 represent the event in visible monuments, digital memory. Seven archaeological sites of the Saloniki become accessible through digital applications. Well, the project was in pen that it was actually for the occasion, last September, for the occasion of the European Heritage Days. And it only lasted for one week, from 24th of September 2016, until the second and it was implemented in the framework of the NEAC project. Well, then the main objective of this project, for those of you who don't know, the Saloniki is the northern part of Greece. So it's the second city of Greece. Digital social media, the objective of the project was to combine digital social media and mobile phone technologies in order to raise public awareness on antiquities in an innovative and an unconventional way. Well, the thing behind that was to find some archaeological sites, some sites of the Saloniki's rich archaeological past, that are actually unknown or they are ignored or they don't exist in the collective memory of the citizens of the Saloniki due to the way that they are created. For example, that they are underneath contemporary buildings or because of the lack of info, they don't, we actually don't see them. And the other thing was, the other objective of this project and the challenge of the project actually was how to involve people to that. We thought that digital technologies, mobile phones and tablets and the engagement also through networking, social networking, would be the suitable approach for rebuilding this mnemonic maps of the residents of the city and to reestablish the hidden and forgotten memories in their daily life. What we also did at the same time was a small evaluation seat and also a questionnaire which is part of a PhD at the University of Leiden in order to understand what people actually want and what do they like in that and to also see how this thing went finally. So these seven archaeological sites, it doesn't mean anything to you, but I will come back to that, were sites of minor importance actually and they don't apply to what we think about big monumentality and great monuments. And all these inglorious sites were falling through three categories actually. The first one is sites that they don't exist, or they don't exist. Actually they don't exist right now because they were excavated. This is the Neolithic settlement, the international fair of the Saloniki and it was excavated in the early 90s but they thought that it was of no importance to the public and so they built this horrible, horrible building, this conference hall which is more important to the city than the Neolithic site which is the first settlement of the Salonism past. The other type of monuments that we had in this application was Roman baths where sites actually that are dug in the rescue excavation in the 60s and the 70s where we had the urban development of the Saloniki but they lie underneath in basements of block of flats, hidden, actually non-accessible and people don't know anything about them, not having any info on that. This is the Roman baths and the Sergius Pregrammas Temple which is actually one of the first Christian temples in the Saloniki. So it must have some importance to the mnemonic map of the Saloniki. The other category of monuments are monuments that are standing there and you can see them actually but due to lack of information and you don't have any access to that. It is the Sergius of the Saloniki, the Basilica of Hagia Sophia and the last category is of monuments that actually stand in front of you and you see they are massive but you don't know anything about them. You are passing by and you ignore them completely. The one is the Guillain-Mermer which is at a very big street and with a lot of traffic in the Saloniki and the other one is the Biculum which is a small tomb, a barrier at the Aristotle University of the Saloniki of our own quarters. So what we really wanted to do is to take these monuments and the info we did and the stories we dug up from what we find and use mobile technologies but technologies that our people are familiar with and they are not intimidated and they don't feel challenged and so also we want it to be quick, cheap and very, very, very easy to use. So what we did was to print QR codes at posters and put it in very specific sites very close to these monuments, to these invisible monuments. So people would go and pass by into their everyday life and just get the chance to see that and scan it and find out what this is all about. These are the posters. The idea behind the posters was to have a common vision identity. So what we did is to have different colors for its monument and at the same time we wanted to be subtle, leaner but to align the monument out of its grand plan. So there they are. If you have a QR code scanner you are very, very welcome to scan it and find out about the action. There are also some leaflets of that at the stand of NIARC so you can search about it and also see what different than the beautiful things we are doing at NIARC. So these are the sites that we don't have internet so I cannot guide you to that. And some numbers of the question, the talking numbers. In only just 10 days we had 5148 visits of the website. 