 The blind principle has to do with safe educational workplace environment and certainly have come up in the context of a number of very unsafe environments and especially in relationship to issues of sexual harassment and sexual violence. But I think for those of us who've been involved in the ethics goal, we know that there are a number of cases that we've considered for the ethics goal that have had implications for and we would have wanted a principle like this to appeal to in the ethics goal in helping to determine what it contains. So you should bring yourself up to date on this. In addition to this principle, the SAA does have on its website a very elaborate set of resources that you can go to should you feel that you or anybody else you're working with might be in the context of a very difficult, problematic, harassing, or otherwise unsafe working environment. So you can actually find previous cases, all sorts of decisions that we made as a number of cast sources, collecting all of these resources. So basically, you know, I'm going to skip over but for those of you again who have thought about ethics or in say, Katie's case actually thought about ethics, ethics as a concept, as a dimension of philosophy, as a dimension of sort of human thought has been, has a long and complicated history. I remember when we first started the ethics goal and Brandon who was Brandon and I was wanting to participate, he decided he had to go back to the Enlightenment and find out all about it. So he's doing all of this incredible reading which you can do but definitely for archaeology what we've seen in the last couple of decades for sure is that many of these different topics like heritage, sustainability, inclusivity, rights, and the terms stakeholders have come into much more of a concern. So just a little bit of background in case you wonder about where ethics have come from in the SAA or in any professional society. Before 1991 the Society for American Archaeology did have a set of what they call four statements for archaeology and these were regularly put in the front of American antiquity and Latin American antiquity when it came on board. And the four statements were a short definition of what the field of archaeology is. They had a section on the methods for archaeology that people shouldn't run out with pickaxes or whatever unless it was warranted. So really making sure that the members of the SAA provided by selecting methods that were appropriate for the kind of research that they were doing, the kind of site and so forth. And if you were someone who had disregarded what they considered then to be proper archaeological methods this was interestingly enough a ground for expulsion from the SAA. None of the current principles actually talk about if you do actually put the XML in the SAA. So they were a little more serious about some of these issues by the time it gets to 1961. They actually have a special little statement on ethics for archaeology which indicated for example some of the things that sort of came forward a little bit more in the actual layout of principles but things like buying new selling artifacts, concealing data, responsibility to report. You can see that the nine principles we have now in some ways have their genesis in this one little paragraph from 1961 and then also recommendations for trading and you know trading in Tom is one of the components to the current principles. So there was an interest and concern certainly by the 1960s. But in 1991 and a number of different things contributed to this there was a call to review and reformulate those four statements and two of the primary catalysts and probably the first one had to do with whether or not the journals of the Society for American Archaeology should publish articles that dealt with looting data. So really it was the looting of archaeological data and therefore the value that was given to those data when somebody published an article that drew on that data. So the impetus actually became a bylaw of the SAA and the journals developed a principle of not publishing those articles that actually involved or in some way use looted data. So that was really one of the big impetus, I think you will. But the other was the recognition, wow, in 1991 just after the passage of Nagford for example, recognizing that the context in which archaeologists were working was definitely changing. Furthermore, by 1991 we really had seen the expansion and explosion really of the development of so-called contract or cultural resource management archaeology and there were a number of responses to that at the time. So this is the kind of context that made archaeologists sit down and grab one of these things. If you want to know any more of the details of an excellent article, everybody should own this. In 2000, this is the second edition of the publication by the SAA which gives a background, talks about how all these things came about and you know that in many of the SAA, you know that some of them were really going to be deeply put together because some of them have been written by Allison Wiley who many of you have read a philosopher who's done a lot of work with ethics, especially in relation to archaeology. She actually worked a lot in the early years about some of the issues related to shipwrecks and looted data from shipwrecks and what we should do about those. So in 1991, these were some of the kind of issues that people felt were really, really important in mobilizing a review of the ethical situation. So in some ways I put these together at different font sizes so you could see what really was motivating people was primarily as I say looting destruction of the archaeological record to a certain extent the commercialization of the