seems to be used to great success. To name just a few examples: storytelling creates better physicians (Silverman 2017, 1409), it improves the experience of hospital patients (Anon 2017), using storytelling increases the chances of getting accepted for a job (Conlan, n.d.) or selling your house (Gordon 2017), it helps veterans and former child soldiers to cope with trauma (Mackovich 2017; Horn 2009), it wins lawsuits (Meyer 2014), and it is used in museums and other educational institutions for learning purposes (Vayanou et al. 2015; Pietroni et al. 2015; Everett & Barrett 2009; Nielsen 2017).

Storytelling has also made an appearance in archaeology, where it has been characterised as ‘’(…) a method to communicate to the public the findings and research conducted by the domain experts of a cultural site of collection.’’ (Roussou et al. 2017, 405). Some would even argue that archaeology is inextricably connected to storytelling (Shanks 1992, 147; Deetz 1998). Archaeologists translate narratives from people and cultures from the past and communicate these to the larger public (Deetz 1998, 94). In essence, archaeology ‘’tells stories’’ about the past, but this does not suggest that storytelling approaches are being used to do so and that this communication is effective. As Johnson (2010, 7) rightfully points out, simply dredging up archaeological facts does not result in a coherent narrative of the past. However, it is true that archaeology has a high potential for using storytelling for reasons that are outlined later on in this thesis.

Being confronted with the term, storytelling might evoke the idea that it is about popularising and/or fictionalising archaeology or science in general, but this judgment is too limited. While it is true that storytelling often results in a certain amount of fiction, it does not require fiction, as the current research argues. Storytelling should rather be considered as a set of approaches in order to communicate archaeology in a manner that is meaningful to the public. These

(6)

5

approaches aim to evoke an emotional response in the audience, and thereby making the outreach project, and ultimately archaeology itself, significant to the public.

This thesis focuses on the topic of storytelling in public archaeology in the Netherlands. It outlines the theory on storytelling in general and storytelling in the context of public archaeology, and then goes on to discuss twelve Dutch outreach projects which were considered as case studies for this thesis. While specific cases of archaeological outreach projects utilising storytelling have been discussed regularly outside of the Netherlands (e.g. Roussou et al. 2017; Aksoy & Bayar 2016; Bird et al. 2016; Pietroni et al. 2015; Gauvreau & McLaren 2016), a study whereby multiple projects are concerned in order to reach a higher understanding of the state of storytelling utilisation has, to my knowledge, not been carried out. The Netherlands was chosen as a geographical demarcation for this thesis. Obviously, it would not be within the scope of the research to consider all archaeological outreach projects that are offered to the Dutch public. Therefore, the nominees for the last three editions of the Grote Archeologie Prijs served as a dataset for this thesis. Additionally, publications on the use of storytelling in Dutch outreach projects studied from a(n) (public) archaeological perspective seems to be scarce. This research could therefore provide a valuable addition to the discourse on storytelling in archaeology in the Netherlands.

1.1. Relevance of the topic

In previous decades the discipline of archaeology has become more broadly focused, the role of archaeology in society has become of major importance, and the public’s interest in and acceptance of (academic) archaeology has increased (Merriman 2002, 541; Moshenska 2017, 11). In the development of public archaeology, the realisation grew that greater emphasis should be placed on doing archaeology to meet the public’s need (Merriman 2002, 542; Virágos 2019). The appeal of the discipline to non-specialists demanded that archaeological knowledge is communicated on a broader scale, and by utilising proper and relevant approaches. Public archaeology, in this sense, is essential to ensure the continued evolution and expansion of the discipline as a whole in the future. Effectively communicating archaeological knowledge generates public understanding of the importance of archaeology, thereby creating general public support and, ultimately, financial backing for additional research/projects.

(7)

6

However, although effective communication is crucial to archaeology, it has also been noted before that the communication of archaeology can be improved, and that current methods of communication often result in boredom, lack of meaning and/or credibility, or incomprehension (Merriman 2004, 8; Virágos 2019). Research and training on how to communicate archaeological knowledge effectively is therefore much needed, but as has been pointed out by Virágos (2019), archaeological education is not able to keep up with the rapid pace of the changing of procedures. Virágos argues that since the 19th_{century several} significant changes took place within the discipline over the timespan of just one generation. Where during the first phase (between the 1950s and 1990s) archaeologists were aiming to meet the expectations of the discipline itself, after the 1990s the aim shifted to satisfy the expectations of the financer. Then since the 2010s the discipline entered a third phase, where the communication of archaeology to the public has become the main focus. For all three phases the relationship between archaeologists, stakeholders and public has changed, and is expected to change in the future. This accelerated development of the discipline results in the fact that both scientific technologies and communication approaches can become obsolete within one generation of archaeologists (Virágos 2019).

Ultimately, the role and implementation of public archaeology in the disciplinary landscape is also bound to change. Due to the developments of the field of study, it is beneficial to regard methods that can be relevant for multiple generations. Considering that storytelling has been used as an effective means of communication since the early beginnings of humanity (Fitzpatrick & San Filippo 2017, 4), it could possibly serve as a timeless method of archaeological communication. While storytelling should always be placed and reviewed within the appropriate societal and temporal context, the premise on which it builds (the evocation of emotions), likely makes it a sustainable method of communication that is relevant in both past, present and future.

1.2. Research questions

This thesis considers the (theoretical) implications of storytelling used in archaeological public outreach in the Netherlands. The main aim of the research is twofold: to investigate the meaning of storytelling within the relevant context of archaeology, and to assess to what extent storytelling has already been used as an appropriate and feasible method of

(8)

7

communication within this disciplinary and geographic framework. The main research questions are thus proposed as follows:

▪ What does storytelling in (public) archaeological context refer to? And what storytelling approaches are recognisable in this context?

▪ What is the current extent of the utilisation of storytelling in archaeological public outreach in the Netherlands?

In addition to these main questions, several sub-questions are considered as well: ▪ How can storytelling in archaeological public outreach be recognised?

▪ How did storytelling in (public) archaeology develop?

