 Good morning everyone. It's great to be here. Thanks to EAA, to Andrew and Leonard for the conference and for the host of this symposium. I'm a PhD researcher at TSI University where I have been applying advanced analytical digital methods to burn human remains. So part of my work involves digital imaging and as this area of my research developed I start to think more and more about issues regarding digital ethics for the dead. As I consider the digitisation of the analogue dead within my project I realised that as archaeologists we lack a standard ethical approach for the digitisation of the dead. Furthermore, I also noticed that within our new synthetic words there is an even greater gap in our approach to the analysis of the born digital dead who will be the subject of much new archaeological research. So today I would like to provide you an overview of some of the issues we face as archaeologists working with the digital death and propose some approaches to tackle these gaps. These ideas are discussing more details in my paper which is about to be released in an AP Journalist Special Edition on Contemporary Death. So digital death is a consequence of the change in communications and networking technologies which revolutionise human existence, democratising data creation, storage and distribution as the web two-point theory progressed through the hyper cycle and social networks built a business model by digitising real interactions encapsulated in Facebook socials graphic. The result is that we now live in a digital world but we also die and mourn online and in doing so we develop new practices and ways of experience death. However, researchers are still in the initial stages of understanding the significance of digital death in archaeological terms. But what do I mean by digital death? So digital death can be defined as relating to any aspects of death made digital but within this definition we can distinguish two main concepts the born digital death and the digitisation of the analogue death. The analogue death are those who lived and die without creating digital content but whose data might be digitised by researchers. On the other hand, the term born digital death refers to those who spend at least part of their lives generating digital content. These new types of death provoke theoretical discussions about how archaeologists should create, manage and investigate data for the born digital and analogue death. Firstly, we look at some of the issues we face in the management and interpretation of the data for the born digital death. So born digital death encompasses the combination of the footprint of linked data created by individuals including comments, gifts, videos and emails which is enriched by other through the new digital funerary practices of remembrance. Born digital death is a post-modern event which is different from the traditional death that took place within communities and from the so-called modern death in homes and hospitals. Conversations with the death which were previously highly formalised and pried now take place in public, in online communities of diverse mourners. For example, up to 50% of the comments in online cemetery memorials books are from strangers and virtual church communities such as St.Pixels now hold memorials for participants who they have never met in person. However, although digitising social interactions was a core part of the new digital enterprise such as Facebook, a lack of structured talk regarding these interactions caused issues. In 2006, my death space group, All My Space, led to trolling on the walls of dead users and in another more recent case, Paul Hand led the guilt to trolling to the page for the recent deceased young people just last month. In other situations, family members were either unaware of the digital assets of the dead or lacked control due to restrictive policies. On early Facebook, poor mechanisms for reporting deaths those that use this page often led to accounts becoming internet ghosts. But the logic of human mortality revealed that the population of that users would only to grow, controls were improved and the concept of tenacosensitivity were developed to consider design in death and for death. Facebook allowed permanent memorialisation of accounts falling campaigns in 2007 and include the query after a person dies what should happen to our online identity in a list of hard self-imposed questions. When analysing poor and digital death on these platforms, archaeologists should consider two aspects. The force is the tension between privacy control and remembrance which has intensified in online spaces as a phenomenon in the way which humans interact with the dead in a digital age. The second is that archaeological analysis of this type of flurry process will be a learning process in the face of the new rapidly changing technologies which even the developers are struggling to manage. One approach for inhabiting digital death is to consider these synthetic words as virtual mnemonic landscapes like physical, funerary moments. In addition, although digital reactions to death take a new form, they might follow many of the principles of the passage, rights of passage and ritual funerary theory and ritual theory. As such, the digital landscape of death including online memorials, virtual cemeteries and social networks might be assessed through the lenses of funerary frameworks currently applied to the physical, motor and mnemonic landscapes and monuments. This framework emphasized that the landscape can embody memory such as runestones, memorializing death in Scandinavian landscapes of Vikings. Landscape features become vital parts of memorial funerary process in the Neolithic and pyramids as monument representing the dead in an ancient Egypt. Another implication of the born digital death is the potential for digital reincarnation. Content can be revitalized to create the creation of the so-called digital zombies through a place of performances such as the appearance of Freddie Mercury or the visual at recent Korean concerts. And beyond this, there is a growing discussion regarding active digital state planning. In some cases digital tools have been used to document the entire life of the users such as life not in my life piece. Another example here after Institute, a conceptual artist installation by Gabriel Bercia Colombo, was designed to get people to consider what will happen to their digital remains using concepts such as revitalization in virtual bot software and memorization by a 3D body scanning. VR facilitated memory reconstruction, digital records and memorial data service. The concept of revitalization through data is a variation on symbolic immortality. But now technology can combine data with artificial intelligence to create virtual avatars that provide a digital way to immortality. Provoking fundamental questions about the link between the person and the physical body remind rendering humans as a pattern of data or cyber soul. Fiction out TV series have explored software including Black Mirror where AI was applied to social media data to recreate the disease and altered carbon where humans stored their consciousness digitally. In reality apps already exist