archaeological record. But then there were these development and implications of CRM as well as the concerns of other stakeholders were finally making an imprint on many people, especially those regarding ascended groups and U.S. with indigenous and first nations of Native Americans. So in 1976 again riding the crash of the development of cultural resource management we began to see the development of specific organizations of archaeologists that would have their own ethics and even would have grievance processes and enhance so that you could actually bring a case against somebody for unethical behavior. And this was first called the Society of Professional Archaeologists or SOPA. In 1976 they turned it into a register where people would be not just a society but actually join the online record as being a member and therefore adhering to the goals, expectations and guidelines for being a member which was called ROPA and that eventually just got shortened to RPA, the Register of Professional Archaeologists. And most people today, especially if you're in cultural resource management of any sort, are members of ROPA. It does have a grievance procedure which is what the SAA does not have and doesn't directly want to have most professional societies don't have them but some certainly do. And what this all concerns in the 1990s led to was the creation of a task force in the Ethics in 1991 which resulted in the first edition of Ethics in American Archaeology that came out in 1995 and they had forum at the SAA meeting, they had discussion groups, they had circulating essays and so forth which came into, they sort of got everybody involved in thinking about it. So what came out of that task force was that in 1993 they had an NSF-funded meeting, a conference in Rio de Janeiro of the task force to try to update the policies and the first, you can read about the whole thing and the edited volume by Allison Wadley and Mark Lina. And at first it was just six principles but they then continued the discussion and ended up with the eighth that you see before you. Now, since 1994-1995 there really has been no official action on part of the SAA even though even in framing this particular, even the 2000 edition of the Ethics it was pointed out that dealing with ethics is always open-ended it's always provisional, it's always should be under revision so it's kind of strange that there hasn't been any movement on the part of the SAA as an organization to revisit its ethics in some way. So what's happening now, as you can see here we have Mark and Allison, the book, the different edition. Mark was going to head this next revision for the thinking as the chair of the Committee on Ethics. The eighth Minion Ethics was actually created by this task force the SAA didn't have one per se at the time but unfortunately Mark passed away at a whole far too early age just this past summer. So the Committee has taken up the charge unfortunately without Mark. Now, this doesn't mean that archaeologists haven't considered ethics but that there's been a spate of them. I think one of the early sort of important statements was the work of Katie or Karen Pateli with her book in 1996 Archaeological Ethics which then was revised and co-edited by her and Chip Colwell and you can see just some of the other kinds of publications that are out there and these are just a selection. There's a lot of interest and concern by practicing archaeologists so one by Phyllis Messinger addresses the whole ethics of cultural collecting who are the collectors and cultural property. Now, even though the first principle as you'll see here is called stewardship and the story behind this, I'm not going to go into it but it was really fascinating at the conference how they came to figure out that there should be something about stewardship and how this they thought was going to really sort of solve the problems but we learned very quickly on that stewardship was interpreted differently on different groups that it also had the implications of the archaeologists as in Phyllis that they were somehow not just the analysts of the data the collectors of the data but they were the stewards of the data even when working with local groups we'll just say local whoever they may be and so probably the most important critique of the concept of stewardship came out in a nice article by Allison Wiley our book chapter, The Promise and Perils of an Ethic of Stewardship so already within ten years at least some of our members were beginning to grapple with one of the implications and the problematic implications of some of the ethics and I strongly recommend this particular article so one of the other very interesting things that happened and we'll talk a little bit about it when we have time at the end was that in 2008 a group of people at Indiana University including Ann Kiber and Rue Midgill from Indiana University but at the time Sonia Hotline was there Larry Zimmerman, Chip Colwell and others Dorothy Lippert from the Smithsonian gathered together to say we need to have a conversation about where we are with ethics and so forth so while the SA8 per se wasn't doing anything formal at the time nonetheless groups of concerned archaeologists were getting together to talk about it and they published an open letter to the SA8 membership in the archaeological record in March of 2009 and we'll go back one of the things that they really were advocating was having discussions about ethics and people sitting down and if we have time at the end they took each one of the eight principles and they set out some questions that everybody who is working as an archaeologist should actually sit down and think about so we can go over some of those it's very useful I can send it to them