▪ For which audience(s) are storytelling approaches appropriate means of communication? ▪ To what extent does the utilisation of storytelling create visitor satisfaction and

appreciation of archaeological outreach projects in the Netherlands? 1.3. Structure of the thesis

This thesis is highly theoretical. Following this introductory chapter, therefore, is a substantial chapter discussing the theoretical framework of the topic. Chapter 2 starts out with a brief deliberation on the theory on (archaeological) outreach, for throughout this thesis the terms ‘outreach’ and ‘outreach project’ are used extensively. The section mentions the scope of the term ‘outreach’ maintained throughout this thesis, possible distinguishable goals of archaeological outreach projects and a rough categorisation of project types based on how they tend to communicate archaeological information. Readers anticipating an in-depth discussion on the theory of public archaeology in general, and/or different approaches to engaging with the public, are referred to other publications (Moshenska 2017; Holtorf 2007; Oldham 2018).

In section 2.2., the theoretical discussion then turns to storytelling in general. The problematic terminology of the topic is discussed, as well as the definition that was decided upon for the current research. The relation between storytelling and meaning-making is also briefly touched upon. The theoretical background continues in chapter 3 when the discourse addresses storytelling in archaeology specifically. The development of the use of storytelling in archaeology is placed within context of the (theoretical) development of the discipline and the processual/post-processual debate. The chapter continues by lining out the three

(9)

8

essentials of meaning-making: storytelling approaches, considering the target audience, and additional factors. A considerable section of the third chapter is concerned with thoroughly explaining the storytelling approaches relevant for archaeological public outreach: personalisation, emotionalisation, participation, and ‘plotification’. Following, the importance of segmenting audiences while utilising storytelling approaches is explained, as well as which determinants are used for audience segmentation in archaeological public outreach. Finally, the additional factors are briefly touched upon.

Subsequently to the theoretical framework, the practical portion of this thesis is presented in chapter 4. This chapter collectively reviews the twelve case studies in order to get an understanding of how storytelling approaches are already being utilised in archaeological outreach projects in the Netherlands. First of all, the dataset from which the case studies originate is introduced and thoroughly explained. Thereafter, the methodology of the case study examination is clarified, and the results are presented.

Chapter 5 remarks the conclusions to the current research and is followed by a discussion in chapter 6. The discussion focuses on a variety of questions regarding the interpretation of the review of the case studies, the use of storytelling approaches in cultural contexts outside the Netherlands, and whether storytelling approaches should be adopted in archaeology. Finally, several recommendations regarding the subject are presented.

(10)

9

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. Archaeological outreach projects

Before discussing the finer details of storytelling, a troublesome term, it is necessary to spend some words on archaeological public outreach in order to avoid confusion later on. Throughout this thesis, there are many references to ‘outreach’ or ‘outreach projects’, and since these terms could be interpreted in a various ways, it should be explained what they exactly entail. The definition of ‘outreach’ that is maintained throughout the current research is: ‘’scientific communication that engages an audience outside of academia.’’ (Poliakoff & Webb 2007, 244). This definition includes a range of approaches and activities in which information flows from scientists to the public, from the public to scientists, or between scientists and the public (Varner 2014, 333). When referred to ‘outreach projects’ this could thus refer to a wide range of different activities, such as an exhibition at a museum, social media pages, (digital) citizen science projects, information signs at heritage sites, lectures by archaeologists, archaeological initiatives by the public, or educational material for schools.

2.1.1. Outreach goals

The outreach projects referred to in this thesis are established with different goals in mind. For example, to visualise archaeological remains, to attract new audiences or audiences that are otherwise difficult to reach, to make archaeology more accessible, or to improve the direct contact between specialists and the public. Additionally, although it is often not specifically expressed, it can generally be accepted that outreach projects aim to educate about archaeology as a profession or a specific archaeological subject, and that they try to do so in an engaging manner. Although they are occasionally referenced to in this thesis, popularised representations of archaeology in the mass media, such as TV series, movies, and/or (video) games, are excluded from the current research. Although they do fall within the spectrum of public archaeology, they usually do not have a large educational value, and are therefore not discussed in further detail here (Moshenska 2017, 9). For an in-depth discussion on these, the reader is referred to Holtorf 2007.

2.1.2. Project types

While outreach projects are extremely diverse, a general distinction can be made between projects that are mostly text-based (i.e. that require reading or listening), image-based (i.e.

(11)

10

that require watching), or experienced-based (i.e. that require physical activity). In practice, these three types are often combined with one another: an archaeological exhibition in a museum will require the visitor to read information, listen to audio fragments (text-based), and view artefacts, pictures, maps, reconstructions, and so on (image-based). This difference in representing archaeology was previously outlined by Copeland (2004, 138, table 6.1.) who distinguished between symbolic (text-based), iconic (image-based), and enactive (experience-based) formats used at archaeological sites.

2.2. Storytelling

2.2.1. Terminology

‘Storytelling’, and related terms such as ‘story’ and ‘narrative’ are extremely difficult to define, yet many attempts have been made to do so. It is therefore unsurprising that Signorelli (2014, 28) was able to find 82 different definitions of ‘story’ on the Internet. Moreover, some authors, like Simmons (2006), go as far as arguing that storytelling is unexplainable. She states: ‘’Breaking storytelling down into pieces, parts, and priorities destroys it. There are some truths we just know, we can’t prove it but we know them to be true. Storytelling moves us into the place where we trust what we know, even if it can’t be measured, packaged, or validated empirically.’’ (Simmons 2006, xviii – xix).

Defining and demarcating storytelling is problematic since it exists on a spectrum and no general clear-cut boundary between storytelling and non-storytelling exist. On the left side of the spectrum, applying too little narrative creates boring content, while on the far right of the spectrum too much narrative creates ambiguity and confusion (Olson 2015, 12 -13; Schmidt et al. 2017, 541). The optimum amount of storytelling is positioned somewhere in between these two extremes, but where the line between both should be drawn can depend on a variety of facts, such as the precise definition that is maintained, the field of study in which it is used, the chronological and geographical context, the demographics of the audience, and even personal preferences. This fuzzy demarcation of storytelling has been pointed out before (Herman 2009, 12 – 13; Olson 2015, 12 – 13), and holds true for storytelling in archaeological public outreach as well.

Secondly, to provide a single, all-inclusive definition of storytelling is complicated because it can be viewed under several profiles (Herman 2009, 7). The type of narrative one is referring

(12)

11

to depends on the context in which it is used (Squire et al. 2013, 3). For example, in business-related studies (such as marketing and/or advertising) storytelling is sometimes regarded as a communication tool that is difficult to master, but if learned through practice, results in a more effective achievement of communication goals (Adler 2006, viii – ix). Emphasis should be placed on sometimes, for even within disciplines the definition of the term varies. In narratology, where ‘narrative’ is considered as a type of text, it also proofs difficult to provide a complete and self-sufficient definition (Ryan 2007, 23 – 24). This precariousness of the terminology is further enhanced since storytelling is used in copious disciplines. The extensive and multifarious use of the term has resulted in a continuous and rapid advancement of the terminology, and this prevents the stipulation of one single definition of storytelling, since such an encompassing description would never include the entire scope of the term.

