 I don't have a PowerPoint because really it will be pointless given that I have to present only a very simple argument which I think is quite urgent to make. And it is, as Andrea said, why archeology should be part of the curriculum in general education. And by general education I refer to the secondary education what in England they call the A level. So my first part is identities and narratives. Who am I? Who are we? These fundamental questions which define our identities and to a large extent determine our actions can only be answered by narratives. Our personal stories are woven into more general contextualizing stories of various depths or subjectives or subjective social identities are set against the background of major events through which we retrace the various episodes of our own life and what we know about the lives of our parents and their parents. Further down the past we identify with what we have learned in our early years about the historical events which contributed to the formation of the collective memory in which we participate. It is this collective memory that is a foundation of our cultural and ethnic identity. This is not questionable. Although we receive and process information about these historical events from a multitude of sources, family tradition, monuments, museums, public discourse, and even comics, the main authenticating power comes from the curriculum we assimilated during our formative years. National history is a compulsory part of this curriculum as at its most basic level. At least since the beginning of the European nation states which took shape in the 19th century with the rise of literacy and the emergence of history as a discipline. All the authors of history textbooks much makes a crucial decisions as to when and where to start the narrative. This is not a question that can be given a simple answer. History must provide depth and ground to collective identities and for this it must invoke a particular foundational gesture which becomes ritualistically celebrated and forced. National day, et cetera. Given the relative instability of geopolitical borders over time, there is a need to assimilate into the narrative various degrees of territorial plasticity towards a present geographical figure that is the iconic representation of each nation. The boundaries are not always obviously natural, but generally depend on arbitrary decisions reached through force or diplomacy. Therefore, identities are socially constructed through oppositions and divergence of interpretations. What is celebrated as a victory in a narrative is lamented as a defeat in another. Language and ethnic differences compound the conflicts of historical cultures and naturally we could object that history as a scientific discipline offers more balanced perspective. However, textbooks by pedagogical necessity, mainly at the primary level, tend to simplify complex issues and implement national agenda. The history is promoted by the curricula feed social and international tensions and mutual distrust. It also provides politicians with combative argument as a recent and ongoing Brexit discourse amply demonstrates. Other recent electoral debates in Europe have shown how easily history can be used to raise emotional emotions, antagonistic emotions. By contrast, and that is important, by contrast, the position of archeology in the curriculum is far from being secure. For instance, in the United Kingdom, archeology was taught until recently in A-Levels as a part of the national curriculum history with textbooks such as Discovering Archeology and Teacher Guide and Various Pedagogical Help. If I had put a PowerPoint, I would display now the covers of these books, but I mean, it's enough just one to have one to give an example of what this type of thing is. Now, art history and archeology, there is a big title of the guardians, art history and archeology strapped from A-Levels curriculum. Very simple, art history, archeology strapped from the curriculum. And the guardians continue, first art history, then classical civilization, and now archeology, one by one, the A-Level subject that introduced six formers to discipline they may come across at home are being axed from the curriculum to make way for what the department of education considers more rigorous studies. This will narrow our sense of ourselves and what it means to be human. This very important segment is by a journalist of the Guardian, and this is basically the point I want to make in this brief paper, which is to offer five arguments. There could be, actually, I select the number first for finding the arguments, because I know that if I select three, I will find three. If I select seven, I will find seven. But let's say five, and it's up to you to judge whether they are relevant or not. So, to offer five arguments in defense of archeology as an essential component of general education, we should be taught in secondary school. Now, the following is not meant to be a curriculum, a project, but rather a set of considerations that would potentially inspire various courses of study adapted to local situations and environments with a view to benefit the community in general. First of all, it would provide a temporal perspective that frames national histories in a broader context. And that is quite important to be able to consume or to assimilate national histories but within a much wider context. We can, you know, do something. Secondly, it develops, it would develop a sense of human continuity and diversity. And that is also extremely important. Thirdly, it would sensitize to the importance of material culture in relation to the environment and cultural context. As if you do archeology, you become very much aware of all the context with other cultures and so on and how much your own identity is built on this diversity and influences and cooperation rather than antagonism. Fourth, it would debunk racist ideologies and provide a soft introduction to genetics because you cannot really teach at this level prehistoric archeology without bringing in, in a soft way, genetic consideration. So, you know, the way human beings are made up of a great variety of DNA, et cetera. And finally, it would educate students to perceive and save the archeological record in their own environment. And that is quite interesting. I mean, we have to think of the archeology of the future, and I plan to propose for next year a session on the archeology of the future. That is, if we ask ourselves now, what the archeologist in the 22nd century will want to know about the way we live, then we could make sure that we prepare in advance, assuming that there is not been a planetary catastrophe, that the planet Earth still exists, that it has not boiled down to ashes, or things, et cetera, et cetera, and that the language, the language, there is still a way of communicating, or that the technology will have not made so much advances or modifications that it will be impossible to communicate with the past as we are now in relation to the Homo erectus, for instance. It's very difficult to imagine. Now, of course, Homo erectus could not figure out that hundreds of thousands later, there would be people interested in knowing how they were cooking, how they were chanting, how they were loving, et cetera, et cetera. So it's really interesting to develop a movement in which we would take care, we would think of, well, in the 22nd century, some people will ask how we lived, how we could manage with this and that, and we know that how often we found in the archeological record objects that we have no idea what it is for. And for the people at the time, it was obvious they were taking that for granted. So there is certainly a sort of perspective thinking in thinking of the archeology, not the archeology of the future, but the archeologists of the future and try to cooperate with this virtual situation. Now, three objections can be opposed to the perspective of archeology in the curriculum. How to handle the fuzzy transition between biological evolution and cultural evolution? That's something that in a curriculum and archeology has to be solved. People can say, well, it's difficult, we cannot do that. Secondly, how to handle the conflicts of theories and methods in archeology? Because we will say, oh, you want to teach archeology? Well, which theory, which method? It is too confusing, there is too many, so you cannot teach it. Maybe it is important to introduce young minds to the scientific inquiry in which you have indeed several theories, several hypotheses and so on. And finally, how to consider archeological knowledge and religious belief? And I suppose that it is one of the arguments for which some nations want to eliminate archeology because it is in conflict with some belief that is not complying with these persons. Of course, these are objections which I think can be answered and can be solved. Conclusion, in conclusion, being in mass tricks and in view of the above considerations, it seems appropriate to advocate the difference of archeology as an important part of the curriculum in general education for the benefit of the community. If it does not exist yet at the European level, and I am not inquired about that, it would make sense for the archeologists of the EAA to tentatively design possible modules which would introduce students to archeology following, for instance, three stages. And this is just to put something on the table. One, the material culture of the historical periods I studied accompanied by a basic training in how to conduct teamwork locally. Secondly, introduction, and this with three levels, one year after one year, the second level, introduction to prehistoric archeology with emphasis on the Neolithic and further ages. And thirdly, introduction to Paleolithic archeology, including information on hunting and gathering culture as well as basic knowledge regarding the input of genetics on the understanding of migrations and population dynamics. Such a module or other combination of elementary archeological knowledge would offer a temporal perspective conducive to integrative rather than divisive education.