 Hello, and welcome to the last brown bag of the semester at the Archeological Research Facility. We still have two talks actually coming up in our ancient Nubia series that we're co-hosting with the Bade Museum, Kushites and the Hebrew Bible on May 20th, and the Nile Valley Collective Roundtable Discussion on June 3rd, which are both starting at noon Pacific on this YouTube channel. So I'd like to begin today by acknowledging that the Archeological Research Facility sits on the territory of the Huchun, the ancestral and unceded land of the Chechenyo Ohlone, the successors of the historic and sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County. We hereby acknowledge that this land remains of great importance to the Ohlone people, and that every member of the Arche community benefits from the continued occupation of this land, and that it is our responsibility to support indigenous sovereignty and hold the University of California accountable to the needs of American Indians and indigenous people. Today for this last talk, we are joined by Dr. Megan Dennis, who recently joined the RF as a research associate. Megan is a postdoctoral researcher for data interpretation and public engagement at the Alexandria Archive Institute and Open Context, where she is collaborating to develop a data literacy program. She has a background in digital archaeological ethics and the impacts of ethical representations of archaeology in interactive media. And she spent over 20 years in archaeological and heritage field practice and teaching at the secondary and collegiate level. She also has experience with the video game industry. Currently Megan is an ethics officer with the computer applications and archaeology organization where she was involved in designing and implementing the organization's first code of ethics. And she's a member of the organization's code of conduct working group. Combining her interests in public education, ethical practice and games media. Megan aims to develop further research and how the use of interactive media can influence youth participation and ethical interactions with heritage and archaeology. So thank you so much for joining us today and welcome Megan. Thank you I'm so excited to be here. So I will hide myself now. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. Okay, now all of us digital archaeologists cross our fingers and hope that everything works. Everything look good. So, good morning. Good afternoon. It's, it's evening here. I'm in the north of England and we are full on into evening. Before I begin, though I currently do not live on land that rightfully belongs to indigenous peoples. I do live in a country that defined colonialism and that was and remains responsible for untold acts of murder war and pain. As I speak tonight on digital archaeological ethics, it's important to acknowledge the role that colonial powers and the nascent field of archaeology played in creating systems of oppression and theft against indigenous peoples and peoples around the world. And I believe that by discussing ethics, frankly, we can prevent the glowing discipline of archaeology and virtual places from replicating the ethical errors of the past. So, as Sarah said my name is Megan Dennis I am currently the postdoctoral researcher in data interpretation and public engagement for the Alexandria archive and open context and a research associate here within the archaeological research facilities. I'm one of two postdocs working on the digital data stories project. It's a three year experimental program promoting an increased focus on digital data literacy and archaeological education. We're focusing primarily at the early undergraduate level. My background is in qualitative archaeology and in narrative design. So the me of about 15 years ago is the target for our program. A newest archaeologist who loves the potential of the past and the stories we can tell in it, but who freaks out a little bit when presented with a spreadsheet full of numbers. Today, I am going to talk to you a bit about the research that led to my work at AI and open context. I'm an archaeological ethicist put on the business cards and everything. And my focus is on digital archaeological ethics and archaeology within immaterial and virtual places. So what does this archaeology look like one of the common keywords that people use when they want to look up the sort of research that I did for my PhD and then I've done previously. You may look up archaeo gaming. There's a very active archaeo gaming community of scholars and participants online. And we look at virtual places and virtual spaces in order to study created culture and the way that real culture plays out in virtual places. So a couple of the different ways that we study this you've got researchers covering games as archaeological sites. This is the most traditional go into a game and excavate. You've got researchers looking at the hardware and software as material culture. You've got the philosophy of material culture in games. You've got reception studies and developments. Machine created culture AI IP specific studies. A lot of our work deals in IP specific studies and obviously material culture and I've worked in a number of these areas. Currently the majority of the work being done is in IP specific studies, but I think that that makes sense as we're sort of a new subdiscipline. We're kind of figuring things out still in a lot of ways about how to present this work to the public and IP specific studies, studying specific games and franchises is is the easiest way to communicate some of the concepts that we study to the public. I think at this time before we go any further. I think it's important to clarify a few things regarding the difference between a space and a place, because I'm going to use these terms and knowing what I mean by them will help make some of getting into the idea about thinking about the ethics of virtual places. It'll make it make a little bit more sense. Within literature on research ethics within games, McKee and Porter discussed the differences in doing video game research as being located within a place or within a space. The position that sees MMO G's massive multiplayer online games and virtual worlds as places, particularly as real places rather than as simulated places, use