I think it actually might even be on a website or a Facebook page revising ethics or archaeology or whatever that Larry Zimmerman set out so in 2014 the SA8 board issued a charge to the committee on ethics which is the one before us that we should be thinking about and this is that the current principles of ethics focuses on obligations to the archaeological record rather than to other constituents or without considering other constituents as well and the board charges the committee on ethics to review the current principles whether the current principles should be expanded to address the ethical obligation of archaeologists to other stakeholders, individuals and community so the way in which the committee on ethics interpreted this was that should the principles be expanded in their entirety, not just one by one but to a certain extent I think the board has sort of waited on this in some senses there were some people who thought all we need to do is have a sentence to each of the principles to take care of the other constituents or that a people part or the relationships part of doing archaeology and therefore balance off what they saw which is rightly there a overemphasis on the preservation of the record at the expense of understanding the relationships and the impact on local communities or archaeologists themselves and on people so the way in which the committee on ethics I was not on it yet I was added last year was to try to think about it in its entirety so once the committee on ethics got back to the board and said look yes we do think many of these principles maybe not all but many of these principles definitely should be reconsidered the board then came back to the committee and said great keep reviewing them but please contact a lot of our other committees and see to what extent they felt the principles needed to be revised so the committee they suggested and actually the board the committee went to other committees as well many of whom said well we don't see any ethical any no concerns here for us with the principles as stated but certainly the committee on museums collections and curation had some responses the committee on Native American relations had an excellent really well thought out responses including providing the committee on ethics at the SAA with a list of the statement of ethics of a number of related groups World Archaeological Congress the Canadian Society for Archaeology for example and so really very hopeful they got their public education committee and the status of women in Archaeology and the government affairs committee so the committee on ethics you know do different when about collecting all of these responses as part of what they wanted to draw on so in the view of the current committee on ethics it was as I said not merely a situation of treating the individual principles but developing first actually a foundation statement because we actually in looking at the eight principles there they're not placed in any wider context they're just okay folks these are our ethical guidelines but what the committee was grappling with was that really we needed to have an overarching statement about what ethics are all about and so and then it actually might not make some of the individual principles because they might be folded into a general statement so we began work on this by next time I was now on the committee we began work on this and our plan was to develop on the one hand a foundation statement of some sort and you know we started off in our conversations with several people and thought that we could actually draw ethics of course there's a number of huge developments in the field of ethics especially medical ethics where people are very much concerned about you know how do you balance how do you make things equitable so that all of the benefits and the harms are distributed equitably among all of the different stakeholders and so we sort of started working with some of those things but our plan was basically to work with a couple of people on a foundation statement and then take each one of the principles and go through that with an advisor we actually set out a very ambitious schedule for ourselves in May we'll work on the foundation statement and you know September we'll do this and do our first one and October we'll do the second one and bring in some advisors so we got started out and the foundational statement we talked at length with Allison Wiley for maybe two hours on a Skype call between many of us and also with Sonia Adelaide bringing in the perspective of those from the Committee on Native American Relations she also had a very broad understanding she's not someone who's saying well it's only about Indigenous community it's about everything in archaeology and how important relationships are we also talked with Julie Hallwell on stewardship and at the time the Committee on Indigenous and Bruno McGill we now got a new chair because Bruno just took a tenure crack job and needs to concentrate on what he needs to concentrate on and he's still at the Committee but he's been very involved he's the one who's actually got the ethics hold going in 2004 as a graduate student at Indiana University and so he will definitely be part of it so what we've got now is before you are some of the principles and what I'd like to do is these are the discussion questions that the 2008 group put out for each of these that I think everybody might want to address but basically what I'd like to do is turn on the lights and have everybody take a few minutes to go through the current principles think about the charge to the Committee is this principle too much about just the archaeological record does it need to be revised in light of taking into consideration some of the