 I'm actually from the University of Southampton now, as you can see from my slide, but I'm actually going to present to you a brief overview of my master's research and results that I conducted at the University of Manchester in 2016, so it's also worth noting, as Donald mentioned, that some of these results are probably out of date as well and out of this point. But particular attention will be given to the disciplinary trends and visual assumptions identified within the different visual modalities utilising the context of the museum. And then the final section of the presentation will briefly discuss future directions of my research at PhD level and the application of new vocabulary in an attempt to challenge old narratives about the prehistoric past. I suggest that the only way to challenge this is to actually present new and innovative ways of representing the Paleolithic that is founded on emotional and relational biographies. So I would just like to, for a moment, for everyone to look at this image. This is the image of Wickey Hole created by H M Hutchinson in 1896. This is a very powerful image and probably the main reason why I'm studying the representation of women in the Paleolithic. When I first saw this image, I must admit I was actually disgusted in our role. I was like, this is really bad. The pictorial reconstruction features several of the stereotypical and gender-specific characteristics which is used to demonstrate secondary sexual difference in the representation of human antiquity. As you can see, the female is positioned in the background of the image, literally faceless, overshadowed by the premise of the cave. The male takes centre stage. He is depicted as not only the punter, he is the inventor, he is the creator, he is the motivator of human evolution. The female assumes obviously a more passive and stereotypical inertial role in the male counterparts and are almost exclusively associated with children. Children in this perspective are almost seen as material culture in themselves. They are not individuals. They are almost always associated with the female. Basically, I looked at three international case studies, the National History Museum in London, the Museum of Human Evolution in Bergus Bay, and I looked at the Pre-Hish Museum in the Dodd Eye Valley in France. I think this quote by Clav Gamble is very important. Human pre-Hishry is only possible because we've been taught how to look and learn. I would argue that we must consider the historical lens through which it has been viewed. This is basically a standard as to what has been set for over 100 years later. The long-standing and persistent gender biases within prehistoric archaeology and models of evolution have consistently positioned adult males essential to archaeological investigation, interpretation and representation, while females have been placed firmly on the periphery. There has been also considerable research into the highly formed lake and restrictive scenarios presented within the context of the museum, particularly with regard to emotion and identity. I argue that this limits our understanding of the multifaceted and multidimensional character of social and material relationships throughout human antiquity. It is now widely recognised that if we are to understand how people of things bring their worlds into being, we are required to critically engage with emotion. It appears, following Clav Gamble, that the time has come to present the driving factor of evolution, not in terms of technological or cultural progression, rather a focus on emotional biographies. Emotional biographies in the context of my work should be understood as a relational ontology that focuses on the interconnected social relations and intimacies between individuals, matter, materials, substances and space. So, using these three major museological examples, I'll actually demonstrate that despite major critiques and movements against the traditional and gender-specific iconocritic background during the 1990s, by lots of amazing female archaeologists actually in the profession. So, we have Margaret Cronkey, we've got Stephanie Moser, we've got Azilha, all of them really in the 1990s critique these situations that this needs to change. So, my research questions were simple, has it changed? Haven't we moved on from this? Has the museum actually taken this into consideration when they were representing Pala Levy? And fortunately, they haven't. So, I analysed the National Museums, which was included here, and I looked at several variables, quite different to Felicity's variables, actually. I looked at history and architecture, I looked at the exhibition design and layout, and then I looked specifically at analysing the visual modalities. But for the purposes of this presentation, I'm just going to focus on exhibition design and the visual modalities, otherwise I'll be here forever. So, the Natural History Museum in Gollumden, UK. The Gallery of Human Evolution at the Natural History Museum does not have a diadetic or a personal look. You know what I mean, people. So, rather than the aim of the exhibition is to display star specimens from the museum's collection and recent research on a scientific and objective manner. And I believe that, in retrospective, that this is actually widely felt short in the representation of females, because they focus purely on geographical locations, the bones, and they didn't actually think of the wider narrative. The gallery is characterised as theoretically organised with no prescribed route for the visitors to follow. Actually, it can be quite confusing as to which place it's supposed to have gone into. Instead, the visitors can freely explore four scientific zones that present our most ancient ancestors within an evolutionary, interpretive framework. Gender stereotyping and the use of hydrothon-rate scenarios was difficult to assess here, because they didn't actually reconstruct paganolithic life. There was no more to the hairling models. They only had single reconstructions like this. Very fantastic, but that's not what it was. So, the gallery was centred on two types of visual modality that are anatomical reconstruction in the middle and scientific as I've shown is hyper-realistic living mannequins. The two key representations are the home on the end of our male family on the left and the home safety male on the right. They are standalone in the mannequins, individually cased but facing each other, almost glancing one another across the gallery. These particular reconstructions successfully challenged the primitive iconopathy that stickey cave menstrual type, which is so dangerous with being attached to the home on the end of it. However, they take centre stage in the gallery and despite successfully challenging negative notions of race and identity particularly with the Hormsania, the imposing nature of these hyper-realistic reconstructions subconscious replaces males at the centre of the gallery and at the centre of evolution, because when you walk in and out of females, the females are anatomical reconstructions in the side cases and they have these big massive reconstructions which Levin has also mentioned cost over £120,000. So, it seems that they also financially like to invest in the male role in human evolution. So, a clear trend can be identified here and females dominate the anatomical reconstruction which is quite sad, really. And in the hand of the realistic ones, the males dominate always consistently. And I argue that this trend is women of little north in the study of prehistory and anatomical