 And as you can see, I changed my affiliation. I'm now with the University of South Florida. I'm a visiting research fellow there. And I will be talking about the archeology of globalization, nothingness, problems, and solutions for future narratives. So something less data oriented and a little bit more theoretical. So start with globalization. What is globalization? There are many ways of perceiving it. It's certainly not something new. You can see here a map from the 17th century, 18th century that already starts to form the world view. And you can see other maps and created for example, from the flights, you know, the airlines, how they connect the world or the internet and the major hubs connecting the various areas. And you can see that TV, for example, I mean, we have many channels, very often also foreign channels. So globalization is always increasing and creeping up. And we noticed that probably more of it recently, but it's a trend that has been going on for forever. The globalized world can be really mentioned in many terms. You have just a quick list of mobility movement, the spread of people and technologies, exchanges, trade, the contests, influences, intercultural, conquest, colonization, empire. By themselves, there are many different facets of archeology, but they all point to mobility, to something that becomes, you know, something together, a mixing of cultures, even colonization itself. I mean, we know that there is colonial archeology, but in reality, I mean, what is colonization, especially in the past, it's a really two cultures meeting and one taking the prevailing on the other, but the Romans, for example, were doing it the same and before the Greeks. So it's something that is always part of some globalization form, whether it is violent, pacific or peaceful or whatever, it's something that is always related to globalization. And we have also some theories, archeological theories that corporate periphery, world systems from Wallerstein, globalization, globalization after it was brought up that localization is also important, interconnectedness and network analysis. So we have, I think a couple of sessions that are running in this very EAA meeting and that are all aspects of the same thing, of globalized the world that is, I mean, different approaches really to investigate this world. And in reality, I mean, humans have always been social and there are always mobility, even in the Paleolithic and there is always something, you know, some merging of some kind of a culture. It's a really isolation that is unusual. It's very rare to find a closed context that is without any influence. And as I mentioned, well, global and local have become two key words in archeology and also there are some global, which is some form of globalization that also looks at localization. And we have always to consider that every time a social system is built, it will grow in complexity. And that is simply how it is. And then there are, you know, changes. So also globalization, as I mentioned, has grown and changed a little bit. But it is a trend that is really detectable already from the very deep past. And here we see some environments. I want to really to bring some attention to the local. And here you have a woodland, urban areas, deserts, and what not. And all these environments can, you know, bring some perspective to people and cultures. But perspective then can be quite a different change. We see here, for example, from the space age, the earth seen from the moon and from space. And, you know, it's a completely different perspective in a way, but it is always, you know, our environment. Now we don't see anymore, you know, our immediate environment. We see a broader environment, but we still don't live in the world itself, in the world world. We still live in a place, whatever that might be. And so sometimes when we started to enlarge our view, it becomes richer, but it might lead also to do nothingness because we started to lose who we are and what we are doing. Really as people, not just as archeologists. And as archeologists, we certainly started to lose where to focus. Should we focus on the local? Should we focus on the interaction? Should we focus on the broader view, generalization? All of it, none of it. I suggest simply that let's look also at science, just the previous speaker mentioned that while archeology is a science, and I believe so. I mean, we certainly have to stick to certain rules that make archeology as scientific as possible in its quest for some truth. And here I just present a couple of pictures. The first one is really particle physics. They are looking really at the foundational particle. And we have gone from the atom that was already theorized by Epicurus to the nucleus, a nucleon, pork, and maybe even smaller particles. And we have the DNA that is the basis of life and the amino acids. And so even in science, we try always to look at the foundation. What is the minimal element? In archeology, I think we should do the same. We should start to look at what are the elements of the basic elements that interact and not really try to pursue immediately, without knowing the foundational blocks, these broader views that could lose track of the local cultures and the archeological record. I think that the local culture intended really in archeological sense is quite important. And we have really to get it right. It's a really, we excavate, we study material culture and that is what archeology is about in its basic principle. And we have to start there. Anything that really excludes in some way the archeological record that doesn't consider it as the focal point in the sense that it's a starting point really, should be really excluded. And that doesn't mean that we don't have to make a generalization or a broader use, but they have to be informed from the archeological record. So there has been a long period, for example, with the theory that was really a way to create a model, but in absent without really any foundation on the archeological record or sometimes to look at a single archeological record and build a model that was very broad. In reality, we need to look at multiple local cultures, multiple archeological records, different sites, and then from there, see the interactions of what elements are really relevant for any interaction. And from there build a broader picture of what might be a generalization or what's not. We shouldn't really go for a forum, a simple theory. We have spoken a lot about big picture, broad also, long-term history and dynamics, world histories, diffusionist models, and they all are really facets of aspects of the same globalization. So we have really to understand that globalization is really the interaction, the basic interaction, is the product of basic interaction. There are, for example, now there is a kind of deep history that is to look at, you know, from the Paleolithic to modern times, or really look at very, very long periods. But sometimes you, I mean, it's useful in a way because it's always humans, it's always, you know, certain things are obviously recurrent, and you can find in any context, maybe some point of contact. But I think that it's a problem sometimes when you lose sight of, you know, what is the local, what is really the life of an individual at some point or what decisions these people might have made to interact, what kind of influence that might be, you know, slower sometimes. Sometimes they might change a little, as we have heard from Gagos, it might be just a slow change because they learn something new. Sometimes it might be dramatic and environmental disaster or flooding, for example, and they immediately understand that they need to react to it. It can be something that is simply even midterm. I mean, they meet another culture or a new culture is formed in a new fashion and they start to change their material culture and their ideas. So we need always to anchor a little bit our ideas on the material record. I think that sometimes when we have these very broad views, we tend to miss what people really were doing and it is dangerous