ethical issues of harm and risk differently from a view that sees them as spaces. Researchers taking the former perspective tend to see the game or simulated world as a real place and thus treat avatars and players in such worlds as also real. So their discussion, which is supported by interview data with researchers working within games media prompted a radical resituation of my own position. I came into this research, viewing games as spaces, and, and ultimately came to view them as places and this resulted in a change that proof productive in the sense that I came to view video games and virtual environments as a place you go to, like any other place. It's not a space you may be temporarily occupying this clarified nascent position I was attempting to work through on how duty of care should be interpreted when working in game places. It also required going through the entire text that I had produced up to that date and reconsidering many of my conclusions and assumptions, as if you're in a place. All other people in that place must be considered as fully agential whereas if you're in a space, all other people in that space maybe transitory and have no rights to agency or control within that space. If there's any graduate students listening to this talk, I do not recommend having a major epistemological change halfway through writing up your results. It may make your research more robust, but it will also make you think that you are never going to finish, and it will scare your supervisor. In contrast to my view on space in place, underberg and zorn taken a posing position considering their work within digital ethnographies to be located within game spaces, not games as places. This reflected in their statement that from a phenomenological standpoint, space is what surrounds the body and results from a particular spatial situation. This is precisely what game designers attempt to create space as enabled by bodily movement allowing players to understand themselves within it. This consideration of game as space assumes a desire on the part of developers to create a temporary condition. An immersion of multiple senses. Well, I can't speak for other developers as it should be noted underberg and zorn cannot as well. My personal experiences of video game development have been rooted in an intention of participation beyond that limited by bodily movement. So as we go through this talk today, please keep these considerations of space versus place in mind. So my initial training and my work for more than a few years was in traditional analog dirt in the skirt archaeology. When I began working in digital places I realized that there was very little ethical guidance for archaeological researchers. So if you're doing digital ethnography, there's guidance if you're doing digital community work. There's guidance. If you're doing digital data collection and anthropology or sociology or psychology, there's guidance. But if you're an archaeologist and you're looking at material culture in a digital place, there's no guidance. So a big part of my research was figuring out what that guidance would look like for archaeologists. My first task was to figure out exactly where archaeologists were taking their existing ethical guidance from. And for the most part, archaeologists look to professional organizations to set the ethical standards. So I looked at 112 organizations for archaeologists, ranging from international organizations to national organizations to regionally focused groups to local organizations of the 112 groups I found that identified as professional archaeological organizations. And I think that's why I chose 112. And I think that's why I chose 105. I had publicly facing codes of ethics. I think it's important to note that that publicly facing is important. If you're an organization and you have a code of ethics and you don't have that code of ethics where the public can see what you regard as your ethical principles if you keep that. And that code of ethics isn't really serving to guide the organization as it does its work with and for the public. On this list that I have here you'll note that one of the organizations marked in blue. Because at the time that I was doing my initial analysis, the American schools of Oriental research with the only one of these organizations that explicitly mentioned digital work and digital research in their code of ethics. I'm happy to say that that is not the case anymore. There are others on this list now that that have digital in their in their work but it is only within the last five years that that's really been the situation. So I looked at all of these organizations and I broke down the individual guidelines within each of their codes of ethics and ended up after a lot of open coding with keywords that are organized into 10 thematic units. So it's within these 10 thematic units that archaeological ethics lie. Okay, so I'm going to go over each of these very briefly, so that we can then talk about where they map on to ethical concerns when working in digital places, and where they map on to ethical concerns when working in digital places with other people. So stakeholders within archaeology have grown after a long time to encompass more individuals and groups that just practicing archaeologists. So those who have an interest via residents property consumption or subsistence, our communities cited by piper and as those that should be considered in archaeological negotiations. So as are those connected to an archaeological landscape through being part of a group, or an individual who can affect or is affected by the organization's purpose that would be Freeman. So material culture is stuff physical stuff. You can carry maybe stuff that's fixed. This is the area that archaeologists are most concerned with. Despite the rise of theoretical approaches such as cognitive archaeology and phenomenology and feminist and queer archaeologies approaches which require ethical consideration but which are not necessarily grounded in traditional excavation and interpretation of artifactual assemblages of material culture. The discipline continues to place the most ethical concern over the past through materiality, particularly related to portable material culture in comparison. Oral history, intangible cultural heritage are given a little