more people part of it all as well as the record part and any ideas that you might have so even if you just go through and indicate on the little handout I need to use this actually but this is data as the committee goes forward which ones of those principles you think actually could definitely need not only just revised in light of the charge that is to bring in communities local groups and even aspects of the archaeology should they be or do you think they stand alright on their own as is and then if you have any ideas or suggestions about what's missing and therefore what could be or should be included that would be great so let's take about five minutes to do that and then we can go back and think about some of the questions about them and hopefully get some ideas from you all about what you think about these other principles where do you think the SAA can go without the charge I'll just say that one of the challenges in all of this is the SAA has over 7000 members it is probably rather conservative among some of our members a big portion of our members and I'll give you an example which is that when this principle denies this proposal let me backtrack just a second one of the things that the S6 principles used to be in the bylaws and the requirement for any changes in the bylaws is that it goes to a vote to the whole membership a number of years ago they pulled the ethical principles out but they decided with that ethical principle number nine that they would nonetheless put it out to a vote to the membership because well there are ethical principles who wanted to know how the membership felt about it the idea here from those proposing it was that who was going to vote against that principle having to do with a safe working environment there was a huge backlash now it did pass, it did vote but there were a lot of archaeologists who even wrote blogs about the fact that basically get your hand out of my field work get your hand out of my relationships with my students or my colleagues this is not what my professional society should be doing so getting an agreement on the part now we're in the Berger couple we can't believe that there will be people who would say these things and accept it, I can say for some of the blogs which really took the board back, it was basically a mom and apple pie kind of thing that everybody should endorse these things we all think there should be a safe working environment and so on and so forth but there were quite a few archaeologists who felt that this was meddling in their personal relations so thinking about that in terms of some of the kinds of things that some of us felt would be important to do to change some of these principles and even in cracking a branding statement which as I said having respect for persons is part of one of our commitment and having that we should be mindful to do good and avoid harm wherever possible these are the kinds of things that actually some of our colleagues in the SAA would find they were not going to vote for something that is none of our quote on quote distance so having to deal with somebody and of course some of us have some other ideas about I mean for example the many other American relations gave us five really very good comments on what they would like to see and one of them is something that probably most many members of the SAA would not accept especially in terms of one of the terms so what they would like to see for example would be one of the ethical statements would be that the members of the SAA acknowledged the primacy of indigenous knowledge, intellectual property and cultural rights in respect of indigenous heritage there would be members of the SAA who would say not primacy but the importance of indigenous knowledge, intellectual property and there would be some who would definitely not accept that they should take primacy so that's just one issue not that the others that they suggest are certainly perfectly reasonable to many of us but nonetheless and we went over a number of the words a lot of words in a background statement are things that some of our communities would object to such as the use of the term negotiate which some of our members suggest is really that you want to negotiate the working relationship that negotiate is too much of a business term and that it actually involves you know sort of confrontational one party against another party or whatever so even some of the words that are being suggested are things that have to be considered against someone or another so anyway just a little aside it's likely what will happen will be there will be whatever happens between now and next spring there will be discussions that will be a form of the SAA meeting where any changes will be presented open to you know it will probably take a number of years to make any kind of changes especially in a process where you need and want to involve as many members as possible for the start I have to credit the board for saying wait a minute our principals actually are over emphasizing the priority of the record at the expense of the importance of the relationships that we establish for those communities where we are working and how do we sort of recognize this and how do we bring back or bring in for the first time perhaps the importance of these relationships and these people and acknowledge the importance of some of what we do to various communities and so forth so anyway let's just I'll stop babbling you can take a few minutes and just write a few things and then you can go through some of them and deal with some of them if you do get a list of the principals they can write through what they do or I'll let you through I'm sorry this person is talking to my own I didn't say I was in the structure