 Good evening. Good morning, if that's what it is. Good day, everyone. Wherever you are, you're very welcome. It's my real pleasure and a privilege as your outgoing secretary to welcome you all to this virtual and environment and to the opening ceremony of the 26th EAA annual meeting. The opening ceremony will be very similar in its program to our normal live event, but it will be somewhat shorter than it usually is just to cater for its virtual nature. We have a very full scientific program this year and a wonderful week ahead of us. So before we start, I'd like to just give you a quick outline of what the program for the event is going to be. There are five program slots in all. We will begin the evening with the former welcome address from our president, Galite Criado-Fuardo. This will be followed by a statement from the chair of the Scientific Committee this year, Alexandra Ambeuth. Our third slot following tradition will be the presentation of the European Archaeological Heritage Prize. That set of awards will then be followed by the presentation of the EAA Student Award. And our program will conclude with a keynote lecture. It will be presented by Cornelius Holtoff and it will be entitled Post-Corona Archaeology, a new normal questionnaire. So it's now my great pleasure to welcome our president, Galite Criado-Fuardo, to our virtual stage and to this open up this unique event in the life of the EAA and this year's 26th EAA annual meeting. Felipe, are you ready to speak? Yes, I am. Thank you, Margaret. Hello and welcome everybody to our virtual, but actual annual meeting. Wherever you are, we all are here now. My first words are to acknowledge and thank all of you for the endorsement of the organization of this meeting. And my second words, by the way, are to explain why Margaret Cohen is presenting this opening ceremony. Margaret is presenting because her term in the board comes to itself after more than 16 years. And we all must appreciate the strong contribution she has made to the EAA. My next words are as usual, as always in that occasion, to remember, to keep some memory of these friends and colleagues fellow archaeologists who have passed away this year. These are the ones we know, perhaps there are many, or there are others, and we all are kept in our memory. Also as usual, I'd like to acknowledge here our corporate members who are a very special kind of support of the EAA. One of the good things is that year by year, the corporate members' numbers increase and this is very good. I'd like to say just some reflections that I want to share with you. By now, this is the year of our generation. Since March, we have seen things many people wouldn't believe. We have seen a full spontaneous movement of archaeologists, archaeological organizations everywhere, to resist opportunistic tactics, to weak heritage protection. We have seen many people mobilizing to support archaeological jobs in danger. We have seen innovative ways to create new opportunities for archaeological jobs. And further on, we have seen to rearrange and reopen archaeological fieldwork in the current complex conditions and do it in record time. But the most unbelievable thing is being here more than 1,900 people in this virtual annual meeting. It must be for sure the first occasion that this occurs. Almost 2,000 archaeologists are joining online a real-world event. We are experiencing something that for sure will become part of the new normal from here on. This meeting is because of this, also an online experiment. I am fully aware of the criticisms that moving to the virtual space arrives between many. I am also sure that we all will have different experience all the days ahead. There will be difficulties, and there will be things that will work perfectly. But at the end, all these experiences, whatever is better or worse, will make us wiser. Perhaps another president, Putin, sees here in the effort we have done to get here. Putin sees him being the first archaeological organization that is doing such. Perhaps he would insist in the economic losses and risks, and also at the end in the financial balance. He would insist also in the world law to rearrange everything for the virtual annual meeting. But this president, the humble president I try to be, prefers to highlight the generosity of all. The large change of interactions, patience, calm in the middle of the storm, and a stream of full enthusiasm that brought all of us here. EAA is here to serve its memberships. This is the real important thing. And I like to believe that EAA membership is here to serve all our peoples. To help them, to help us by facilitating knowledge and access to our heritage. What is the footprint of our traditions, wishes, struggles and resistance. We as archaeologists are very well equipped to pay this duty. After all, the only real aid we have to cope with current problems is this hundred pieces of material culture. And archaeology, as you know, is all about material culture. How producing it, how using it, how managing it, how creating new spaces with material culture. I have always defended you that archaeology and EAA have to speak to contemporary issues and future matters. The future is all about our past and present, about our conflicts, about our struggles and also resistance. The better we cope with these old things, better our disciplines will be. This will also surely be reflected in the EAA itself as an organization for the future. As an organization, fair, representative and strong. These things cannot be taken by themselves. They require to do things. And some of the things that have been done, that we are doing, I would like to stress before ending this course. The first one that really goes together with what I have just said is that this year we are presenting a new annual statement that this year is the bow to gender and archaeology, to archaeology and gender. A very important topic that we are presenting this year to the annual members business meeting to be approved by membership and to then become the annual statement of the EAA. To will get full information about what is going on, what was going on in the last months in the annual report, in the 2020 annual report. I invite you all, I ask you all to read the report and understand the information, the full information is there. Finally, I also must refer initially as always, but especially this year to the lecture. Every year at this