ethical consideration, but not much. So on this list you will see maladaptives. These include areas related to archaeological practice which archaeologists are to varying degrees encouraged to have stained from participation in. Within this categorization is the encouragement of looting and the commodification of both artifacts and the knowledge of archaeologists concerning artifacts for private and non developmental purposes. These key awarded as theoretical in archaeological codes of ethics fall into two general areas. The first centers the archaeologist and the second centers archaeology as a concept. In both cases the emphasis is concerned with resource value and an approach from environmental ethics and a heavy slant towards capitalism as a determining factor shock. These sub areas that appeared in discussions of curation within archaeological codes of ethics were conservation, preservation and storage. Now in some cases the terms conservation and preservation appear to be used interchangeably, though definitionally they differ within archaeology and heritage in terms of scholarship. Archaeological codes of ethics are rules based and are specifically rules based when concerning intradisciplinary behaviors. Also, archaeologists are demonstrably interested in regulating intradisciplinary behaviors. In the deontologically governed field or rules driven field, archaeological ethics are primarily concerned with what archaeologists should and should not do. And these determinants are based primarily on the moral rightness of an action. So as a result, codes of ethics for archaeologists are rigid in their interpretations. So for a research based discipline, the ethics of research as a concept are minimally addressed within archaeological codes of ethics. Even with the inclusion of archival research within this categorization, an inclusion which could be omitted in light of discussions of archival research, more fully within guidelines concerning curation. This categorization is by far the smallest within the key worded texts. Archival research, research as a concept and research as design were identified as areas of concerns for archaeologists. Data, it should be noted, is considered within archaeological codes of ethics as a specific yet definitionally amorphous thing, which is separate from written archive materials and separate from archived artifacts and excavated materials. It's not necessarily referred to as directly digital, but what digital archaeology does occur within codes of ethics. It is referred to only within guidelines pertaining to data. So the main area of focus within this thematic set includes data access data management and publication of data being as I now work for Alexandria archive and open context is an area I'm going increasingly more concerned with as I see how these things play out. And our final one on this thematic list is ethical codes, ethical codes is where things get meta, because it's the place in ethical codes where we talk about ethical codes. So when we're looking at, sorry, when we're looking at conducting archaeology within digital and immaterial places of play. So these areas that are highlighted here are the areas where overlap occurs now keep in mind. This is via an archaeology that is entirely based in digital excavation and digital data collection without interaction with any other people. Material culture is the stuff that you find process is why you do it research is what you do to. Sorry, that's my dog's going crazy because you can't give a zoom talk nowadays without your pets going nuts. Process, as I was saying is what you do to find it. Research is what you do to to find. Sorry, guys, seriously. Research is what you do to find out information from it data is information you find out and curation is what you do with it after you've done everything else. So this version of archaeology is the archaeology. Of the early discipline. It's, it's divorced from external external influence. And it denies the agency of communities and participation with culture and heritage so I have a real problem with this realistically this version of digital archaeology doesn't work. It doesn't work because digital and immaterial places of play are not landscapes for research devoid of other human beings. They're very much places of interaction. This is why I love digital archaeology personally because I think it's the most potentially ethical archaeology. When you start to include digital ethnography in your base conception of digital archaeology, suddenly there's a lot more ethical consideration to take into account. And that's a good thing suddenly stakeholders reappear, and we're going to look at what that can mean. Suddenly you have to start thinking about behavior again and whether that behavior is maladaptive because you're not working in a static sterile situation, you're working with people and your actions have consequences. Suddenly there's theory in play, because you have to consider whether your theoretical approach will have ramifications for others. And that's where we get to a consideration from digital ethnography about who you're working with. For archaeologists, I would argue there are three groups that you need to consider. Entities that are AI or proto AI entities that are humans embodied in digital avatars and entities that are humans who lack digital embodiment but who have digital presence. I promise I'm going to explain all of that means. So the first group, your AI or proto AI, you could argue it's not that important right now, but I believe it's going to be important in the not too distant future. I listened to a talk just the other day on round procedurally generated dialogue for avatars and non player characters within games and like, we are this close with this close guys. The majority of archaeologists working in digital and immaterial places of play are doing so within single player games. This is the IP studies that I referred to earlier. This means that all of the other people that we encounter in such research aren't real people. They're non player characters with limited interactivity and coded responses to stimuli. So this isn't going to be the case for much longer though, the rise of affordable AI and the increasing sophistication of AI entities means we're going to see them integrated