right? I'm sorry I'll just I'll just write a few more okay first part I'll just I'll just write a few more I'm just going to show you a little bit of a picture of these structures of people, those of all our partners. So, yeah, we're going to start with that. And then I'm going to go ahead and do one of these pictures. And then we're going to try to look at some of these things that are beneficial to our galaxy. So, that's really what that read as. This is to make sure that we have a good picture. We're going to engage our friends. We're going to help them see the picture. Yeah. All right. Whereas I think it should be about connecting to each other. Yeah. Yeah, not at all. I didn't go out in the morning. I'm sure. Yeah. Yeah. I think that For people with families like us, I think there's a lot of evidence to handle by the state of this. That's the core responsibility of the rest of the community. What it means to be in this state is to be in the community. Because without that, I mean, it's just so meddling. So, you know, it's just like, oh, I get to choose who my stakeholders are. So, you know, this is a very good issue. It's a wonderful reaction. There's also a very good group. It's always on every one of your time. I would love to be seen by all of you. Thank you. Thanks for that. I want to say some advice for people who like to talk to you. They say that people who like to talk to share. Right. So, what's your focus? I see, I see, I see. I don't know. I see, I see. I see. I see. I see. I see. I see. I see. I see. And I think it's aside from the secretary. So yeah, I'm not going to lie to you that if you're not going to say something like that, I'm going to have to experience it so hard. I'm going to hear it from the senator, right? Well, that's kind of, I don't know if you're not assessing it enough, I'm thinking about the consequences. Of course, they can't do anything. Considering that you decided to go with all friends from the board. Yeah. OK. It's a bigger issue. But how do you? Well, how do you do it? Is there anything salvage it? Yes, that's it. Good to hear that. Yeah. Maybe you're not aware of it. Well, if there's no need for that. I'm not always going to be a good friend. Maybe I need to keep it fine. Yeah, there's a lot of things. And I'm trying to always get to know the secretary. Yeah. What does it say? That you're not aware of it. That's a big argument. I'm just wondering if you can say anything. Well, like, if you're not aware of it. What is that? It's like the level of an accountability system. How do they get the money? In order to decide if we need to cut it. Yeah, it's like a lie as well. Yeah. People can't just use it. Right. They just spend money on it. That one means a lot of work, but it also means a lot of fall. It's like the level of work we want. It's like a lie as well, but it doesn't mean we need to cut it. It's just like a lie. We've got to stop leaving until the sun is down in town. Any guys who work here at Trish, why don't you come and they'll say what? We're very good. How about just a couple more minutes and then we'll talk and we'll have some questions for you or comments. Just so we can talk. Some discussion going on, whether it was a discussion of what I said, comments or criticism or whatever. Just to the front. So, the last question is, what is their land? Where are you guys from? Do you know where you're from? Yes, I do. I just wanted to know, what's the definition of the land? What conditions do you have in terms of the land? What's the definition of the land? How do you see that in terms of the land? How do you see that in terms of the land? The land is in a very, very good condition. I think we should have a little more time to talk about the land. I'd like to see the land, but I'm not sure. I'm going to start. You don't have to put your name on me, but I would like to feed back on it, but right now in the last sort of nine or ten minutes we've got, I want to have a question on what I, anything you want to probe, anything you want more information on, any sort of suggestions. Katie, if she was now also on the committee on ethics, now I got her. So she can take your comments as well. She has dropped her former Epic 12 team at the University of Alabama. So anybody have any comments or questions or concerns or objections? Yeah, I just, before we were talking earlier, before you started with this, on numbers five, it strikes me that there's a flip side that's missing, which is that, you know, the principle five basically says you shouldn't sit there and work your day and not make it available to others. But when you do make it available to others it seems there's an obligation that the other needs to acknowledge the amount of property on a person that excavated the data, created it or something rather than just take the data and work it off as if they were responsible for acquiring it. Which just seems to be a missing component there. Since I know a case without it recently happened. Right, right. So I was saying to catch Katie, she's got a great case for a new case for the Epic 12. Yeah. It wasn't either a game or a dog, but somebody was badly hit off by another archeologist. Right. Well, I'm taking credit for somebody else's work. Yeah, exactly. Right. And I would also say, you know, to me, and again, this one has the stewardship in it number five and has stewardship in it and to the extent that we find stewardship to be problematically framed. And also, of course, after the very last sentences says after which these materials and documents must be made available to others, including local and other affected communities, not just other archeologists. Lisa. I had two comments. One was again for focus on the archaeological record as it is now