time we have an election season going on, but this year is very special. It's very special because we are electing a new incoming president, together with a new incoming secretary. Both positions are especially important and beside all the other positions that are being elected for the board and for the nomination committee will have to work together to lead the organization ahead. But as you can imagine, it is the lesson of the incoming president that is the very most important here. So, once again, I pulled you up to read the statements and to vote and nothing else. It is a big pleasure to be with all of you. And as all of you, I just missed to have a cold beer and one corner or the other of this annual meeting. Thank you. Thank you for the day. And thank you for your kind words. I would now like to welcome Alexandra Anders, the chair of our scientific committee to speak to you all. The committee by staying with us following a very difficult decision to cancel Budapest. We're really instrumental in our ambition and also our decision to hold this year's meeting as a virtual event and of course with a full scientific program. And more importantly, however, as Felipe has just said, it was you all, the members of the EAA that held us together. And it helped us to succeed in our ambition to host a full scientific program this year. Sandra, are you ready to speak? Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Thank you Margaret and good evening everyone from Budapest. Let me tell you a story. It all began as usual in the history of EAA representatives of the EAA Executive Board and the organizers of EAA 2020 Budapest elected the members of the scientific committee. Together with the SEC, we determined the main teams that would provide a fair and work for the dialogue at the AM. We strove to choose teams that would cover the most important issues commanding the interest of EAA members and would at the same time also reflect the local flavors and concerns of the host country. Accordingly, some of the teams have a global relevance such as networks, networking. May I have the slide? And sustainable archaeology and heritage waterscapes, archaeology and heritage of fresh waters and theories and methods in archaeology. The teams focus on regional and local histories within the broader context of European archaeology and heritage from archaeology of borders, connections and roads and embedded in European archaeology the Carpathian Basin. The seven team addresses to the history of EAA have occurred since its foundation, 25 years after the changing annual meeting in Santiago. On a rather cold and overcast day, can you imagine now in November 2019, at a partly in person and partly virtual meeting, we finalized the conference sessions and call for the contributions was opened from December. We received 2,600 paper proposals by the February deadline, which were first screened and proved by the session organizers. It all seemed if we would organize in Hungary the second largest after Barcelona, and then out of the blue. Everything was turned upside down. In mid-March, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic affected not only the EAA 2020 Budapest, but the life of virtually every human being on Earth. Never before have we experienced our vulnerability and helplessness to this extent as amidst the crisis of pandemic, which was in part perhaps caused by our excessive self confidence for all of you. At the same time, the crisis revealed the dormant power communities and networks, which will be of immense aid in the situation and surviving it. When the EAA-XB decided not to cancel or postpone the meeting, but to move it online into a virtual space, every member of the SEC decided to put even more effort into ensuring that the VIM would achieve its set goals. In this situation, the role of the scientific committee and the role of the scientific program gained even more prominence since obviously the social events, which are always one of the main attractions of the AM, are not the same online in a virtual space as when we can meet personally. The world hasn't stopped merely for that for a moment. Research projects are underway. There is a definite hunger for dialogue and for the personal presentation of research results. It was reflected by that over 170 sessions, sorry, 1,400 presentations have confirmed their participation in VAM. We are in the midst of unusual times with immense challenges ahead of us. Why there were quite a few cancelled sessions, not all of the authors cancelled their presentations, and about 180 contributions have been added to the general session. The task of the SEC was to create traumatic groups with 6 to 12 presentations selected from these contributions. The conference motto is networking, the power and adaptive capabilities of networks, their flexibility and resilience is ultimately determined by the number of connections. Different networks connect through nodes. The EAS center in Prague has always played a prominent role in connecting networks and its role increased manifold during the past few months. The EAS proficiency in organizing the AM and the new innovative approach steered us through these difficult times, and we are deeply grateful for the commitment of the EAS secretary to find a viable solution to whom I wish to extend a heartfelt thank you in the name of all participants of the EAM. For we saw them, we could hardly have managed to forge ahead and hold this year's AM, even if in a virtual space. I also wish to send the members of the SEC, the session organizers and each and every one of you who will hold a presentation for your work and for your perseverance during the difficult times and in the coming days. The stories that are missing the bonds between us, the story from 2020 will hopefully be an inspiration and a source of strength and resilience in the EAS community. Thank you. Thank you, Alexandra, for that. We now come to our third guest of the program, Catalan Wollach, who will present the European Archaeological Heritage Prize. The Heritage Prize Committee, Franco-Nicolas, cannot be with us, so Catalan, who is a working member of the committee, has kindly stepped in to present the awards. Prizes are awarded in two categories. There's an institutional prize and an individual prize. I'd now like to welcome Catalan to our virtual stage and to present this year's prizes. Are you ready, Catalan? Yes, Marguers, thank