The same disagreement on the terminology is recognisable in archaeological context, where some have attempted to define the problematic terms (e.g. Mickel 2012, 110; Praetzellis 2014, 5135), while others just skip this step altogether, possibly sharing in Simmons’ thoughts that storytelling is simply something ‘we just know’ (e.g. Aksoy & Bayar 2016; Bird et al. 2016; Majewski 2000; Oobagooma et al. 2016). Traditionally, storytelling referred to the representation of archaeology through a ‘narrative text’ (either written, spoken, acted out, and so on) with fictional elements, characters, a setting and a plot. In the context of science communication a distinction is often made between four main types of texts: in addition to (i) narrative texts (i.e. ‘storytelling’), (ii) expository texts, (iii) a mixture of narrative and expository texts, and (iv) argumentative texts exist (Avraamidou & Osborne 2009, 1685; e.g. Dahlstrom 2014, 13614; Arya & Maul 2012, 1022; Farinella 2018). Expository texts are commonly found in academic journals, textbooks for educational purposes and traditional museums. They are mostly univocal, are either descriptive or explanatory, and are difficult to read (for laymen) (Avraamidou & Osborne 2009, 1685). The third type of text, whereby expository text is embedded in narrative text, is often found in the popularisation of sciences and stimulates and retains the attention of the audience (Avraamidou & Osborne 2009, 1686). Lastly, authors of argumentative texts have a clear standpoint and make the case that a given

(13)

12

claim is true, and the texts usually stir (academic) discourse. Theoretical essays, commonly used in academia, are examples of argumentative texts (Avraamidou & Osborne 2009, 1686).1 Narrative texts include interpretative, imaginative and/or fictional elements and are presented in a classic form of story, with characters, a setting, a plot, and a narrator. However, the current research argues that this is just one storytelling approach (‘plotification’, see section 3.2.2.4.), but other approaches are available as well. This re-consideration of storytelling is needed, for the communication of archaeology to the public does not merely happen through text-based projects. A broader definition of storytelling, one that does not exclude image-based and especially experience-based projects, should therefore be regarded.

2.2.2. Applied definition for current research

In order to work towards a viable definition of storytelling that could apply to the wide variety of archaeological outreach projects, the fuzzy-set definition of ‘narrative’ as proposed by Marie-Laure Ryan (table 1) (2007, 28) was considered. This toolkit for a do-it-yourself definition of ‘narrative’ allows for variable degrees of membership and thereby enables individuals to form their own definition based on the conditions they deem necessary for a text to be considered as a narrative. However, Ryan’s list of conditions proofs difficult to apply to all archaeological public outreach projects, since the proposed fuzzy-set definition is meant for text specifically. As was explained in section 2.1.2., outreach does not always rely on text, but it could rather also be image-based and/or experience-based. For this reason, the first seven conditions cannot be used as criteria for storytelling in archaeological public outreach. However, the last condition does provide some valuable insight. For narrative, or storytelling, to occur ‘’the story must communicate something meaningful to the audience.’’ (Ryan 2007, 29). Based on this statement, the following definition of storytelling is proposed that is maintained throughout this thesis:

1_{While it is noticed that argumentative texts are not often used in science communication, the popularity of}

pseudoarchaeology should not go unmentioned here. These alternative archaeologies are often highly argumentative, but the arguments mentioned are mostly (if not exclusively) fallacious (Moshenska 2017, 128). Fagan (2003) has pointed out that the popularity of pseudoarchaeology is (at least partly) due to its storytelling potential. Pseudoarchaeology could therefore be regarded as a combination between argumentative and narrative texts.

(14)

13 Storytelling in archaeological public outreach refers to the communication of archaeology to the public through methods and approaches that make archaeology meaningful to the audience.

This definition is not unique, for it shows similarities to Fisher’s definition of ‘narration’ as: ‘’(…) symbolic actions – words/or deeds – that have sequence and meaning for those who live, create, or interpret them.’’ (Fisher 1987, 58), although it has been specified for the context of public archaeology.

In addition to the fact that this proposed definition does not exclude image-based and experience-based outreach project, it also allows for a more thorough consideration of text-based projects. Not all narrative texts or combined narrative/expository texts can be considered meaningful. This is entirely dependent on what the narrative is, and who the audience is. Similarly, it is not impossible for expository and argumentative texts to become meaningful. Through connecting facts to something that is familiar (and/or valued) to the receiver of the information, expository or argumentative texts can evoke an emotional response and become memorable. The website This Day In History (www.thisdayinhistory.org) can serve as a simple example here. The page provides (factual) information about a certain event that has happened in history on the current date. It is also possible to select another calendar day, such as a birthday. The information on the website remains expository, but since it happened on a day that is personally valued, it is more likely that the text will be read in a more engaging manner. This is an example of a case-comparison approach, a method that is often used in education and has shown positive results as to

Spatial dimension 1 Narrative must be about a world populated by individual existents Temporal

dimension

2 This world must be situated in time and undergo significant transformations.

3 The transformations must be caused by non-habitual physical events. Mental dimension 4 Some of the participants in the events must be intelligent agents who have

a mental life and react emotionally to the states of the world. 5 Some of the events must be purposeful actions by these agents. Formal and

pragmatic dimension

6 The sequence of events must form a unified causal chain and lead to closure.

7 The occurrence of at least some of the events must be asserted as fact for the storyworld.

8 The story must communicate something meaningful to the audience Table 1: Toolkit for do-it-yourself definition of ‘narrative’ (from: Ryan 2007, 28)

(15)

14

improve student interest, engagement and comprehension of the subject (Van Straaten et al. 2018, 15; Merriman 2002, 548; Merriman 2004, 11).