relating to both probably stewardship and records and preservation. And I don't know if there's any way for the essay to make it. It is just one of the issues that comes up with actually trying to follow these archaeological ethical principle is not having things like institutional support to properly curate the archaeological record and to look after it no longer. So having progress in our space, climate control space, that sort of thing. So the idea is that we are looking after this future generations, which is something that we as archeologists, of course, agree with. There's also a problem of actually trying to do that. Right. And the other comment I had actually comes back to your comment about who has the primacy in determining these things, which I would be one of those people that would object to that. Right. For a couple of different reasons. But most notably, I work in a part of the world. So when you go to work very closely with what we would call stakeholders or indigenous Native American First Nations communities working in the Middle East, giving primacy to one group over another, especially when claims can be very tenuous, actually literally starts worse. Right. Right. Yes. Well, I don't think really on ethics is going to go from primacy to anybody. And that's in fact one of the motivations, I think, for reviewing these kinds of things was, you know, that in fact, in some ways it looks like we have tended to give primacy to the archeologists. And rather than give primacy to anybody, we ought to sort of recognize all of those people who might have a say in it and be in a dialogue and a conversation with those. And what happens is going to vary enormously from case to case situation to situation. So I'm sure you're not the only one to give primacy to anybody. Right. Yeah. I'm sorry. I feel like I have a bit of a queue here. I'm still joining you for a full talk. But the, did you talk about last week as part of the right to do it? What you're talking about here? I'm happy to hear last week's about it. With Native Californians coming to talk about intellectual property rights and their states and the kinds of data we generate and how that's assimilated to the world and more broadly. So the issue of Pritz is a little number five and the two kind of coming together in a community that could be, like Lisa's saying, in a different sense damaged by broader access to the kind of data we generate. So, you know, a community going for federal recognition who doesn't want to have certain types of data out into the world without some sort of sense that they can control that to prevent damage to themselves. And there's broader, you know, repercussions for IRBs and all of that, yes. But I'm thinking five and two come together in ways not well articulated for the living communities that are in these moments where archeological and historical data actually significantly weighs in on standing matters, water rights, federal recognition, land rights, in which the data more broadly than some of these could actually be used against them. And, you know, I literally have an archeologist taking my stuff and cherry picking it to say something about a community that will cost them their water rights. Well, that's certainly one of the submissions that happened in Standing Rock, right? And we know from many, many years ago in Southern Africa, some of the ideas that, you know, Richard Lee and the earlier studies of hunter-gatherers and mobile and not having any land tenure or having any boundary territory were used against them. Well, we don't have any land so therefore we're not taking it from you. You know, it's reported in the record that you guys move around all the time, right? So, exactly. We of course have a hard time imagining what those other kinds of ways in which people can use information and use it against communities. I was still on number five. I think that what you're also talking about is the issue of traditional knowledge and that as a kind of intellectual property is not really considered in this tool. My other thing is, principle number four, we've already started to realign the committee and the off to community engagement, part of the outreach, which is, like, again, taking the appearance of things that we, the archeologists, reach out to you as some kind of, you know, giving you information. It's like being stewards. As opposed, yes. It's quite related as opposed to a two-way community engagement idea. That's important. And also the whole idea that I think comes out of a lot of current scholarship on collective practice, which is the co-production. So that when you're actually doing an outreach event or community engagement event that you're co-producing the event, you're co-producing the information, the ideas and so forth. So that concept from collective practice of co-production is also missing a year. There are two issues. The first one is closely related to our tools that I think it's important to emphasize a collaborative archeology is not only to do outreach and implementation together, but to come up with a research design together with stakeholders. And I think we all teach that to be our classes and there's a way to indicate that in political number four, a little bit more. In Sonya's talk, Thursday I talked a little bit about environmental studies. I talked about this on a lot of trans-disciplinary talks, which is very similar to our stakeholders who are part of the group to discuss the goals and the research design. So there are actually groups within a society that are expecting to continue using the word stakeholder. That actually suggests that you could divide on mistakes among people and some groups would have more of a stake in it than others and you would get preference