68 of these visits were made actually by smartphone and tablets and the rest that was made by through PCs. Something which means that, no, no, I'm sorry, people that entered the database through the PCs usually stayed more there. What we had, we had also, I forgot to tell you that we had a Facebook page, Twitter page and an Instagram page but Instagram and Twitter didn't work very well. On the other side, Facebook was a really hit because we had more than 1,200, sorry, 1,200 followers and people are still liking the page until now. So, and some demographics. We had 188 questionnaires filled in. I forgot to mention that we gave a small gift to people. We tried to make them, to force them to fill in the questionnaires because it's really difficult to have people taking part in the service. So, we did a small promotional bug and that was the gift and what answers we had, we had 188 answers to the questionnaires. 184 were Greek and four were as the English version. I don't know the nationality. So, we had three mails, 60% three mails, 36 were mails and 5% didn't want to answer. The age group, that is something very interesting. You see that 40% was at the age group, 21 to 35. It's the category Katie, you were talking about. So, that was something that also, crying from Leiden took a notice on that, that the age group was very eager to do the application. To take part of the event is better to say. So, you can see some data on the education level and employment status. And what is interesting is to see that the participants degree of learning from the visible moment, they thought that almost 80% thought that they learned something about this event. And the satisfaction also of the participants were actually close to 90%, which I think it's something really good. And these two also are important. The desire of the participants for this digital application to be used for other monuments to be more permanent, 99% said that yes, they would like that to have it at the Saloniki. And if they recommend the app to someone they know and 97% said yes, that they would recommend that. And because of the questioner had closed and ended the question, not the open ended question, what you want to know is why they were interested in doing this. And most of them asked that they were interested because of the local history and actually the history of the city of the Saloniki. And a lot of them said that they had a personal interest for the past. Another thing was the curiosity and the general interest. And a very important factor was the knowledge. They wanted to obtain knowledge. They wanted to know something more. Some of them said that they liked it because it was original and innovative. And last but not least, a lot of people came because of a professional interest. They were either archeologists or students or architects or freelancers. So yes, people really liked the event and the app. And we can say that because of the photos they uploaded to the Facebook and they tried to be interactive about that and they wanted to know more. And they answered to the questioner that it is a pity that we don't have such a thing in a permanent basis in the Saloniki. So now you will allow me to read the conclusion, Marks. So I'm finishing just to be sure that I make everything clear to you. As I said at the beginning of this presentation, the use of common technology which people are familiar with and from which they do not feel intimidated or challenged was a deliberate decision. The results of our experiment proved that it was the right choice to use applications which are targeting at the average person on the street and have a predominately cultural and heritage content as it is well established that often culture is conceived as bordering to elitism. Practically the event designed and executed successfully as it turns out was an invitation for new media technology to experience the past, not in a static and educational manner but rather as a playful discovery executed within a technological comfort zone. The result was to reconnect people's everyday lives with distant and unfamiliar, unknown stories of the city in which they are living. As technology was the new inviting means to support the reintroduction of the past in everyday life experiences, our event opens up a largely untapped resource in Greece, excuse me, of cultural techno payment with a particular emphasis on historical heritage. The use of new technologies and social networks for the dissemination of archeological information is not a novelty, it said. It can be seen from visit to museums and monuments to the general public and information about archeology and forms a distinct part of the brief of the democratization of knowledge. However, as in politics, technological accessibility and connectivity do not automatically increase democratization. They increase control equally in contemporary heritage, and the access of different public groups and communities of stakeholder information to knowledge even to the management of heritage is considered almost self-evident. In the background of the revolution brought by technological new practices in archeology, there is a growing concern from the role of archeologists in creating a theoretical framework in which the technological possibilities will be implemented in a liberating democratic way. We should seek the cultural and political context where archeological information is produced and used. So we should contextualize the managing of the archeological heritage itself, but above all, we should emphatically empower the public who receives this information. This last point is the greatest challenge for Greek archeology and probably the most difficult to be carved out even the particular conditions with which archeology and heritage are practiced. At this point, I would like to give all the addresses you could use. I would like to thank except of me and the authors of this presentation, series of people who worked to implement that. And I wanted to say that it is a collaborative work. So we have to keep that in mind also. Thank you.