you. Thank you. The European Archaeological Heritage Prize of the EA dates back more than 20 years. The 22nd award ceremony is taking place this year and the 29 individuals or institutions have received the prize so far. Applications are evaluated by the Heritage Prize Committee, the current members of which are Franco-Nicolas, who chairs the committee, Natan Schlangen, Marie-Louise Stieg Sorensen, Narcan Jalman and myself. The evaluation is based on the criteria specified in the call, taking into consideration the candidate's scholarly and societal output, as well as their achievements in heritage management and the political impact of their results. The award is handed out for outstanding contributions to the creation and dissemination of knowledge on archaeological heritage and for the protection, presentation and enhancement of European archaeological heritage. Since 2018, the prize has been awarded in two categories, in the individual category for an outstanding scholarly contribution and or personal involvement in the institutional category for local, regional, national or international initiatives, long or short term, which contribute to the preservation and presentation of European archaeological heritage beyond the normal duties of the institution. Despite the current difficulties, this year proved highly successful. We have received many excellent proposals and the committee took into account the added value in the evaluation of a successful project or a well-functioning institution. One proposal concerned a person who, however, suggested that the program should be awarded instead, which the committee observed. Among the applicants, researchers and institutions from 10 countries, there were universities, research institutions, museums, heritage sites, state services and different individual, state or civil society supporters of archaeology. Before introducing the winners, please allow me to say thank you for all the proposals and also thank each nominee for their remarkable contributions. The winner of the European Archaeological Heritage Prize in the individual category is Dr. Geli Kar, University of Cambridge. Let me read the Laudatio for Dr. Geli Kar. The management of archaeological heritage is a challenge for all societies and often especially for smaller communities with answers found deeply rooted in traditions, in social practice and in heritage awareness. It is an ever more difficult challenge when the archaeological remains relate to recent historical events, opening up an array of different memories and emotions. Dr. Geli Kar undertook this task when she researched and evaluated the period of Channel Islands history under the German occupation, 1942-1945. The Channel Islands had for long encounter difficulties when attempting to engage with and agree to account of this period. The reasons for the resistance against engaging with the island history had to do with the silence about the victims of Nazism in the islands and the cooperation with Nazi Germany as well as the British war narrative that marginalised the fate of the Channel Islands. With the system of fortifications built as part of the Atlantic Wall with bunkers, donjons, canals and prisoners of war camps, the islands were one of the most important part of the German World War II defence system. Prior to caste labour, there were few and poorly preserved memorial sites on the islands referring to this period. The island Genzi had no memorial to the resistance. The Jewish memorial erected in 2001 was twice vandalised. There were no credible commemoration of the labour camps and the victims and the Holocaust Memorial Day was not really celebrated. The situation on the island of Genzi was better but even there the main exhibition about the German occupation was outdated and the victims of Nazism marginalised. Caste work over the last decade has combined sustained heritage activism and scholarship in this region. Some of the most important results are the erection of monuments, museum exhibitions including the new exhibition gallery, placing permanent exhibition with more information on Jews and political prisoners, dissemination through media like BBC documentaries, website storytelling, new social media groups, public speeches, newspaper articles, local TV and radio interviews and educational materials, co-organisation of Holocaust Memorial Day ceremonies, designing resistance heritage trace, excavation of a forced labour camp in Jersey, advocacy both in the island and in the UK. Between 2014 to 2019 she dedicated and published three monographies on the theme. Caste activity has transformed awareness about the Channel Islands victims of Nazi persecution both locally and internationally. The impact of caste research has changed attitudes and transferred awareness of Channel Islands towards victims of Nazism in their own community. In setting forth this lost history of the Channel Islands, Caste has helped to change understandings internationally as well. The above newly justifies the award of the European Archaeological Heritage by 2020 of the European Association of the Archaeologists to Dr. Geli Caste. I congratulate her on behalf of the EAA. Let us see the winners video now. It's a real honour to receive this award and it's come as quite a bright spot in what has otherwise been a dark year, I think, for all of us. And I'd like to start by thanking the EAA Heritage Prize for selecting me as the winner for this year's prize and it came as such a lovely surprise. I'd also like to thank my colleagues at the University of Cambridge for their support, most especially James Barrett in the Department of Archaeology, for nominating me and the Cambridge Heritage Research Centre, directed by Mary Louise Sorenson, who I think is an earlier winner of this award, for providing a warm home for those in Cambridge who have studied studies. I'd also like to single out Nick Saunders, my mentor for nearly 15 years, to thank him for his support. And I think that many of us who work in conflict archaeology owe him a debt of gratitude for his encouragement and inspirational guidance. And I'd also like to thank my husband and family for their cheerleading behind the scenes. And I just want to say that I was awarded this prize for my heritage activism on behalf of victims of Nazism from the Channel Islands which was occupied from 1940 to 1945. And although I've worked on behalf of all categories