2.2.3. Storytelling and meaning-making

As the definition in the previous section explains, storytelling and meaningfulness are very closely related. However, the two terms do refer to slightly different aspects. Storytelling in archaeological public outreach refers to the approaches and methods that can be used to increase the meaningfulness of a project. Thus, meaning-making is the goal, and storytelling is the set of approaches to achieve it (Pujol-Tost 2013, 78). However, meaning-making is not merely determined by storytelling approaches. As Ryan (2007, 30) points out, meaningfulness is not an attribute, but rather a dimension relative to the context and interests of the audience. In other words, an outreach project cannot be merely categorised as either ‘meaningful’ or ‘meaningless’ based on whether storytelling approaches have been used. Meaning-making is rather an intricate interplay between (i) storytelling approaches, (ii) the characteristics of the target audience and several (iii) additional factors like the appropriateness of the medium, the linearity of the narrative, and social aspects of a project (fig. 1). The storytelling approaches, characteristics of the intended audience and included additional factors have to be compatible with one another in order to make an outreach project meaningful. Although this thesis focuses on storytelling in particular, this topic cannot be discussed without regarding the aspects of the characteristics of the target audience and the additional factors.

(16)

15 Figure 1: Model of the relevant aspects to meaning-making.

Meaning-making

Main storytelling approaches Personalisation Emotionalisation Participation Plotification Additional factors Social aspect Linearity Medium Characteristics of the audience Geographic Demographic Psychographic

(17)

16

Meaning is created through mentally connecting new aspects, events, stimuli and/or knowledge with one’s own experiences, attitudes, emotions, interpretations, values, and/or existing knowledge (Baumeister & Landau 2018, 5; Fiske 1990, 40; Asp et al. 2019, 2; Krauss 2005, 762 – 763; Falk 2009, 137). The importance of evoking an emotional response to meaning-making should be mentioned in particular (Van der Linde et al. 2018, 183). When content stimulates feelings and emotions, this triggers the attention and memory of the audience, which are critical to learning (Perry et al. 2017, 4; Pujol-Tost et al. 2013, 80). What one finds meaningful has great potential to be moved from short-term to long-term memory (Barkely 2010, 101; Asp et al. 2019, 8; Sommer et al. 2009, 208; Falk 2009, 136). The desire for stories to be emotionally resonant has also been expressed by visitors of heritage sites and museums (Roussou et al. 2017, 407). Furthermore, the emotions do not necessarily have to be positive in order for meaning-making to occur. For example, disturbing or upsetting films may be considered meaningful, but no necessarily enjoyable (Oliver & Bartsch 2010, 58). Meaning is thus not equal to enjoyment. To summarise, a certain outreach project can be regarded as meaningful when it has an emotional impact and thereby become memorable. Since meaningfulness is relative to the context and interests of an audience (Ryan 2007, 30), and it is therefore highly subjective: what is meaningful and memorable to one, could be meaningless and forgettable to someone else. This subjectivity poses a problem for science communication, for it aims to target a larger group and be meaningful to multiple people. Luckily, although meaning-making is often regarded as an individual means, it has a collective dimension as well (Baumeister & Landau 2018, 6), for distinct groups of people behave in similar ways, have similar needs and give meaning to similar experiences or information (Arts Council England 2011, 4). Based on these commonalities between individuals it is possible to stimulate meaning-making for larger groups of people. Meaning-making therefore requires audience segmentation: dividing an audience into smaller subgroups based on their commonalities. This approach is commonly used in marketing in order to target a specific audience. Audience segmentation in public archaeology is further discussed in section 3.2.2.

(18)

17

3. Storytelling in archaeology

Archaeology lends itself readily for communication through storytelling by virtue of two reasons. Firstly, the subject has, and always has had, a certain appeal (Holtorf 2007, 9), as the popularity of fictional accounts such as the Indiana Jones franchise confirms (Vonk 2016, 8). Further validation of this statement can be found in the (limited amount of) empirical studies on public interest in archaeology that have been carried out. For example, although unrepresentative for the entire Dutch population, a survey carried out by Bolt (2008, 27, table 2.16) has shown that the majority of respondents (77%, N = 370) indicated to have interest in archaeology to a certain degree. This general appeal for archaeology is relevant since, as was mentioned before, topics that interests us have greater potential to become meaningful. In the second place, archaeology is either directly or indirectly concerned with studying people from the past and what their lives looked like. This places the discipline in a favourable position, for the inclusion of a human face makes storytelling more effective and narratives about people resonate more strongly with an audience (Pollock & Bono 2013, 629; Praetzellis & Praetzellis 2015, 124). Even when archaeological research is more concerned with artefacts and/or sites, these elements still contain an underlying narrative about people (Fagan 2006, 17). In addition, these stories can be about all types of people. Certain segments of societies, such as commoners, peasants, underclasses or slaves are often left out of the early historical accounts, but archaeology informs about these marginalised groups as well (Smith et al. 2012, 7619). The suitability for using storytelling due to these reasons was already recognised in the early developments of the discipline.

3.1. Development of storytelling in archaeology

Archaeologists have experimented with the initial concept of presenting archaeology through narrative formats for many years (Van Dyke & Bernbeck 2015, 1). However, the emergence of storytelling within the discipline is related with the development of different (theoretical) approaches to archaeology. Therefore, it is valuable to briefly discuss the distinction between processual and post-processual archaeologies, and how the different theoretical frameworks developed. It should be stressed that the explanation given below does by no means cover all the aspects and considerations of the different archaeological theories, however, a basic

(19)

18

understanding of the principles is sufficient in order to understand the connection between the development of archaeological theory and the emergence of storytelling in the discipline. The 1960s serve as a turning point in archaeological theory. A group of archaeologists expressed the need for a new approach to archaeology. They deemed the traditional culture-historical and descriptive approach to the material past insufficient, and aspired a more explanatory and scientific consideration of the past (Shanks & Hodder 1995, 3; Renfrew & Bahn 2012, 40 - 41). The dissatisfaction with the traditional view of archaeology lead to the emergence of a new theoretical approach to the discipline: the New Archaeology. Also referred to as processual archaeology, this new view on the discipline favoured a more scientific and anthropological approach to archaeology (Johnson 2010, 11). The study of culture processes (hence ‘processual archaeology’) by means of formulating hypotheses, quantitative data, constructing models and deducing their consequences became the new standard (Renfrew & Bahn 2012, 41).