reconstruction is like a realistic, personal and relatable element that is needed to provide a room to success with the challenge of gender-cognitive iconography or the paleolithic. But see these categories where the females were intuitively scientifically reconstructed it was the white thermal plastic heads that even though they'd been reconstructed they had a relatability. So, on to the next case study and I do apologise for going through these at rapid speed so if there are any questions, please ask me later. The second museum is the Muse National De Prehistory in the Doix d'Ine by the France. The architecture and the situational positioning of the museum clearly reflects the role and purpose of the space. It mirrors the prehistoric world and the archaeological sites around it enabling the museum to serve as a speaking monument. The museum designer layout can be characterised as a linear journey of technological and cultural progression through the ages. A visitor's journey starts in the entrance which is flooded with light and he also enters the seduced atmosphere of the lobby area and continues through the dillelillir access tunnel that allows the visitor to literally retread and walk in the shoes of the lethode footprints which I thought was a fantastic element that was really nice. At the end of the access tunnel the visitor is immediately confronted with the scientific reconstruction of Homo rectus who throughout my analysis is always presented as male which is convenient. The lower gallery then takes the visitor of the chronological journey through time focusing specifically on functionality and matters of survival rather than cultural affairs. Although within this gallery it should be stated that the visitor is confronted with a very interesting anomaly to the traditional genetic iconography. Here you will find the lifestyles reconstruction of the Neanderthal mine and bailing. Situated within a cave setting but there is no female president so this is an example of role reversal. Unfortunately the ever restricted scenario of a cave setting for a dwelling has strong tools for the technology and also present. After ascending up the staircase to the final gallery the visitor is immediately confronted with a wide abled male drawing a half-dispir the performative action of walking up the stairs but the staircase reaches the gallery and a direct association to cultural materials in the sanctuary implicitly suggests that the wide homosaping male is the critical of human evolution. So we're able to demonstrate that actually within this now it's not a single female. Not one. So statistics can lie because statistically speaking there was very bad at representing a female role but actually when you analysed the display it did engage with gender. But the museum does continue to posit both the objects and the subjects of knowledge trying to give the female role and the human evolution as a favour on minimal. This is highlighted by the lack of scientific instructions and the fact that all the males have been fleshed out within this museum I'm really quickly at the pole of international history which is an international centre of research just up the roll. There are further three reconstructions on one female which is always loosing the home savior and a home on the anthol. The anthol obviously associated with functionality of your hair in one hand and the spear in the other and the home savior male sat down mixing in his pigments after his arduous journey through the struggle of evolution. So I will move on to my final case study. It is noted that within the prehistory of France they're very traditional in their type of display. Now the museum of human evolution in the world of Spain this was a fantastic museum purpose-built and size-specific so they didn't have the same sort of problems that the other museums had as being a by-product of modernity basically. So they successfully challenged primitive iconography throughout they didn't present Cayman as a stereotype whatsoever. But gender stereotyping was a persistent problem and specifically when you go back to traditional form of multi-visualisation so in the pictorial representations of the dioramas gender stereotyping was very prevalent. But there was a very nice anomaly to this which is the human evolution gallery but if anybody hasn't seen it please go and see it it's amazing. There's ten hobidid species represented basically from all the way from Oslo Lepidicus all the way up to Hormor Woundedensis in a circular layout. And this successfully challenges the kind of living progression as you can see here in the jet that you can kind of go in and out and move in between the ones so it becomes a discovered space for learning. But when you actually analyse the gallery more closely you see that basically women are always associated with nature and by that they are always represented as the most earliest species so they're always Oslo Lepidicus or Hormor Georgicus and I found it very interesting that the male to appear in the gallery was granted the first voting which is the harmony which is universally accepted to being the first stone tool maker and he stood there with a pondering expression overlooking the gallery again being shown as the kind of motivator of evolution. So I'm going to have to move on really quickly because I'm running out of time trends and assumptions as I've kind of already demonstrated as you can see females really dominate the earliest species and then males dominate. Hormor Antestor gives a little bit of a skewed representation as a museum of human evolution specifically on that hominid. But the visual trends are very simple. Women are reconstructed anatomically and males are reconstructed scientifically. Thank you. So has the situation changed? I would argue not. We are still in the background. We are still faceless. We are still not in the forefront of the cave image. Going against that and the restrictive scenarios. We need to be moving away from these. I'm really running out of time. So rethinking. You're okay. Rethinking. Rethinking gender and material. So where do we go from this? I've managed to do it. I know we're anomalies to this. I do understand that. We are museums who are doing a fantastic job. But these are nationally important museums that we've got European people in. So that in itself shows that we're still a major problem. So I think that basically the problem is that many museums do like that. They have to produce a kind of safe and expected reconstruction. We've already spoke about this. There's a certain expectation and the museum doesn't need that expectation. We're really nervous about how to break away from that. So I draw on concepts of new materialism and the ontological turning. This is really popular at the moment. Hang on to that. The bit we can't see really. The bit that in the ontological record orc says it's not possible. And I think that we should focus on emotions. I mean that might not checklist. I don't want to see people being happy or people being sad. What I want to see is us communicating with each other. So that kind of idea of the footprints and the thought in our individuals. Why have we recreated in thought in our individuals? Talking to each other. Walking through the landscape. Things like that is more what I would like to see. As you can see, I've also got pages and pages left. I've got a bullet from the time. I hope that you can appreciate what I'm trying to do which is reframe how we think about gender representation, performance engagement and emotional biographies in the panel like this. Thank you.