soon into video game places. Which means soon we're going to start to have to have the conversations about the rights of AI and video games that we're having about the rights of AI in other digital and consumer formats. Right now in a game like shadow of the Tomb Raider, like you have here, when a researcher interacts with non player characters and for example this scene where Lara and her companion are within a Mexican coded cultural festival. The other humans in the scene can be largely disregarded because they have no coded interactions with the material culture that an archaeologist would be studying. As soon as they're AI though we have to start asking ourselves some hard questions about our level of intrusiveness into their place and how they're connected to that place as digitally situated entities. So right now there is no ethical guidance for archaeologists working in this situation and no plan for the future. The second group we run into as archaeologists in digital and immaterial places of play are humans and body via digital avatars. So for anyone who's worked in any context in a massive multiplier online game. This is the situation I'm talking about so for archaeologists researching in these places. One of the big concerns needs to be how our interaction with material culture is impacting the play of others. As an example, part of my doctoral research had me in Star Wars the Old Republic. We're looking at the archaeology system there. The system itself doesn't require interaction with player characters but as a product of the system. The researcher ends up with a lot of resources that have monetary and mechanical value to players. So what's the ethical disposition of these resources. What do you do. According to traditional models of archaeological ethics, profiting from the sales of the objects is unethical. But in the case of games like this one the in game economy is algorithmically based, which means that the archaeologists holding on to those resources has an impact on the generation of resources for other players. So is the appropriate choice to sell the resources back to the system, which impacts the economy to refrain from sale of the objects to the system which impacts the economy, or to sell the resources back to the players either directly or through the games mediated interface. But the researcher chooses either of those last two options. They're interacting with real people, which means at least the ethics of interactions with stakeholders come into effect. Right now, no ethical guidance for archaeologists working in this situation. No plan for the future. The third group we run into as archaeologists in digital and immaterial places of play are humans who lack digital embodiment, but who have digital presence. In the course of my doctor work I was attempting to look at player attitudes towards archaeology and heritage and video games which meant engagement with players in the places outside of games themselves. Now there's a lot of literature and guidance concerning ethnographic researchers and research in places like Reddit. But again, that guidance doesn't extend to archaeological conceptions of heritage or material culture. The attachment of real people to digital things is a very, very real issue and binding all that up in the colonialism and imperialism that accompany most digital representations of archaeological artifact means there are a lot of potential ethical pitfalls. And now as you probably guessed, there's no ethical guidance for archaeologists working in this situation, and no plan for the future. Out of my experiences researching material culture with these populations. I'm attempting to fix the problem of there being no ethical guidance so this is the third draft of a proposed code of ethics for digital archaeology in digital and immaterial places of play. So draws on ethical guidelines out of the public codes of ethics I discussed earlier, as well as guidance from organizations dedicated to ethical best practices and internet research, digital ethnography and game studies. Unfortunately, because it is a code of ethics. It's very wordy. So while I'm going to take you through some of the highlights of it. Anyone who's interested in looking at the complete code of ethics it's free to contact me, and I'll be glad to provide a copy. I should say I am in light of the recent updates provided by the Society for American archaeology, going to be revising my digital code soon to incorporate new standards of best practice that the essay working group has presented. And I'm very heartened that that that working group has produced so much work and has also produced critical scholarship already surrounding the decisions that they've made in that process. So there are four main areas within this code behavioral standards stakeholders research and dealing with ethical breach ethical breach means when you screwed up and you didn't do something ethical. Each of these areas contains ethical guidelines. So in terms of behavioral standards. The big areas where this differs from existing archaeological codes of ethics is in an inclusion of guidance concerning crowdsourced and volunteer provided data, and in considering issues of duty of care within digital places. In terms of stakeholders, the additive pieces here that aren't in existing archaeological codes of ethics are in the first and last guidelines. The first builds on the archaeological concept of stewardship, which is the idea that as an archaeologist there's responsibility to protect the record of the past through only engaging in minimally disruptive excavations and practices. The last deals with a very real issue that indigenous native peoples and their cultures are frequently utilized within digital and immaterial places of play without their consent or cooperation. Negotiating the role of an archaeologist and engaging with these unethical usages of cultural patrimony in digital places needs to be a priority. In terms of research as an ethically laden concept. The last two guidelines here are where there's an additive value beyond that present and existing codes of archaeological ethics. The last of these guidelines is I think key and is where the largest stumbling block exists towards realizing an ethical digital archaeology in digital and immaterial spaces of play