In the 1980s and 1990s some archaeologists again grew dissatisfied with the direction the discipline was taking within the processual framework (Johnson 2011, 102). A variety of new approaches to the past developed, many of which had a strong focus on the symbolic and cognitive aspects of past societies. Collectively, these are often termed ‘post-processual’ or interpretative approaches (Renfrew & Bahn 2012, 17 & 43). Where the processual tradition aspired true scientific objectivity, post-processual currents of thought argue that this is unattainable, for all archaeology is theory-laden (Renfrew & Bahn 2012, 43; Johnson 2011, 105). The new approaches to archaeology were therefore highly interpretative, for they stress that there is no single correct interpretation and each observer is entitled to have their own opinion about the past (Renfrew & Bahn 2012, 44). This allows for the existence of many different perspectives on archaeology, and thereby permits (or encourages) subjectivity. Furthermore, post-processual thinking often emphasised on the individual as a significant agent instead of focusing on societies as a whole, as was favoured by the processual archaeologists (Renfrew & Bahn 2012, 44; Johnson 2011, 108).

Archaeology has always had a public dimension (Merriman 2002, 542). In the 1960s, when the processual tradition emerged, public archaeology was mostly concerned with questions regarding heritage values, legislation, protection or ethics, subjects that nowadays would be characterised as cultural heritage management (Merriman 2002, 542). During this time, the

(20)

19

term ‘public’ was associated with the state and its institutions (Merriman 2004, 1). However, it was within the framework of post-processual archaeology that public archaeology, as we know it today, could flourish. The rejection of objectivity resulted in the co-existence of multiple perspectives on how the past should be studied, managed and presented, and this ultimately led to the embracement of public engagement as a legitimate part of the archaeological discipline (Merriman 2002, 542).

Unsurprisingly, the (academic) attention for combining archaeology and storytelling increased under the influence of post-processual thinking. The rapid rise of storytelling as public interpretation was initiated by the organisation of the ‘’Archaeologist as Storyteller’’ session for the Historical Archaeology Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology in 1997 (Gibb 2000, 1). The session, coordinated by Mary Praetzellis, demonstrated a variety of presentations, or ‘performances’, specified as ‘interpretative’, ‘imaginative’, ‘surreal’ or ‘historical fiction’ (Gibb 2000, 1 – 2). The proceedings of the presentations have been published in the 32nd_{volume of the Historical Archaeology journal. All presentations were} based on historical and archaeological facts and ‘popularised’ by the inclusion of fiction or interpretations. Most of them are examples of ‘classic storytelling’, containing story variables such as characters, (a) narrator(s), a clear setting and a plotline. These early considerations of storytelling fundamentals were said to propose ideas and/or bring change to the way archaeologists regarded archaeology, but the potential and significance of storytelling as a means to communicate with the public were fully recognised as well (Deetz 1993, 172; Gibb 2000, 1).

That further development of storytelling in archaeology was initiated within the subdiscipline of historical archaeological is no surprise. As objective scientists, most archaeologists aim to avoid interpretations, imaginations and/or fiction, and for that reason they do not feel comfortable turning their study subjects into ‘living’ characters. There is simply no information about their experiences, memories and thoughts in the archaeological record. However, since historical archaeologists use written sources such as personal journals, this process is less complicated. That is not to say that all historical archaeologists are advocates of using narrative to present their research, but implicating what historical figures have said or thought is less likely to feel inappropriate if this information is based on what is recorded in written sources.

(21)

20

Although the developmental history of storytelling in archaeology suggests it is only for post-processual archaeologists, examples exists of (self-)proclaimed post-processual archaeologists who recognise the benefits of using storytelling to retain the attention of an audience, such is expressed by Bill Rathje (Praetzellis & Praetzellis 2015, 134 – 135). However, there is no denying that storytelling would most likely be favoured by post-processual archaeologists as a result of several reasons. Firstly, the interpretative character of post-processual archaeologies creates a suitable base for archaeological storytelling through the use of imaginative elements, and allows for narratives being told from a wide arrange of perspectives. The approaches also emphasise the role of the individual as a significant agent and, in case of phenomenology, go even further by stressing the importance of personal experiences encountered through the human senses (Renfrew & Bahn 2012, 44). This creates the opportunity to consider the individual agents as lively characters in a narrative who experienced the world they lived in. Lastly, post-processualism provided a suitable critical climate for a further exploration of feminist archaeology that was initially mentioned in 1984 by Conkey and Spector (Renfrew & Bahn 2012, 45). They criticised the androcentrism of the discipline and suggested academic writing should be more emotional, multivocal, personal, and open-ended (Johnson 2010, 131). This allows for the recording of personal narratives about archaeologists, where there is opportunity for writing openly about one’s own experiences and emotions.

It can be argued that, nowadays, the theoretical debate on processual and post-processual archaeology has diminished greatly. Among the younger generation of archaeologists there seems to be a consensus that both theoretical considerations have advantages and disadvantages. However, the decline of the discourse on processual and post-processual archaeology has not influenced the discussion on the use of storytelling in archaeology. On the contrary, likely connected to the rapid development of available (communication) media, recent times have seen an abundance of publications on presenting archaeology through alternative ways by means of storytelling (Van Dyke & Bernbeck 2015, 1). In the last decade, narrative approaches have been applied to a variety of archaeological case studies (e.g. Aksoy & Bayar 2016; Roussou et al. 2017; Lyons et al. 2018; Pietroni et al. 2015; Perry et al. 2017; Oobagooma et al. 2016), and the theoretical discourse on the topic continues (e.g. Praetzellis & Praetzellis 2015; Van der Linde et al. 2018; Mickel 2015; Holtorf 2010; Tringham 2019;

(22)

21

Mickel 2012; Porr & Matthews 2016). A special mention should be given to the CHESS (Cultural Heritage Experience through Socio-personal interactions and Storytelling) experience and EMOTIVE project (www.chessexperience.eu; www.emotiveproject.eu) which aim to implement storytelling approaches in presenting heritage locations.

3.2. Meaning-making in archaeological outreach

As was previously stated, meaning-making is an interplay between storytelling approaches, the characteristics of the target audience and several additional factors. For this reason, a discussion about storytelling in archaeological public outreach cannot be regarded without also focusing on the other influential factors of meaning-making, namely the characteristics of the target audience and additional factors. Each three aspects of meaning-making are therefore discussed in further detail below. The storytelling approaches relevant to archaeological outreach are considered first and in appropriate detail, since storytelling is the primary focus of the current study. The aspects of audience segmentation and additional factors are briefly touched upon.