of victims and survivors from that period, so deportees, forced labourers and Jews, it is most especially the political prisoners who have a special place in my heart. They were those who were imprisoned or deported to Nazi prisons, concentration camps and labour camps on the continent for acts of protest, defiance and resistance. And during and after the occupation, they were seen by most of those in positions of authority in the Channel Islands as troublemakers who deserved everything they got. And their experiences in prisons and camps were seen to be a punishment of their own making, and they didn't receive any honours after the war. And their memory has never been rehabilitated, or at least until I began my work and I hope I've helped to change that a little. And I therefore wish to dedicate this award to the political prisoners in the Channel Islands and it seems appropriate to do that in this year of the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the camps. And at a time when nationalism and far-right politics is once again increasing in Europe. So I dedicate the award to those who fought against such ideologies. The winner of the institutional category is the remains of the Greenland Programme and Network. Let me read now the Laudatio for the remains of the Greenland Programme and Network. Preserving the vast but rapidly deteriorating Arctic archaeological heritage has been a frontline focus in contemporary archaeology. The National Museums in Denmark and Greenland have made major contributions to archaeological understandings of the dynamic effects of climate-driven ecological and environmental change affecting Arctic archaeological heritage. The Remain Project, research and management of archaeological sites in a changing environment and society, investigated between 2016 to 2019, the short and long-term effects of climate change on the preservation of archaeological sites and organic artefacts in southwest Greenland. During four years of fieldwork and multidisciplinary research, groundbreaking results have been achieved not only on the changing environments of West Greenland but also on the circumarctic as a whole. Although the project was completed last year, its main objectives were carried forward by the members of the network from during the project. The continued observation and monitoring how climate change influenced the preservation of archaeological heritage to initiate research-based cultural research management tools for locating sites at risk to develop strategies for managing threatened sites in Greenland. Students from several universities also participated in the project and interdisciplinary research generated the preparation of ME and PhD thesis. The researchers have also developed new modeling tools to predict the future loss of archaeological deposits and have carried out the first-ever archaeometric regional multithread assessment of archaeological sites threatened by climate change. The leader of the project, Jürgen Holessen and the members of the network were determined to disseminate to the public as well, educating and presenting on the dilemma of climate change to arctic archaeology. The inclusion of indigenous concerns regarding Greenland cultural heritage was also part of the agenda. The significant scientific publications, professional workshops like Leicester, EA, Round Table Climate Change and Heritage and actions in international forums are examples of attempts to bridge the gap between academic and public audiences. In view of the above, this network can be considered an outstanding advocate of archaeological heritage preservation in a European region in direct danger of imminent devastation of its archaeological legacy. For all these reasons, remains of Greenland program and network is awarded the 2020 Institutional European Heritage Prize of the European Association of Archaeologists. On the alpha of the A, I would like to congratulate the winner, especially Jürgen Holessen, the National Museum of Denmark, who was and is the key figure in this network. Let us see now the winner's video. Hello everyone here from Copenhagen. My name is Jürgen Holessen and I have been PI on the remains of Greenland project for the last four years. On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to thank the EAA and the Heritage Prize Committee for the award. It's a great honor for us to receive it. I would also like to thank Velux Foundation for financial support as well as the National Museums of Denmark and Greenland and the Center for Permafrost at the University of Copenhagen. Finally, I would like to thank all the researchers and students involved in the project. It's been a great honor to work with you. We have prepared a short video that we will show now. So thank you very much. Finally, allow me to introduce the runners-up of the institutional categories. The second and third highest score have been achieved by the SARAT Safeguarding Archaeological Assets of Turkey project and the Splash Cost Network. Let me invite you to see the videos of the runners-up. Thank you for your attention. Now, the next slot in our program is the award. This is usually presented by the editor during the bar theology in Australia and so cannot be with us. So it's the EJS Reviews Editor, Marta Diaz-Gualmino, who will present the winner of this year's student prize. And this will be followed by a short pre-recorded statement by the winner. Are you ready to speak, Marta? Yes. Thank you, Margaret. Yes, so the EAA Student Award was instituted in 2002 to recognize the best paper presented at the EAA conference by a student or archaeologist working on a dissertation. Papers are evaluated for their academic merit and innovative ideas by the award selection committee. Composed of representatives of the EAA Executive Board and is chaired by the general editor of the European Journal of Archaeology, Kate Freiman. The award consists of a diploma and one or more book vouchers. The winning presentation will be considered for publication in the European Journal of Archaeology. The 2020 student award goes to Samantha Leggett for her paper tackling early medieval transitions using hierarchical and multi-isotope approach. Biomolecular studies have become a common feature of archaeological research over the last few decades. This field has given us new tools to assess the life-wise practices and histories of mobility of past individuals. In her