places of play. As I said earlier, it's important to remember that people within digital places are people and they deserve to be treated with respect and to be afforded the same protection that we give via our duty of care if they were within a physical place in which we were excavating. Finally, how do we deal with situations when we're researching in these digital and immaterial places of play where it just isn't possible to meet the ethical standards that we require in a physical analog archaeology. I want to give you an example here from one of the games I worked with in my doctoral case studies. So artifacts within the uncharted series are within a treasure system. And they're intended to fit into the larger background world and are located within the game based on their geographical or cultural association with either an aspect of the narrative, or within location in which the game plays taking place. So in many cases, due to the way in which the game's developers obtain information about real world archaeology, individual artifacts within the treasure system can be mapped directly onto real world artifacts, as you'll see here. This is potentially problematic as research into the artifacts depicted within uncharted for a thief and indicated a reliance on artifacts sold through auction houses and private sales, rather than through depictions of artifacts in publicly accessible museum collections. Of the 109 possible items in this particular game in their treasure system, many are demonstrably based on auctioned artifacts while fewer are demonstrably based on artifacts held within access of the public as an example. And I cannot show you an image of this for reasons that will become obvious. There is a brass barbers bowl that's found in the corner of a store room in an Italian villa in the game, which is a location the player character visits while attempting to steal a narratively situated artifact from an auction. So the real object that this barbers bowl is the basis for is a 17th century French bowl. It's beaten brass, and it has a sort of cupped notch that's distinctive to to barboring bowls. So you place these bowls sort of against the neck to catch. So open water and any blood. So the cup notch fits against the neck to sort of make a seal. Since of May 2018. The template object for uncharted the version of the barbers bowl was still available online for sale. I made contact with a seller and was informed that no permission was granted to use the real barbers bowl as the basis for an art asset. In fact, the seller would not have granted permission as they retain the rights to images of their items until sale. So the seller was not pleased to find the game, which sold approximately 2.7 million units in its first week alone was using their images without permission or any offers of compensation. So as archaeologists, what do we do in this situation? How do we mitigate the damage from working within an immaterial place of play that promotes unethical behaviors and that draws on unethical real world practices as source material. First, we have to be mindful of what our involvement entails. Now we might be through our research contributing to the commodification of real world archaeological materials. This means not encouraging looting or commodification within games and immaterial places because, and I'm not going to get too deeply into this today but encouragement of looting within digital places has an impact on participation in looting outside of these places. And if we're in a situation where our research requires us to behave on ethically because of hard coded or systemic choices on the part of game developers or digital and immaterial places, we have a responsibility in our published outputs to detail how these behaviors could be mitigated in the real world. So treating archaeological research within digital and immaterial places of play as archaeology combined with ethnography is the only way to ethically conduct such research. Digital landscapes are no less real to the people within them than the real landscapes in which we excavate and the responsibility of archaeologists in digital places to the inhabitants of those places is no less than our responsibility to those we encounter during physical excavations. This is a new and emerging field and we are flying by the seat of our pants a lot. But if we start to establish ethical guidelines and best practices now the discipline will develop along a better and more ethical path than that which analog archaeology did, which is ultimately better for everyone involved. Thank you very much. Thank you so much Megan. That was fascinating. I would like to invite the viewers to ask questions in the chat box on the YouTube. If you have any questions you want to ask our speaker. I'd actually like to start by asking about I mean you and you pointed this out at the very end it's sort of. This is a very quickly developing field and it's very important to start developing this now how though do you see professional societies in particular being able to keep up with this guidance like as the field changes and you know once the guidelines are established. It seems to be it has to be like a yearly process or something. It's a weekly proponent of ethical codes as living documents, which means that there, if you're an organization you have ethical guidance, there needs to be clear and easy ways for this guidance to be updated. So that it can deal with real world situation. I would say that as an organization. World archaeological Congress is really good at this. The fact that, you know, every time they have their meeting every what for four years. They update their ethical guidance, basically by having everybody in a room and talking about it. There are other organizations that have taken a more. Committee based approach, which is fine, and which works as long as you have a constant stream of that committees contributing to it but you can get really bound up in in dealing with, you know, who gets to approve these things. When you get into a committee situation. I think one of the things that is going to be key in this, not just for this specific area of digital archaeology but overall is we need to. We need to have more discussion and more publication about what our principles are like what are the things that we