for that. Right. And last companies could be as they call them. So we, I started with our right. And in relation to that, what is that the type of principle of anthropological ethics? It doesn't say where. It's clear the society of American anthropology, so it's in the Americas, but with a focus on North America, you know, for say, the Native American and other ethnic groups. It's, I'm balanced at this point. It's kind of all the shifts between the US and North America and the rest of the world. Right. And then right here and right here, I think it's kind of tied to the issue that I noticed that. Madison and I had a long discussion about who owns the past and explain the situation in Japan. Nobody owns our cultural remains. It's everybody. It's not even the Japanese people. It's everybody. And we didn't have a conclusion, but I can see that it's a tricky issue that it's not easy to put in the principles that it might be a way to reflect some of that. Yeah, they did debate that quite a bit in the task force and the meeting that they had in 1993 about the given fact that there are many people who are like ourselves, who are in American training environments but actually work elsewhere with different kinds of communities and so forth. And to what extent do people like that, you know, engage with the ethical principles that's written right now. But that's where I would say that even, you know, in our conversation with Sonia, for example, about this foundation thing, which she was very clear about some of the kinds of ways and places that she said things about Native groups or just Native groups or whatever, she said it just should be about everybody. Everybody should have that perspective. It doesn't have to be divided up. And so this is not a person's right. Yeah, right. It's just, you know, that old, where's the frankings on, you know, R-A-S-K-N-C-Q-E, you know. Yeah. Looking at principle number six, I think that ties in pretty heavily to what other people have been talking about with five and two and one. Number six, reporting in publication doesn't make any mention of what sort of content is ethical to report. And if we're going to take into consideration that stewardship and accountability need to be revised with regard to the communities we work with, I think there should be an explicit statement on how the content that's published, what you should publish, what that content should be and how that relates to the form of accountability that you're holding to. Right. Well, I think the other issue here to add in since it's now, you know, the mid-20, almost 20-20 or something coming up fast, is for individual age now. So the whole notion of how to report, what to report, what goes on the left side, what's open, what's open access. You know, I'm sorry, our cancer wasn't here, but it would be interesting to have them talk about their philosophy behind open access. And then, you know, who gets to say what about what goes up and what doesn't go up, and it's not just the archeologist or in what form is it or who is accessible to. And if you say you're only publishing on the web and you're in communities that don't have access to the web, or maybe, you know, with different kinds of cultural knowledge that not everybody should have access to, which is what the severed individual archeology dealt with, you know, when we first started working with some communities about their main men's business and women's business in Australia, you know, and I should have an opinion on women's business and women's business, and I think there were many business groups that objected to actually even seeing images of people who passed away, that for some people, that is, you know, a cultural no-no. So if you want people to post their images of their groups and everything, how do you deal with some of these kinds of cultural protocols, really, in some of those instances? So there's, especially in the individual age, I think we're really needing to, you know, really, you know, sort of interrogate some of these kinds of principles, you know. Well, you've got a million and a half dollars of research only copied with your laptop and your, which your grandchildren are going to say, well, what am I grandma's doing with this? Right. Well, you know, that's true, and of course, you know, so, you know, how many different media should we be saving the data, you know, in what, in order to be archived in different locations? Of course, digital media are always changing, you know, we tried to read our zip disks from, you know, 15, 20 years ago. I was able to do it. People lost their entire lifetime. Right, right. The technology shift. One problem was I think I see with these principles, it almost assumes that archeologies are, like, permanent, like sealed away from all other disciplines. I think one way that's really missing is science, an explicit kind of focus on archeology as a science of practice. I think it's been discussed here, but I think for, it needs to be explicitly stated that archeology is a kind of science of practice. You're getting ready for the march on Saturday. Right. Well, I think they, you know, one of the kinds of things, for example, in our early draft of a foundation for guiding statement, if you will, something along the line that archeologists are committed to increasing knowledge of human behavior and the cultural past and the use of such specialized knowledge to reflect on improved the condition of individuals and communities in the present. Archeology is a collaborative endeavor and that involves with those individuals and groups. Archeologists perform many roles, such as researcher, educator, expert withness as they work in a variety of setting. As such, the pursuit of archeology comes with