 Delia Graske, Sweden, Bohuslas Museum. So my title question is asking who, as contact archaeologists, are we doing this work for? Are we doing it for the public? Are we doing it for science or the clients? I work with Maritime Archaeology. So it's my case study here. But this topic is relevant for all archaeology. And I'm focusing today on the visual digital data that we produce. Today, many Maritime Archaeology visualizations contain expert-informed narratives, largely inaccessible to non-expert audiences. And this limits the contribution that the sector can commit to society, and also suggests that there are only a limited number of ways of viewing the past. So the images and visualizations that we create are unavoidably coded with priorities, interests, and bias. So for example, the heavy focus on ship construction in Maritime Archaeology. That's a shipwreck. Why should this matter? Images are becoming more and more important as their own form of language, and most notably in digital communications. Some well-known visual narratives in Maritime Archaeology are of dimly-lit ship skeletons scattered in the seabed, or reanimations of warships mid-battles. Yet these don't reflect the other realities that early modern warships are known to have had. That is, with women and men living on board while they were docked at port because Battle at Sea was the last resort due to extreme costs. So by limiting the number of narratives of the past, we're also limiting the potential for archaeology to contribute to society, largely by marginalizing some groups or making completely invisible others. And Stuart Jeffery nails it when he says, expert forms of knowledge and or professional priorities invariably inform digital visualizations. Consequently, the resulting digital objects fail to engage broader communities as a means of researching and representing the heritage. Nice. OK, I'm on time. So digital imaging tools have become far more affordable and accessible to content archaeologists. So say now creating image-based photogrammetry models of features has become like a routine part of the work. But new tools do not equate with improved images if the narratives remain the same or limited. The primary reasons for data collection and contact archaeology today are centered on documentation and management, with communication often left as an afterthought. So by lifting visual communication as a priority already in the field, archaeologists can become more mindful of the visual narratives that they create. Reflecting on the Valletta Convention, Adrian Olively stated that archaeologists therefore need to be more, much more, than good communicators and ambassadors of their subjects if we are to reshape the essential nature of a relationship with society and the public of large. And I believe that understanding the narratives within our digital visualizations is one area where we can do more. So the importance of effective communication of space science and research has been a topic of discussion in that field for a number of years and for important reasons. This is printed in 1991, but it's from 1989. There is a growing concern that the gulf between science and technology developments and public understanding is widening, with possibly serious implications for the future of Western industrialized and democratic societies. And we all know how that can go. So I would like to use communication of space as an example for the power of visualizing concepts and places that most people will never get to experience in real life, but that become real, largely based on the imagery and itself based on scientific data. So just like the majority of underwater maritime sites, most of us today will not get to experience space traveler phenomena up close. Yet effective visualization of nebulae, distant galaxies, and spacecraft landing on comets enables us non-experts to experience and interpret events that happen in different spaces and times. So the theme too of EAA this year and that this session is under looks towards the next 25 years on the anniversary of the Valletta Convention. So this made me think of how content archaeologists will work in 25 years time in 2042. And so maybe maritime archaeologists won't even dive anymore using robotics instead of risking humans. But what is very likely is that archaeologists will be truly computer literate, just likely to code as well as writing reports. And if current trends are indicative, then visualizations will be just as important as text descriptions. Visualizations, according to Sarah Parry's research, have promised for the archeological process. If we better engage with a digital and hand-based illustration, the expert skill sets and data sets involved in field practice itself have the potential to be pushed forward, made more rigorous, rich and intellectually meaningful. So the craft digital visual practice can directly fold in upon the craft of excavation practice and vice versa. So this is not just important for communicating, but also for the archeological process. So one limitation that we need to overcome is anticipating future use and reuse of our data. Unless we think beyond our current traditional uses, then we limited potential right from the beginning. One example of how digital archeological data can directly improve people's lives are within the VR experiences that Dr. Jose Luis Mosso in Mexico City uses on patients for operations. He works in areas of extreme poverty, has little access to costly, strong sedatives, so the relaxation VR experiences distracts patients who only need a local anesthetic. So one lady finally got to visit Machu Picchu after a lifelong wish, and another patient was really nervous before her operation, but was then whisked away to an underwater world with fish swimming around stone ruins. The benefits that these VR experiences afford can't be anticipated if field recording is solely for the purpose of documentation and management. Visual communication needs to be prioritized in the data collection workflow in order for multiple future reuses of the data. Wrapping up, nice time. Archeological visualizations and narratives require consideration from the outset in order for future societies to feel that they can engage with what is being presented. Consideration will also mean that archeologists are more mindful and aware of the path that they are creating through their visualizations. So prioritizing communication through visualization early in the archeological process will not only make archeological results more accessible, but will also enrich the archeological interpretive process. Boom, mic drop.