paper tackling early medieval transitions using a hierarchical and multi-isotope approach, Samantha Leggett takes the next logical step in this field. She conducts a series of complex meta-analysis of thousands of isotopic data points from medieval Europe in order to draw out spatial and temporal patterns in this increasingly large body of data. Among the many strengths of Leggett's approach is her pioneering use of unsupervised machine learning to facilitate statistical analysis of archaeological biomolecular data. These data are drawn from a number of different domains of study from dietary isotopes to isotopic mobility research. Allowing her to develop a complex and multi-scalar model of major medieval transitions including crystallization, the emergence of new economic practices and changing agricultural systems. As archaeological data proliferate and more are made easily accessible through open data repositories, we expect this sort of big data research to become a standard part of quantitative archaeological research. Leggett's vision here is instructive. She does not limit herself to simple causes but embraces the complexity of her data and allows it to fit into equally complex and entirely social conclusions. So we have also video recorded by Samantha. Thank you. Good evening everyone. I would like to thank the EAA Executive Student Prize Committee for awarding me the student prize for this year. It is such a huge honour to be joining the ranks of so many amazingly career researchers who have been recipients of this prize before me. Absolutely humbling. I would like to thank my supervisors Suzanne Hakenbeck and Tamsin O'Connell for their feedback and support over the last four years has been really invaluable in shaping this research. I've been asked by the committee to briefly present a summary of my winning paper, which is entitled tackling early medieval transitions using a hierarchical and multi isotopic approach. And if anyone is interested, please do come along on Saturday where I will be presenting the paper in full in session 356. In brief, the paper is all about looking at socio-environmental transitions in the first millennium AD, mostly in Western Europe. I use some novel statistical approaches to really try to break down these transitions and tease apart interactions during the first millennium AD. And I've collated a huge database of published and primary isotope data, some of which I've done myself to get at these questions and look at changing resource use and mobility patterns across the first millennium AD. My findings have really wide-ranging implications for my primary case study, which is early medieval England, but Europe as a whole and I really wanted to contextualize England with its European setting. And I think I've got some pretty exciting results to show. So thank you again for this award. It means so much to me as a newly finished PhD student. I couldn't think of a better hand-in present if you will. I'm really looking forward to seeing you all virtually in sessions across this week and I welcome your feedback and thoughts on my paper on Saturday. Thank you. Now we're going to have a little bit of a step back because there was a second video to be shown in the runners-up category for the European Archaeological Heritage Prize and I think we should see it. And so I believe it was due to a connection failure. I think Christy is ready to screen it now, so I think if you could go ahead, Christy, please. Thank you. I'm from the University of York and I'm speaking today as the chairman and spokesperson of an international research network called SplashCos, which was set up in 2009 to promote the investigation of those vast underwater landscapes off shore of our modern coastlines, which were lived in human landscapes for tens of thousands of years before they were finally drowned by sea level rise about 6,000 years ago. These drowned landscapes hold the key to understanding some of the most important developments in our early history. They're a valuable part of our European cultural heritage. The archaeological evidence is little known. It needs investigating and it's under constant threat of destruction from many sources. Thanks to funding from the EU cost organization, Corporation in Science and Technology, we were able to bring together something like 200 people from 26 countries, including archaeologists, marine geologists, climate specialists, people from heritage organizations, museums, government agencies, offshore industries to promote the significance of this underwater theme to the widest possible range of audiences, including policymakers and legislators. We were able to hold a series of intensive meetings and workshops and conferences to develop ideas about research collaboration and grant application to fund short training sessions and placements for over 60 early career researchers across Europe, and to produce publications, including a series of edited volumes of which the most recent has just been published as the archaeology of Europe's drowned landscapes. Along with an online interactive publicly available database with information about all the currently known underwater prehistoric archaeological sites in Europe, which is about 3,000. And all this information, by the way, you can find on the SplashCost website. This experience has demonstrated to us the value of international collaboration of sharing ideas and data and resources across national boundaries and across disciplinary boundaries as well. And I think this is going to become a more common and a more necessary feature of future archaeological investigations. This sort of international collaboration is of course also central for the ideals of the European project, which I'm a passionate believer in. And it's therefore a great pleasure for me, on behalf of all the participants, members of SplashCost over the past 10 years and all the institutions involved to thank you, the EAA for recognizing our work through this heritage prize. Thank you again. No, I'm very glad we saw that presentation. And so we come to the final point in the program and the highlight of the opening ceremonies evening, our keynote lecture. I'm being delighted to welcome our guest speaker Cornelius Holtow to present to us. Cornelius will be familiar to many of you. He's a member of the EAA. Cornelius is Professor of Archaeology and will share on heritage of many of the University