3.2.1. Storytelling approaches

During the early development of the use of storytelling within the post-processual framework of archaeology, storytelling was mainly used as a term to refer to the use of interpretation and/or fiction. However, as the definition provided in chapter 2.2.2. suggests, storytelling goes further than fictionalising archaeological data. The goal of storytelling, making information meaningful to the audience, can be achieved through a variety of techniques. A discussion about creating meaning requires a consideration of the different approaches (i.e. storytelling approaches) through which a project can become significant to a (segment of) audience (Ryan 2007, 30). The techniques outlined below show a certain amount of overlap between them and in practice will often be used in combination with one another. Nevertheless, if at least one of these approaches is recognisable in an archaeological outreach project, it indicates that storytelling has been applied. It is important to understand that the use of these techniques does not necessarily guarantee the success of the outreach project. As has been pointed out before, people are unpredictable and will not always take away the messages and images that curators and educators intended (Merriman 2002, 554). The use of these techniques does increase the potential for a project to become meaningful to its attended audience, but they do not ensure its success.

(23)

22

The list of approaches to storytelling as presented below has been compiled based on a variety of literary sources which are mentioned in text. However, Glaser (2010) should be mentioned in particular. He describes four factors of ‘narrative’ which are recognisable in archaeological documentaries and television programs: personalisation, emotionalisation, dramatisation and fictionalisation. One will find that the terminology used to describe the storytelling approaches is mostly borrowed from Glaser, but the factors of narrative as he describes are not exactly the same to the approaches outlined below, for the current research focuses on (educational) outreach projects and not on the representation of archaeology in the mass media. Glaser (2010, 7) further states that the four factors he mentions are all recognisable in archaeological documentaries and television programs, while in the current research it is argued that the approaches to storytelling in archaeological public outreach may be used individually.

3.2.1.1. Personalisation approach

Personalisation is the first approach to storytelling that should be mentioned, and can be defined as the inclusion of aspects in the content that a particular audience feels personally connected to. It can generally be expected that audiences are interested in, and find meaning in, topics that they have a personal connection with (Van der Linde et al. 2018, 183). As has been pointed out by Chang (2006, 176), if visitors cannot understand or personally connect with part of an exhibit in a museum, they will skip it. Yet when a topic does have personal relevance, it is more likely to be memorable and meaningful (Barkley 2010, 101). Archaeological museums often lack in connecting to the personal narratives of visitors, and thereby can be considered uninteresting to many people (Pujol-Tost et al. 2013, 77).

3.2.2.1.1 Underlying theory

The personalisation approach builds upon the theory of constructivism, that considers meaning to be created by an individual through encountering ‘new’ objects, events, ideas, and so on, and mentally connecting these to previously gained knowledge or interests (Merriman 2004, 11; Pujol-Tost et al. 2013, 78). This particular approach to education is more successful than so-called deficit-based learning, whereby education is based on the premise of what the receiver does not yet know (Falk et al. 2012, 919).

In order to show the personal relevance of archaeology, the personalisation approach to storytelling in archaeological public outreach requires outreach projects to connect the past

(24)

23

to the present through so-called mnemonic bridging (De Bruijn 2014, 35). People can establish continuity between the past and the present through a variety of ‘mnemonic bridges’, some of which are described by De Bruijn (2014, 35 – 36): (i) constancy of place, in which people’s physical surroundings contain references to past events or processes. (ii) Relics and memorabilia can create a mnemonic bridge to the past as well, but unlike constancy of place, they are not fixed to a location and can therefore be integrated into different contexts. (iii) Imitations and replications can establish pseudo-physical contact between the past and the present. (iv) Simultaneousness refers to the calendric fusion of the past and the present through anniversaries and commemorations. (v) Historical analogies refer to the link between seemingly parallel events (De Bruijn 2014, 35 - 36). These mnemonic bridging techniques emphasise the continuity of the past in the present to participants/visitors.

3.2.2.1.2. Current use in public archaeology

The personalisation approach to storytelling is commonly used in archaeological outreach projects, and often takes place on the premise of constancy of place. It is regularly mentioned that public archaeology (should) aim(s) at involvement on a local and community level (e.g. Schadla-Hall 1999, 150; Van Ginkel 2004, 7; Van den Dries et al. 2015, 223; Van den Dries et al. 2016, 5), and this is not without reason. As the results of several empirical studies suggest, the Dutch public is mostly interested in the archaeology of their local region, as opposed to the national (Dutch) archaeology (Bolt 2008, 49; Van den Dries et al. 2016, 6; Boom 2008, 182). When visiting/participating in a public outreach project that is about the local archaeology, the location already has a certain meaning to audience, since it is the area they are familiar with and (probably) have knowledge about. Any additional knowledge gained about the local archaeology is built upon their existing knowledge of the area. For visitors/participants from outside of the region, the location has no particular personal meaning. Even if they would physically visit an archaeological site and are informed that the location has archaeological relevance, the feeling of personal relatability will not be as strong as it is for local inhabitants. To put it in other words: an archaeological find in one’s own backyard will be more meaningful than an artefact that has been found in a random location. A focus on local archaeology creates a personal experience that is relevant to the local public, since they can relate to the location while others cannot.

(25)

24

This focus on local archaeology does not necessarily mean that archaeological outreach can only educate about one’s own (cultural) identity. The previously mentioned Museum Wierdenland, has a temporary exhibit (11th_{May – 6}th_{October 2019) about Syrian tells. With} this exhibition the museum compares the local Wierden landscape to tells in Syria (Museum Wierdenland 2019). While the local cultural landscape will be an aspect that is familiar to most (local) visitors of the museum, they will build upon their existing knowledge through learning about the similarities and differences of the comparable cultural landscape of Syria.

3.2.2.1.3. Personalisation and identity

While the six categories of mnemonic bridging as mentioned by De Bruijn are fundamental to the personalisation approach to storytelling, they are not personalised per se. For instance, consider the following proposition: the University of Groningen (the Netherlands) was the first Dutch university to officially accept female students. This factual statement creates a mnemonic bridge based on the constancy of place, for the university still exists today. However, the fact will have different meaning for a current-day student who attends the University of Groningen, than for someone who has never visited the city and/or has no personal feeling of connectedness to the university. Inserting any elements in the narrative that the audience will recognise from their own world will increase the relatability of the story (Olson 2015, 122). The mnemonic bridge needs a personal aspect of relatability to truly become meaningful, and this implication has everything to do with the identity of the intended audience.