stand for what are the things that we oppose. And how do these things come across in our work, because I think when you're doing digital work you already have so many black boxes that that work can be taking part in that. How you're positioning yourself as a researcher, that needs to be explicit. I hope that explains a little bit of that's, that's great and I do I like to hear that the whack actually uses that approach because I. Everybody all membership participate in that is. It means it's an amazing experience. Yeah, it's easy to push something off to a committee and see it as their work and then never review it so that's. It's like literally everyone just sits in a big auditorium, and you just like you, you make statements and then they vote on it and it's fascinating. We have a question from YouTube. Listeners asking how many people are currently involved in the in active study of digital ethics and forming ethical guidance. Well, there's a lot of people looking at general, general digital ethics once you start to get into archaeological digital ethics. There's not that many of us. I'm happy to say that there are, if not more people directly studying it. There are I'm happy to say that there are more people in the work that they're doing now, where I see that it is something that they mentioned and that they explicitly mentioned the the ethics of their practice or the ethical problems with whatever product or virtual place they're working within. You know, I, I don't anticipate that there's going to be a million digital archaeological ethicists like, but we don't require that level of professional commitment within archaeology in general. I think what we just need is for it to be talked about enough that it becomes part of our literature and becomes part of our process. I'm Andrew Reinhardt watching is asking what are the next steps with the next steps in developing an official code of ethics for community discussion and or adoption, and what organization might sponsor it for digital archaeology maybe the CAA's I would really like to see CAA doing this, not just because I'm an ethics officer there and CAA is very close to my heart, but because CAA, when we were developing these guidelines, I mean we were the digital was right in there from the beginning of the working group on how these things were going to be included. I think right now we, we don't have enough of a presence to require our own society organization. We're just not we're not we don't have enough publishing outputs yet. And I think, and Andrew and I have talked about this. I think that we need to be publishing within more traditional archaeological journals. I think that this becomes normalized work and normalized practice. And then the things that we consider particular to our practice the sort of things that I put in this code that I've been working on. Then, I think we start, you know, we start seeding those into the more generalized organizations. It's a normalization of ethical practices. Great. I have another question that came in offline about the, the AIs and games so will be these AIs and the games are going to be programmed to be stage actors to act like what the game designers want right. So the designers probably have lots of pressure to play to stereotypes, including games set in ancient society as well so how can archaeologists best play a role and to promote better practices and this really big and fast growing industry. Yeah, this is hard. One of the big problems that we have, and Tara Cobblestone talked about this and her work is that archaeologists and game developers don't know how to talk to each other. Like, we're talking about, we want the same things, we want good games, but we view good games, we're looking at good games as being something different than they're necessarily looking at good games being as developers. And so we need to have some common language and some common ideas and realistically, archaeologists are not going to be of value to game developers and we're not going to see the kind of archaeology and games that we want until we more fully understand why it is that the public wants the kind of games that they're getting and the representations that they're getting and we learn how to provide something that is equally as entertaining, but is more ethical. Because if it's not fun, it's not going to go into a game, like, nobody wants to, I've said this before, but like, nobody wants to play a game where you sit and watch a JCB for three weeks, like, that's not fun for most people. So, I think, yeah, we do, we do need to think about, as these, these AIs are trained up, what sort of stereotypes and biases are going into them, and find ways to make ourselves useful to developers, so that we don't. We don't see, you know, another, another generation of stereotypes and games. And related to that, Eric Kanzel has written in on YouTube, are there any institutional structures or organizations or mechanisms to voice these ethical concerns and promote better practices within the giant computer games industry? Um, there are, yes, and hi Eric, there are, there are some great organizations. There is a group that's getting a lot of, a lot of attention and a lot of push lately is actually historians, there's a couple different networks of historians studying and working and in games and virtual places and they're starting to have more engagement with with the studios in promoting a better sense of history within games, but it hasn't really switched over to us and the materiality within them yet. There are also really great organizations like DIGRA, which promote more of the scholarship within game design. And I think that we may have some entry points there. So again, so much of it is, is just like within archaeology, it's going to be about normalization, and what can we provide that's useful. Yeah, and it's the challenge of bridging the academic and the general public, right. How do you get that message out. It's both interdisciplinary academic world, but also, yeah, to all the people who are playing these games and who think that it's fun to run away with artifacts. Yeah. Good. Well, that I don't see any more questions on the YouTube. So I think we will wrap up that I just want to say thank you so much Megan for joining us. Yeah, this fascinating presentation.