because then there might be a trend, a very broad trend that, you know, you can recognize, but that is not necessarily what people meant or what people perceive is happening. And always remember that when you see a trend that is very long term, so, you know, thousand and thousand years, it might be not that too. I mean, any environmental catastrophe, any new influence, any colonization, anything that, you know, is disruptive and can happen, it can change this trend. Sometimes there might be a trend to something and then, you know, if you stop, sometimes they just go on. Today, for example, we would say that technology is driving our society in many ways. I mean, it changes it very, very frequently, but there might be a point where we get used to technology and we say, well, I don't want a new smartphone, I'm okay with what I have. So certain trends can slow down. So we don't have to make too many conclusions from these broader, broad things. We have to really see the impact of things on the real people. And so, exactly, local context and cultures must be really at the heart of what we do. I think that commercial archeology in particular has been very successful in really investigating, in recent times, local areas, because they are really like academia and universities and academic people. They are not doing research here and there or what they fancy, but really a certain territory. And that is also very important, I think, for archeologists to take notice that there are growing data sets really for a certain locale and they needed also to really use it and not just leave it or it's data from commercial archeology or, you know, and it's nothing that we should be bothered about. I mean, we need to create also histories and narratives that are local and that can be told to people within a certain region. And this leads me to discuss a moment about narrative. I think that this is what we agree is the final product of archeology that is a narrative, producing a narrative that explains as much as possible. It tells us in a way what we know physically, what material culture is, what data we have, but also how we explain it. And I think it is very important that we understand that it's not a simple scientific result that we can say, you know, one plus one equals two and it is the solution and there is nothing else to add. We really have, I mean, data that we needed to gather scientifically and investigate scientifically, but then we needed to come to a conclusion to a narrative and that is very much rooted in social sciences and we needed to really understand that it's equally important to us to present those data to people. We have to present those data in particular to the people that are within a certain region. I think that it is a dangerous trend nowadays to lose a little bit even in our own profession. We were moving sometimes from one place to the other and losing contact really with any particular area we might feel in touch with a particular cultural area but then even going outside of the town or maybe another country in our case it can be something that you lose basically contact with a specific culture and I think that a lot of people with increased mobility even for ordinary jobs, they are losing a little bit touch with who they are, where they are and there is also the community that changes with immigration, just even if you are living that and have lived that forever, also the past generations you might see that the society changes around you, new people arise. So there is an increasing need to really re-found this society and give them some blue, some focal point that they can look forward. They can look forward. They can, an identity really that can bring them together and I think that a narrative that explains the territory and the changes in the territory would be ideal for these people to really regain some contact with the land that they live on and maybe not the land that they were born in or it might be that it changes, they think that it changes, but if they have a sense that it wasn't always starting, it's just that now it changes more rapidly and they are part of a historical trend that started much earlier and they belong there in some way. That would help also I think politics, some extremism would go and those archeologists would be helped because then you make a relevant, you make an archeology relevant to people and here you see just an example of a stratigraphic record. This shouldn't be just fun for people to come and make a dig as we have seen which there should be something that will really bring I mean the data from our museums really to people, translate them to people into narratives that they can understand and so they can appropriate their past, their land. I think that that is something we needed to do. It's, you know, there are many, many ideas but so far some confusion on what to do. There are community archeology projects and bringing people into archeology projects with even art, the same EAA, but there is a strong disconnection between territory and people, the place they live on and the society that is there nowadays. Archeology is really the only discipline that can bring them in touch again, land and people and we can create perspectives that are both global and local. You know, we can tell people you belong to this territory, to this land but we can also show them a broader picture and say and this land and this people also belongs to the world. So we can shape a little bit of the understanding of people, of ordinary people, you know, even uneducated people, people that is outside academia. I absolutely think that therefore narratives need to be understood by everyone that we don't have to stop there at, you know, the academic report or the technical report for commercial archeologists. We really need to go beyond and engage the public. So very quickly, the conclusions, I think that we need to really target these narratives that can be more broad in the sense of more engaging for different audiences, both academia and public. I think that we needed to make something, you know, not just our own interpretation, you know, that what we are interested in, but also make it a little bit more useful, our interpretation and present a history and really become a little bit of storytellers, produce a story that makes some sense. Eventually even sometimes saying, well, we don't know how they might live but have lived for these aspects but we can imagine that. So we know that, you know, it's not from data but give us some kind of idea and start basically, you know, scientifically in terms of approach, but also more engaging. And we need really to break barriers of time and area, particularly with archeology, you know, you can say Bronze Age, Neolithic or classical and we need a little bit to break barriers and show that there is more continuity. And really the world is going to be ever more globalized. It's a kind of that started early in the past and because of this globalization, there is more interaction and there is more complexity. So we really needed to adapt to it. We need to target for broader audiences and we absolutely needed to engage also politically against the extremism. If we have, you know, data that showed that there was change, there was immigration, I can recall here Mary Verde that is a classicist at Cambridge University, for example, and she very recently mentioned on social media that in the Roman Britain, there was some ethnic diversity and probably even black people because there were Africans from the Roman army that were in Britain. And she was literally verbally assaulted because people would not accept that. And I think that it is important to engage people and tell them, look, there is nothing like, for example, the native of Britain that is some pure white and, you know, it's different from Europe, but it could be anywhere. I mean, it's just, you know, Britain is just an example. And we need really to challenge these views. If we have a data, we can't be silent anymore. We really needed to participate more and engage the public. Well, thank you very much. Thank you.