complex ethical responsibilities. The principle is outlined below expressing interconnected ethos, a set of values that should be consulted well, archeologists, as they pursue ethical practices. And then we suggest that respect for persons, mindfulness should do good and avoid harm where possible, and equitable distribution of benefits and burdens in the area of work. So you sit down and think about who's going to benefit, who's going to be harmed, and how do we distribute the news? There's going to be benefits and harms in any event, and we have to actually cognize those, take those into account in a more conscious and explicit sort of way as we begin that project. So that would get back to you, and we'll judge you if you're concerned about, you know, okay, what are the benefits and harms that these kinds of jobs are making this kind of challenge real? Great. Tanya, if you want to talk further, I know you're going to do this for the AIA, right? Yeah, I'll look back to it, because we've just changed our committee structure where I'm a part of the committee where a portion of this is small and bust. Okay. All right. I suppose I just wanted to echo in those comments about, you know, so I realize this is the Society for American Archaeology, but it's really a global endeavor. It's the, as far as I'm aware, the world's largest association for archaeology. So, yeah, having the principles of archeological ethics as something that's separate than American archeology I think would be very beneficial for many people even our part of the essays. But I also just wanted to come back to the intellectual property in the context of how we can speak in terms of the co-production of knowledge and collaborative work and then back to the past point about acknowledging work about our space. It seems like this is getting to something we're going to have to think much, much, much carefully about even as it's worded right now to incorporate the fact that more and more work is collaborative and co-produced. Right. And for people outside of archeology as well. It's totally different question, but I'm considering one of the essays, Climate Change Committee, and I'm curious to see to what extent this principle is known among the essay members and how much that will have to affect their everyday archeological practice and the information that we are going to talk about as principle number nine situation. Right. Yeah. Well, I hope there are these discussion questions which I can send out or maybe ask on our website that the 2008 group read, you can actually answer these, all of them. But I just wanted to end by saying that we have to answer how to further engage in these issues. And here at Berkeley, people ask for and create a class, develop a reading group, organize a forum, invite some speakers, even forming an Ethics Gold team. I think two of you are still here. And Katie, who's been on the Ethics Gold. And definitely, there are things that we can do so that we, and then of course, some people then should take these on to wherever they go and share these and sit down even with the people that we work with and how they feel about this. And what is their interpretation and how would they want to work with us so that we distribute equitably the benefits and the harms of whatever it is that's going to happen. So, you know, I recognize, I realize when I think, oh, I think I'd better put these out, even though they've been up there on the wall for years. I don't think anybody's ever stood there and taken them in, right? I mean, it looks very nice how we're concerned about principles of ethics and narrative, you know, right there before, but I don't know how many people, and if we had to take a little quiz, you know, how many people would know, even what subjects, the principles, would all be on the billboard. Do BLSB, like Belly Life Sciences, try to just have it, you know, engraved on a piece of paper? You know, Bull, it's got that thing on the place of the building, right? Boom. Yeah, but then it's hard to keep it open for revision, if it's... It's hard to put it in front of that T29 series quiz, right? Right. So, principle set, what do you think? That's right. Well, I am welcomed to a notice after one day after we've been leaving and each of these, and I'm happy to work with anybody that wants to support us, you know, I will... Hey, and I will continue to be involved with the committee on ethics work, so anything that I can have to offer, or anything that I can think about, I'll definitely let some of them talk about it on Fridays. Oh, right. Okay. Right. And if I can keep them in a room, have a forum, and whatever, and of course, the one that you were in part of to move on, okay, Friday, last week, you know, the tribal part, the consulting part was actually closed, and where some of this talk was definitely open. Yeah. But, and I think, you know, maybe what I'll do is think about how, you know, sort of putting together these questions that the discussion... for discussion, that you, you know... You put it on an arc like a monster. Yeah, you got a chat. Right. Yeah. Space or something like that. And then people could go there, at least, and be together with that. Right, sure. Yeah. That would be great. But these are the kinds of questions we should ask, you know. What do you think the roles are? How do you incorporate tools for collaborative work in your classes, you know, when you're teaching? What do you think the roles are? So they put these out, and they published, you know, a nice little article, but then these are... I'll go look. I didn't have time to check and see if they're still on the Facebook. I don't know where you're using these archeological ethics, but anyway... So anyway, thank you all for your time.