 OK. This is the title of my paper, Towards the Post-Heroomage on Material Epsom and Virtual Presence in Roman Archaeology. But as I was writing it, it went different ways. So the Roman Archaeology is about a project I'm starting or have start up about a temple that's no longer present. And the project is about the archaeology of imagination. And you can, perhaps, imagine with an epsom temple my thoughts more and more derailed. So the actual title is an increasing digressing paper on cyborgs, bitcoins, and fungal. And my apologies, but I'll try to explain why. So the illusion of immateriality, the first point on cyborgs is about the post-humanism. And I'm thinking a lot about the materiality of abstract objects and digital objects and thinking about how they fit into our life world. And that's how I got to think about post-humanism. So the bitcoins is about my part about immaterial objects. And I'm very happy it was already mentioned. So I don't have to digress too much on that bit. And then the fungi is actually the part where I try to link that to my project on the temple, which is called the Isem Campensa in Rome. But first cyborgs. And this is a picture of Neil Harbison, who is a cyborg. So there are already some self-proclaimed cyborgs amongst us. And this guy really got me thinking about what a post-humanist is. Because what he is is he was born with a deficiency in which he could only perceive gray scale. So he didn't see any color. So it's different than colorblind as he didn't see any color. Increasingly frustrated with that in an artist, he had some experimental surgery which implanted an antenna on his bone, which made it possible for him to perceive color again through sound. So this Neil Harbison is now hearing colors. And this is one of the artworks that he made from voices, he heard. One of them is George Bush and the other one I forget because I don't perceive what he is perceiving, which already makes it very interesting to think about. Here we perhaps have an actual post-human. And he has some, if you're interested, some very super interesting TED talks. But what he actually says is that he doesn't feel better than a human. Actually, he says that he starts to understand his species amongst him better because, as he says, he doesn't feel 100% human. So it didn't make him what we said a transhumanist, an evolved species. It made him more aware of other species. And in that case, we do have to think that if there is going to be post-humanists such as these cyborgs, if we're going to be cyborgs, we will not think as human beings anymore. And I don't think awareness in this classroom or how we write and how we talk, we should all become cyborgs. I think Neil Harbison is really advocating for that. But I think that from the idea of virtual and especially developments in immersive virtual archaeology can give us a sense of how this feels, not to be 100% human. And this might, as well as it did to Neil Harbison, increase our idea or understanding of other species. And this is also derived from writings from Haraway. The cyborg is more about the rejection of boundaries separating human from animal or machine and how we're always becoming with others and how we're human and non-human, virtually and bodily, natural and artificial, organic and mechanic. We can try to experiment to recreate these things with virtual archaeology. So for that, I want to think about the how of that because it is easily said, of course. But doing it is something else. And there's a theoretical problem in that if we're trying to become non-humans, we need a whole different philosophy. And phenomenology has, of course, always been with us to think about how we perceive. But phenomenology is an enormously human-centered philosophy. So what should we do to become other species, or at least to become increasingly aware of how we're not humans? How can we create a non-human phenomenology? And one of the in-between steps I want to take is to increase our world as virtual. And then I mean digital, the computational world, but also a concrete, actual world. And here's, of course, two examples of virtual objects. One is an icon of an apple, and the other is an image of an apple. If I would have a concrete apple, then that would be the actual apple. But all these things, both real life and virtual reality are part of a life world. And virtual reality is there for both real as it is part of real life. And that's what I want to emphasize in my paper, that we're talking about something real, even if we say it's virtual. It might not be actual, but it is real. And the step to bitcoins, perhaps more easy in my mind than for the audience. But immaterial objects, which have been mentioned, is a step of saying, OK, they might be virtual, but they're very real. And especially, we're talking about consequences. So it has been mentioned, of course. But I think that Bitcoin is a very valuable and important example. Also, what I want to stipulate, you mentioned it already. Of course, we know that there is materiality, even in immaterial objects. But I also think that we as archaeologists have a very increased knowledge on this, and that it