of Kalmar, Sweden. He also directs the GRASCA, the Graduate School in Contract Archaeology. And he has been a member of the EAA actually since 1994. It was Cornelius' research interests that identified him clearly to us, the EAA officers as someone who should surely speak to us in this strangest of years when the future seems very, very uncertain. His interest in contemporary archaeology, heritage theory, heritage futures, memory across generations, and uncertainty in heritage suggested to us that he would be ideal and indeed he has not disappointed. So Cornelius is now going to speak to us about post-corona archaeology, asking if we face a future that will lead to the creation of the new normal. Cornelius, are you ready to speak? Yes, I think I am. Good evening everybody from Sweden as they say. Thank you very much for the invitation to give this lecture to all of you tonight. I will start my PowerPoint here. So you see the picture. There we go. The title of this lecture, as Margaret said, is post-corona archaeology creating a new normal. And I think I will be talking for about 20 to 25 minutes, so it is slightly shorter than a normal opening lecture, I hope that's in the interest of the audience. And I want to present three lessons that I think can be drawn or that I would like to propose as possible lessons for a post-corona archaeology that could become part of the new normal that we are in the process of establishing. The archaeologist studied the past and its remains, but this year all is different. The coronavirus disease that started in 2019, or COVID-19 for short, has imprisoned all of us in the present and we worry most about the future. As always, archaeology cannot escape its present. The impact of the pandemic on our sector is partly economic. Archaeologists have been subjected to increased unemployment, layoffs and compulsory short-time work. As schools were closed in many countries and all citizens have been encouraged to practice social distancing or were essentially confined to their homes and workplaces over many weeks. Many pedagogical programs were cancelled and there has been a drastic reduction of visitors to archaeological sites and museums. With all the financial consequences this entails for the concerned institutions. But what are the intellectual implications? What can archaeologists contribute to understanding COVID-19? Museums have already started to collect items and stories that are intended to tell future generations of our current experiences, the hardship but also the creative adjustments. Post-corona archaeology may soon emerge as a form of contemporary disaster archaeology, focusing on the material evidence of the strange year of 2020 when a lot more suddenly changed in society and in people's lives than we previously imagined was even possible. Mind you, this was not the first global crisis for any of us. Many recall very vividly the events of 9-11 in 2001 and the subsequent rise of global terror linked to Islamic extremism. We also recall the tsunami in the Indian Ocean at Christmas 2004 and the global financial crisis that started in 2007. We remember the nuclear catastrophe at Fukushima in 2011 and numerous earthquakes elsewhere that occurred of the past two decades. Last but not least, there were the recent outbreaks of SARS, bird flu and Ebola. COVID-19 and its impact constitute yet another global disaster that archaeologists need to get their heads around. Are there any lessons archaeologists can help society learn from the current crisis for the future? We often claim these days to be working for sustainable development. What could this mean considering the post-corona world? Archaeologists are well aware of the impact that historical disasters have had on social, cultural and economic development. But what will be or should be the long-term implications of COVID-19? If any, perhaps most relevant in immediate post-corona society will be the question, which disaster will strike us next? What can we know about the future anyway? Do we have more to say than the fortune teller down the road? As it turned out, the coronavirus pandemic was not only foreseeable but it was also foreseen. Indeed, we know much more about the future than we sometimes are prepared to admit. We do know about ongoing climate change, about the emergence of artificial intelligence, aging populations in many parts of the world, the demographic and economic rise of Asia, urban growth and continuing global inequalities. All these discernible trends will bring major changes to societies around the world over the next few decades. So maybe the right question is not what we can know about the future, including any coming disasters, but rather how our knowledge of the future and the major changes that we see coming can best inform present decisions so as to minimize human suffering and maximize development for the better. How to meet the needs of future generations has never really been properly asked in archaeology, despite it being readied to the idea of preservation. How will the archaeological heritage actually benefit future generations for whom we preserve it, whether in situ or by record? We cannot just assume that what makes sense and is valuable in the present will continue to do so throughout the 21st century and beyond. Systematically addressing the question about the needs of future generations and letting the answers that emerge inform our actions in the present is one way of conducting a credible archaeology for the future. There are, of course, many details about the future which we will not be able to anticipate, even when we have an idea about some more general trends that lie ahead of us. Uncertainty about specific future events may be considered as a disabling barrier for successfully foreseeing and planning ahead, especially when the scope is longer than a couple of years. But this kind of uncertainty is also empowering. It enables us to make creative choices in the present. And perhaps more than anything else, it also demands from us to assume responsibility for our own actions. The uncertainty of the future poses an important question to us. What kind of new post-corona normal do we want to create for archaeology and indeed beyond? We can make a difference. And here is a first lesson for a post-corona archaeology. Let's take the future seriously and do our best to ensure that archaeology actually contributes to sustainable