A comprehensive consideration of what identity is, how it is created and what defines identity does not fit within the scope of the current research. Nevertheless, some basic principles must be discussed in order to understand the workings of the personalisation approach. Identity is often organised in various domains: personal identity, relational identity and collective identity (Meca et al. 2015, 328). Personal identity refers to the attributes that make everyone unique as an individual (e.g. traits, goals and aspirations, experiences, interests, behaviours), while relational identity highlights one’s interpersonal side (e.g. partners, friends, family members), and collective identity refers to attributes indexing identification with groups and social categories (e.g. ethnicity, religion, nationality) (Sedikides & Gaertner 2011, 98; Meca et al. 2015, 328). While all three are vital to the identity of a person, they do not contribute in equal form. Previous research has pointed out that attributes of personal identity have a

(26)

25

motivational status elevated above that of the relational and especially collective identities (Sedikides & Gaertner 2011, 104 – 105). This pattern is, however, dependent on context. In many Western societies (the Netherlands included) personal identity matters more to us than collective identity, yet other societies, such as in East Asia, have a strong collective focus (Berman et al. 2011; Schwartz et al. 2012, 10; Ellemers et al. 2002, 162). Additionally, in certain instances people take precedence of their collective identity over their personal identity, for example when it concerns (ethnic) minorities (Ellemers et al. 2002, 163). Finally, what domain of identity people feel most connected to is also a personal matter. While most people may value their personal identity over their collective identity, this holds not true for everybody. This distinction between domains of identity is relevant for the current research, for it influences the effectiveness of the personalisation approach. Since people, at least in Western societies, have greater affiliation with their personal identity, an outreach project that has elements related to personal identity will be more meaningful than a project that attempts to connect to the relational or collective identities. For members of the public with an already existing interest in archaeology (part of their personal identity), participating in any archaeological project has the potential to be meaningful. And those who experience a strong feeling of connectedness to their place of residence (part of their collective identity) will generally find meaning in a presentation about the archaeology of their region. However, those who do not value their collective identity as highly, and do not have a pre-existing interest in archaeology, are less likely to find meaning in a project about the archaeology of their local region.

3.2.2.1.4. Personalisation and ‘human’ artefacts

In some cases, certain artefacts may have a high relatability factor without them being related to a(n) (personal) element of someone’s identity. Artefacts such as shoes, glasses, combs, pottery with imprints of fingers, or (fossilised) footprints have a very personal and recognisable quality as ‘human’ artefacts. They are relatable in the sense that they emphasise the fact that archaeology is about people like themselves. Although research on this topic seems to be lacking, these artefacts likely have greater potential to be meaningful and memorable. An indication of this phenomenon can be witnessed in several short news items from a local Dutch TV station (RTV Drenthe). Following an archaeological excavation at a former Nazi concentration camp, the public was invited to view the artefacts while

(27)

26

archaeologists were working on determining the finds. The news items show (short) fragments of visitors talking about artefacts they have seen, and they mention especially the personal artefacts (shoe, glasses, comb) (RTV Drenthe 2012).

3.2.2.1.5. Appropriateness

The personalisation approach can be used for various different target audiences. However, it does require a thorough understanding of the intended audience in order to identify the facets that they have a feeling of connectedness with. As pointed out before, people in Western societies usually have a stronger feeling of connectedness to elements of their personal identity than their relational or collective identity, though whether personalisation is more effective based on personal identity or collective identity should be considered within the cultural framework.

For audiences with a pre-existing interest in archaeology (familiars), an archaeological outreach project is already personalised, for their enthusiasm for archaeology is part of their personal identity. However, this is not the case for those people who have not engaged with archaeology before (newcomers). The personalisation approach can also be used for this audience segment, but this will often proof to be a greater challenge, for identifying the appropriate relatability aspect(s) is no easy task. A thorough understanding of the audience is therefore needed, and this will take time and effort, and likely requires a certain amount of professional skills in this regard.

3.2.1.2. Emotionalisation approach

Emotionalisation is a valuable method of making archaeology significant, yet it is not favoured by archaeologists for its unscientific characteristic (Skeates 2012, 90). It can be considered as the communication of emotive information through, for instance, language, body language, facial expressions. In order to fully understand the concept of emotionalisation, it is important to comprehend the difference between external and internal emotions. External emotions originate from outside of the presented contents, and they arise when the audience is confronted with the information. Examples of external emotions could be the pleasure of reading/watching/listening, curiosity, surprise, suspense, anticipation, wonder, or sense of beauty (Glaser 2010, 23; McCrory 2011, 95). As was explained in section 2.2.3., for a project to be considered meaningful to a member of audience, it must evoke an emotional response. This emotional response refers to external emotions, and they are relevant to all approaches

(28)

27

of storytelling. Emotionalisation, however, refers to the inclusion of emotions inside the presented content, or internal emotions (Glaser 2010, 23). Internal emotions are deliberate descriptions of feelings and emotions that are imbedded in the narrative itself. Through empathy, the recipients can identify with the feelings and emotions of a character/agent/narrator (Glaser et al. 2009, 438; Pujol-Tost et al. 2013, 78).

3.2.1.2.1. Current use

Storytelling through emotionalisation is often highly subjective and presents information from (a) distinctive perspective(s) (Glaser et al. 2009, 436; Glaser 2010, 23). Originally, the emotionalisation of content was mainly used for entertainment purposes in (fictional) television series, movies, or books. However, in recent years emotionalisation has started to occupy an important role in informative and educational communication as well (Bassols et al. 2013, 606 - 607). In public archaeology, the emotionalisation approach to storytelling has also been recognised and used to communicate archaeology (Van der Linde et al. 2018, 183; EMOTIVE, n.d.). This is not surprising, for besides entertainment purposes, emotionalisation has more advantages. First of all, the expressing and sharing of emotions are fundamental to communication and to human beings in general (Avraamidou & Osborne 2009, 1686; Wood 2012, 170; Berger & Milkman 2012). Consequently, through empathy it becomes possible for visitors/participants to connect to the content on a personal level and give significance to it via this means (Foster 2013, 376). Secondly, emotions trigger both our attention and memory, and these factors are relevant for the learning process (Perry et al. 2017, 3; Barkley 2010, 101; Lin et al. 2012, 26). Through emotionalisation, outreach projects thus have greater potential to be meaningful, retain attention and become memorable.