which apply AI to social media and other data archives to create chatbots for us to interact with the dead. Archaeologists must now consider the impact of such technologies on the growing stories of social media data and assess the importance and significance of algorithmic bias that might be incorporated when using such technologies to investigate the born digital death. Beyond South documentation AI and chatbots were also using another media to explore stories of the dead including video games. The representation of death in games has historically been challenged due to the paradigm of lodology where death can be simply represented as a mechanism to manage failure. However some designs are increasingly concerned with panatosensitivity provoking users to think more profoundly about death. An example that dragon cancer tells the story of Jo a five-year-old boy who died from cancer. Jo parents designed a game to present plays with choices to each stage of his life but all ultimately resulting in death inciting the user to explore and contemplate mortality. In a part of me we raised young people and expats in child psychology designed again to help families to cope with grief by providing an engaging space to help families to talk with their emotional resilience and store digital memories of the deceased. New games even document funerary treatments such as a mortician's tale where the player becomes a mortician preparing bodies for embalming value and cremation while learning about the treatment of the dead. These are only some examples of the many video games which indicate how digital culture is both influencing and documenting contemporary death. As archaeologists we should also consider methods we will use to study these forms of storytelling and material culture what metadata we require with the games and how we will converse the information in data and the data that they hold. Beyond digital death researchers are also documenting the bad in physical spaces of death, online by transforming the analog dead into digital data. The term digital public mortuary archaeology has been coined to refer to the creation and emergence with any digital content concerning the dead including digital platforms for sharing information such as digitized zits, blogs, blogs, digital mortuary documentation also extend crowdsourcing platforms for recording standing in cemeteries and memorials. The hard Iceland project documented them playing bodies in New York City unmarked mass graves. Another project facing the nameless crowdsource names for 3D's, candidates and others of unknown individuals. These projects present the analog dead online in an inherently, inherently public form but there are a series of, there are a series of ethical challenges for archaeologists and other research attempting to digitalize the analog dead. These challenges encompass different states of process through recording, sharing and story. Although ethical guidelines for the treatment of human remains already exist help us to address these challenges most draw on moseology and very few address the ethics of digitization. The gap to simulate debates at recent conference include HEA 2013, EEA 2015, WACA 2016 regarding the ethic creation and sharing of digitized human remains and biological data. Ultimately these questions form a part of a broader discussion regarding the ethics of the process of analyzing human remains and depending on the different cultural historical context of our search project. One key aspect of current guidelines is the requirement for consent from the affected communities and the need for contextualization data to accompany the remains to just apply display. However in my review of the digital bioarchaeological data sharing practice online on Sketchfab published in a paper released this week in the archaeologist journal I found that many models of human remains had almost no contextualizing data. For the more son of the 3D image had thousands of view and were available for use, modification and public download meaning that they could be modified, reused and 3D printed at will. Poorly documented collection pose a threat as they have heavily lit to value as a tool for research and educational use as well public engagement. To attempt to address these issues I create a matrix. The assessment of how and when digital representations of the dead should be displayed online which is shared in my college spectrum. These variables for assessment fall into broad category as we can see firstly there are the situation variables which include consultation, local legislation and contextual discretion. On the other axis there are the nature-related variables identification and states of the individual circumstances of death and times instead. Beyond the ethical challenge regarding the sharing of data archaeologists is studying both the analog and digital that now also face new challenge regarding the persistence of technology. The fate of the website was 2009 exemplifies the fundamental nature of this challenge. Digital data is not understandable. Significant force is required to ensure preservation and conservation in a digital realm as service software and games are often rendered obsolete of after a relative short period of time. For the more as data becomes highly centralized and virtualized using cloud service archaeology might be restricted salvaging from a small number of global data centers such as Facebook's facilities. In this case well-planned conservation and storage ports such as internet archive alongside open data standards will be required to ensure future access. Cloud storage also herds the ear of big data which presents research with a complex issue of quantity. There is already a physical cries of unanalyzed physical material from many excavations as we know and big data may just unleash another crisis. An analyzed and high complex data sets are a phenomenon which scholars are already attempt to address on a smaller scale through multiple open initiatives. Archaeologists need to be able to develop algorithms and implement sampling strategies in order to obtain meaningful insights in this huge data set particularly where they are unstructured and lack harmonization. Finally as we have seen through the presentation the emergency of contemporary born digital death and digitization of the analog that pose multiple challenges and opportunities for archaeological primes. In the case of the born digital death many of the challenges remain as present as those faced by 17 centuries antiquarians such as Sir Thomas Brown who in the study degrades cemetery tombs and monuments aspire to understand the motivations and choices of these past people concerned how they use material culture and commemorate the death. Archaeologists exploring the new discursive mnemonic digital landscapes now require new approach to existing theoretical concepts in order to analyze and understand new forms of funerary practices. As we create the data of both the analog and born digital death online we should remain critically aware of the best practices and approach to show that data and digital culture is both managing and design ethically and preserved for future generations. Thanks for listening.