development that would benefit future generations in concrete ways. So that was my first lesson and I'll move on to the second part. The European Association of Archaeologists has been promoting networking in collaboration since its first beginnings in the early 1990s. This was a time when the Iron Curtain had fallen, but Europe was still very much divided into east and west. Over the past two and a half decades, DEA has been bringing together many professional archaeologists and people engaged in archaeology and the past, across all of Europe and increasingly also beyond. DEA has been emphasizing our professional commonalities. Rather than celebrating or sometimes bemoaning the differences that exist in European archaeology, we have been welcoming each other as colleagues, not the least during the annual meetings that have been held in all parts of Europe and a wide range of sessions, roundtables and social events. And you see on these maps there are many red dots where the annual meetings have been held over the last 25 years. It is clear in the DEA we share so much more than what divides us. We all benefit from getting to know each other. In the process we discover not only shared interests and aspirations, but also common problems and concerns. Not the least we have been discovering our responsibilities for each other as fellow European archaeologists and indeed as fellow human beings. The corona crisis has challenged much of this. We are not meeting physically this year and after this lecture we are invited to attend a somewhat different welcome reception where we will talk to each other over a drink enjoyed from home. This spring we saw our nations separated from each other, not only in terms of the spread of the pandemic, but also in terms of border closures and in the spread of deeply felt sentiments on the merits of various national policies. Now this is the map which all of you have probably seen many times this spring and this is the version only a few days ago which shows the various spread of COVID-19 at the moment. As somebody living in Sweden it has been a shock to me to observe how fellow Europeans in other countries portrayed Sweden's corona strategy in very unkind terms that it not at all correspond to my own experience and knowledge of what was going on. It was similarly surprising to observe how some rifts appeared between the Nordic countries and even within Sweden when for a period Stockholmers where the virus had spread most were no longer welcome in their summer houses in other regions of Sweden. The resulting calls for increasing national and perhaps regional self-sufficiency are very worrying although we are all affected differently in some a lot more than others. The corona crisis is a crisis that we are faced with collectively as human beings on this planet. It can only be overcome through collaboration, solidarity and trust between people whether that is in public transport, at the workplace, in departments, in meetings among the European heads of government, in the United Nations Security Council, in vaccine research or not the least in our direct relations with people and societies in other parts of the world. Unfortunately, archaeology has a long tradition of emphasising differences rather than similarities. We are good at drawing boundaries and maps. We distinguish between different types of material to discern different human traditions and behaviour and how they changed over time. Indeed, we speak of something called material culture when we mean things as if things can only be meaningful insofar as they represent specific cultures. Archaeology has also engaged extensively with all kinds of social hierarchies and patterns of conflict between different groups of people. It is fair to say that from the very beginning of our discipline there was a concern with differentiation in the masses of material that archaeologists investigated. In recent decades, cultural heritage issues came increasingly under the agenda of archaeology. As heritage, archaeological sites and objects became significant indicators of unique cultural identities in the present. Every cultural group had their own heritage and seemingly needed their own archaeology separate from that of their neighbours. On the global level, the World Archaeological Congress and also UNESCO have been among those emphasising the need to preserve cultural diversity, which arguably now constitutes their main paradigm concerning cultural heritage. But cultural diversity implies difference and encourages perceptions of us and them both in the past and in the present. Perceptions of us and them do not always bring about trust, solidarity and collaboration between humans around the world. Instead, they cement divisions that can make understanding difficult and may encourage mistrust and even hostility between people, prefiguring rifts such as those that COVID-19 has resulted in globally. Perhaps I would like to suggest the value of emphasising differences and recognising diversity has at times been overstated. Maybe the time has come to focus more on what people have been sharing with each other all along. Maybe we should study more often how people collaborate and indeed collaborate with each other now, both within any one society and between them. Maybe it is time to put existing differences and inequalities to one side and make more of the many ways in which we all are equal and pretty similar really as human beings. Networks like those encouraged by the EAA are one important way for archaeologists to meet and connect with each other, overcoming differences and finding common ground. And tonight I understand we are more than 1,900 people together on this forum. So this then is my second lesson for new normal in post-corona archaeology. Let's go beyond the notion of cultural diversity and focus on what people shared and indeed share, promoting trust, solidarity and collaboration between human beings on this planet. And this brings me to my third and final section. Archaeologists and others have long been arguing that cultural heritage can make a wide range of important contributions to present-day society and societal development. There have been numerous papers at the EAA meetings and also elsewhere about the significance of a variety of values associated with archaeological heritage and contemporary society. And the image I show here is just one example for the sort of terminology