would perhaps be good to disseminate this more widely than amongst ourselves. I think we can actually contribute something outside of archaeology discussing immateriality and immaterial objects. And in the case of Bitcoin, there is so much material going on that if we take it as an assemblage, of course, it is an immaterial object because it is virtual. But there is so much representation and symbolism involved. So the Bitcoin has representations. And here, you see an example of how it is virtually aesthetically represented. And then you see it's actually coin. So the iconography is still coin. More, even, is referring to Gold Rush. So Bitcoin, which was meant just like Uber and Airbnb initiatives, perhaps, to be a less controlling form of money and to be more democratic in that way, is actually very much a part of shifting neoliberal and neoliberal anarchic developments. The transaction is very material. There is so much computer power needed to do a transaction on Bitcoin. If you want Bitcoins, you have to mine them. You see, there is another part of the network of the assemblage of the Bitcoins in the sense that you have to mine to dig for Bitcoins. So this is also a symbolically very material aspect of course. And then the amount of power necessary means that we cannot do this. People who can mine Bitcoins nowadays are large companies bought in cheap countries that rent an enormous amount of space where they have computers running nonstop. So it's a very capitalist undertaking and it is very damaging for the environment. So if we see this as an assemblage or immateriality, it's an illusion. It is very real and it counts especially for the consequences that it has. So now to Fungi, which is a slightly more difficult bridge. So thinking about or cyborg and immersive VR, I want to try to take a non-entropocentric perspective, such as these birds are doing, to my project. And the nice thing about immersive VR is that it increasingly allows us to give us other views. And actually, it already does so, of course. So this is my project in which, first of all, I am studying the representations or the imaginations of a temple that does no longer exist on coinage, on medieval drawings, to see how people imagine buildings in the past and how they imagine an Egyptian temple. So we're creating a platform in which we do several reconstructions, also transparency, how did people make these reconstructions and what steps do we take. But what I also want to do is get this non-entropocentric view on it, and here we go to the Fungi. A problem of Roman archaeology very much so is that it suffers maybe more than other branches of archaeology from a very humanist background. There is no space for engaging with what it meant to engage with the divine in Roman archaeology, much less than it should. If we take an immersive VR perspective on how it must have been, or at least how it could have been, to engage with a deity or even to see point of view of the deity's eyes, increases our awareness of how we are not experiencing this. So this is it. Of course, we cannot become trees. We cannot have a phenomenology of a tree. What we can achieve through this is disrupt our vision of it. We can understand that we are not the only perspective and the only perceiving beings. So I want to have that perspective. The bird's eye view perspective, of course, is already a very much post-human view because we cannot fly. Making people aware of this already changes our perspective on ancient architecture, but also the experience from the fungi and the mosses that live on the statues that were once in the temple or on your epigraphic stones, for that matter. It's not about trying to become fungi, it's trying to become non-human. And I think for archaeology that is opening up some very, and especially in Roman archaeology, some very straight boundaries that are currently still existing. But it, of course, does also more because if we can do it for the past, it has the immediate effect that it also dissolves more boundaries that we are experiencing right now about humanistic approaches. Because what we call human condition is a condition in which people who are transgender or queer or physically impaired are also not 100% human because it is based on a very narrow perspective. So I think the potential is due to sum it up. Thinking about the material objects as part of assemblages matter. And I think we have a task, perhaps, to do that more and outside of archaeology. The virtual is a category in this, which people are comfortable because the virtual has always existed in its traditional ritual forms. And with that, I mean that if we look into a mirror, we also see something virtual. So the virtual world is real, but it's also something that is not with us since the computer. So the digital can try to bring this back as opposed to human exploration. And incorporating virtuality more broadly and use the effective agency of digital methods to create this post-human and non-anthropocentric perspective, I think, is something with a potential, which I just explained that can disrupt currently existing classes and categorizations. Thank you very much.