3.2.1.2.2. Imaginative emotionalisation

Emotionalisation can be troublesome in archaeological public outreach, for emotions are indiscernible in the archaeological record. That the implementation of emotionalisation therefore leads to a certain level of subjectivity (or fiction) has been noted by many scholars (Glaser 2010, 23; Glaser et al. 2009, 436; Van der Linde 2016; Alexandri 1995, 65; Porr & Matthews 2016, 268; Meretoja 2013, 94; Van der Linde et al. 2018, 183; Avraamidou & Osborne 2009, 1684; Watson 2015, 283). This level of subjectivity, whereby study subjects are turned into ‘eyewitnesses’ or ‘living’ characters, will probably unsettle many archaeologists. Nevertheless, there are examples of outreach projects that make use of this approach to

(29)

28

storytelling, such as the 2010 Lived experience in Ancient Judah exhibition at the Badè Museum of Biblical Archaeology in Berkeley (California, United States of America). Among other factors to provide visitors of the exhibition with a sensory experience, the ‘traditional’ factual labels to convey information about certain artefacts and/or events, were replaced with descriptions of the experiences (and accompanying emotions and feelings) of a (fictional) character from the relevant time period (Foster 2013, 375). To provide a specific example, the character (Hannah) describes a visit to the tomb of her family to bring an offering, whereby it is purposely mentioned how she experiences the trip to the tomb:

‘’(…) I gingerly walk down the rough steps to enter the dark, cool crypt. (…) The smell of stale incense and rotting flesh mingle with the sweetness of the pomegranates and figs in my hand.’’ (Foster 2010).

The descriptions of emotions and feelings were deliberately included by the curator(s) and archaeologist(s) organising the exhibition. This exhibition therefore demonstrates the use of the imaginative emotionalisation approach.

3.2.1.2.3. Authentic emotionalisation

Nevertheless, it is possible to utilise emotionalisation for outreach purposes without relying on fiction. Certain eyewitness of the recent past (for example the Second World War) are still alive, and by talking/writing about their emotions and feelings during these periods, they can provide a meaningful experience to others as well. In reality, however, there will not be many of these authentic eyewitnesses. Another option of using emotionalisation without fiction is through anecdotes of specialists about their work and experiences (in the field). This approach has been used successfully after an excavation in 2015 in Oosterdalfsen (province of Overijssel, Netherlands) that unearthed a complete burial ground from the Funnel Beaker period (3450 – 2750 BC). It is the largest burial ground dated to this period in northwest Europe (Van der Velde & Bouma 2018, 189). The archaeological relevance and importance of the site resulted in a variety of outreach projects about the excavation and the local archaeology. One of these was a documentary named Zoals Wij (Like Us) made by Loveland Film & Photography (Schat van Dalfsen 2019b). In addition to using the personalisation approach (based on location) to storytelling, the documentary also made use of emotionalisation. Archaeologists, but also other relevant parties like the mayor, appear in the documentary and are talking about their personal experiences, emotions and feelings that the

(30)

29

excavation evoked for them. The documentary won an award for ‘best script’ at the American TAC movie festival, and additionally received two honorary mentions for ‘inspiration’ and ‘best movie’ (Schat van Dalfsen 2019a).

Emotionalisation whereby authentic emotions, for instance in eyewitness accounts, are communicated relies on the aspect of empathy. Where empathy is concerned, differences exist related to age and gender. Girls generally show higher empathy levels than boys, and empathy increases with age (Del Rey et al. 2016, 276). While research on the effectiveness of emotionalisation as an approach to storytelling is lacking, this could lead to the conclusion that the emotionalisation approach to storytelling is most likely to be effective for adult audiences of the female gender. However, this issue is presumably not as black and white as is presented.

Furthermore, while imaginative emotionalisation is a relevant method to stimulate interest and retain attention of young or new audiences (Avraamidou & Osborne 2009, 1686), these fictional account are not suitable for those members of audience with a pre-existing or professional interest in archaeology. As Flitzpatrick and San Filippo have pointed out, transforming a scientific paper into an emotionally driven narrative, can create a certain amount of confusion.

3.2.1.3. Participation approach

Participation is not commonly regarded as a method of storytelling, although it is often used in archaeological public outreach. In these projects, volunteers are engaging in collecting, categorising, transcribing, or analysing authentic archaeological data (Bonney et al. 2014, 1436). Such experience-based projects are referred to as citizen science and, in addition to an outreach element, also serve a scientific purpose. These ‘unique’ encounters with archaeology can create an emotional connection between the event and the person(s) involved, thereby making it meaningful and memorable to the participants (Tintarev et al. 2016, 7). Additionally, participating in authentic research creates a sense of responsibility and purpose, both of which add to the overall meaningfulness of the experience.

(31)

30 3.2.1.3.1. Physical participation

In general, two types of citizen science projects can be distinguished in archaeology: those that require physical involvement (in addition to mental involvement), and projects that rely on digital sources. Participatory excavations are the most evident example of projects that require physical involvement, but other examples are available. For instance, ArcheoHotspots are locations where the public can participate in authentic archaeological research through the sorting of finds from a (local) excavation or puzzling pottery shards back together. (Volunteering) archaeologists and/or specialists are present at these locations to aid and supervise the visitors (ArcheoHotspots 2019). While this type of projects, that make use of the participation approach to storytelling through physical involvement, are popular and offer a ‘unique’ experience, possible downsides of these projects are the potential travel times to their location and the limited number of available places to participate.

3.2.1.3.2. Digital participation

In addition to projects that need to be visited in order to participate, some projects have a digital focus and allow participation in archaeological research from the comfort of one’s home. One such a project is Erfgoed Gezocht. In order to participate in this project, the public visits the relevant website and is then is presented with a segment of elevation data of the Veluwe region (province of Gelderland, the Netherlands). After reading a short explanation, the participants are then tasked with recognising and labelling archaeological features in the elevation data (Erfgoed Gezocht 2019). Such projects that rely on digital sources have the advantage that a large number of people can partake in the research (Moshenska & Zuanni 2019, 1414), and unlike activities that require physical involvement do not require participants to travel to a certain location. However, digital participation projects are not as ‘unique’ and are therefore much less likely to become a meaningful experience.

Storytelling through participation is an experience-based method that is relevant for all audience segments that are willing and able to perform the required activities. This excludes audiences of a very young age and, where physical participation is required, those members of audience with a physical disability. An enactive representation of archaeology, through the participation approach, is considered to be an appropriate form of communication for inexperienced audiences (Copeland 2004, 138), however, the participation approach is

A Good Story Never Dies An exploration of storytelling utilisation in public archaeological outreach in the Netherlands