and the types of heritage values that have been discussed extensively. Unfortunately, during the corona crisis, it appeared as if much of this work has been conducted in rain. Archaeology and the realm of culture at large were commonly reduced to the economics of lost income and job redundancies in the cultural sector on the one hand. And the compensation of hardship through enjoyable cultural distractions on the other hand. UNESCO's Ernesto Autoné, assistant director general for culture, for one stated prominently that at a time when billions of people are physically separated from another, culture brings us together. It provides comfort, inspiration and hope at a time of enormous anxiety and uncertainty. Now, this is actually a rather limited claim, selling culture and heritage too short. Forgotten are all claims that culture has the potential to contribute to a large variety of social, economic and environmental development goals. Culture is not just about money and comfort. As recently as 25th of May this year, just before the summer, the Council of the European Union made a remarkable decision committing to a much more ambitious agenda, which is worth quoting at some length, as this is so new that not all of you may be familiar with it yet. This is the decision. And it starts like this, sustainable development is a key political priority of the European Union, and there's an urgent need to step up action in this respect. Culture is intrinsically linked to all three dimensions of sustainable development, economic, social and environmental. And several fundamental objectives of cultural policies and measures at EU level converge with the UN Sustainable Development Goals and their targets, which form the backbone of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. They include fostering inclusion, diversity, identity, participation, creativity and innovation. The impact of these policies and measures also fully complements the results of sustainable development, improved health and well-being, growth, innovation and job creation and urban regeneration. This wide-ranging potential of culture, including cultural heritage, is significant in the present context. Cultural heritage has the potential to address some of the rifts I mentioned, that as an outcome of the corona crisis have emerged running through individual countries, the whole of Europe and indeed the entire world. Archaeology is not just about money and comfort, but it can contribute to promoting a culture of peace and understanding between the citizens of the world, promoting exactly the trust, solidarity and collaboration I was talking about earlier. This cannot, however, be achieved with national archaeologies or indeed national heritage, and the same applies for supranational equivalents such as the notion of a European heritage. Archaeology and cultural heritage must be forces of inclusion rather than exclusion. The culture I am talking about can emerge from archaeological practice in two ways. There is a widely shared interest in the path of humanity and how we got to be where we are today. This story can be and often has been told as a story of different civilizations and cultures that connect to various present-day nations and cultural groups. But it can also and I suggest had better be told as a story of human beings that in a variety of conditions around the world let their lives together with other human beings going through a variety of hardships, but also accomplishing many feats. When engaging with archaeology and the past, we can relate to value and learn from the stories of all these peoples in a number of different ways. We may, for example, find ourselves in the same places, practice related activities, encounter similar hardships, solve comparable problems or accomplish equivalent feats as they did. Equally important is the mutual professional understanding that manifests itself in the work of associations like the EAA. It matters how the two and a half thousand EAA members relate to one another, rely on each other and support each other. It matters how they communicate and collaborate with each other in various ways, overcoming the existing language barriers. Similar relations also exist among other groups of professionals, of course. Together the principles we practice may prefigure future society in Europe and beyond. There's a famous claim in the 1945 Constitution of UNESCO. It says, since wars begin in the minds of man, it is in the minds of man that the defences of peace must be constructed. Today we may talk about humans rather than man, but the logic still applies. In the middle of a global pandemic that has become a global crisis that has brought about a range of rifts and animosities between people in different nations, what could be a more honorable goal for European and global societies than working for peace? So this, then, is my third and last lesson for a new normal in post-corona archaeology. Let's realize more often the value of cultural heritage and archaeological practice to be inclusive and bring people together, promoting peace among humans both in society and between societies. And this, then, seems to be as good a point as any on which to end. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you so much for that very thought-provoking and beautifully structured presentation on this. It really was splendid. And it gives us all a lot to think about. And Felipe is saying in the chat on the side, loud applause. And I think that would be shared by everyone who has listened to. Thank you so much. It's a very good paper to launch us into this virtual annual meeting. And I want to thank all of those who have listened in as well. Thank you for joining us. Once again, I'm absolutely delighted to be welcoming you all to this meeting. And as I said, very, very full week ahead, a very interesting scientific program. I want to just mention the networking area. Do take time to fetch yourselves a drink or coffee or whatever and join other members in the networking area, which we'll find on the left-hand side of your screen with a little noun saying on it. This will last about an hour. And I would just point out that the meetings in this networking area are one-to-one. They're random and they're very short. I think at most five minutes. So do join us there. It would be splendid to meet you in that chair environment. Thank you all for this evening and welcome.