 Thank you very much. Anna, thank you all for being here. Magaita, yes, Interac, so I am proud to be part of this, or a little bit part of this project that examines the issue of interdisciplinarity. And my paper changed a little bit from the abstract I sent a while ago, which nobody read, I hope, for two reasons, because there was the USPP meeting in June where we had some interesting debates about interdisciplinarity. And the second thing, of course, we are in Bad Thelona. So we are critical, autonomous towards the anarchist. So we want to look at the issue in a different light. So hands, the human is in the mismatics, the subtitle, and the title is the critically informed history of interdisciplinarity. That's what I want to address. So the two issues that I think are really important is the issue of interdisciplinarity and consciousness, or self-consciousness. Does one know that one is engaging in something that is interdisciplinary? And I think it's very important to keep this in mind and to ask the question, because otherwise, I know we are going to be retrospective. We are going to say, in fact, in the 19th century, they didn't know that these were separate disciplines and they are working on them together, and it was wrong and we shouldn't be retrospective historians. Or we are going to go into the extreme of the Renaissance man, the polymath, Leonardo da Vinci. So the people who do many different things. But this is not very helpful for us, especially if you want to address the other question, which is the question of interdiscipline and, of course, the discipline. How being conscious about making links with others helps or contributes to shaping one's own discipline. That's the key in terms of boundaries and rules, etc. There are two case studies, which I take from prehistoric archaeology because, of course, prehistoric archaeology is the most important and interesting archaeology of all, as you agree. But particularly because it is a modern discipline. Prehistoric archaeology dates from the second, third of the 19th century, especially after 1859 and the establishment of high human antiquity. So it is a discipline of its time. It doesn't have the legacies of classical studies, even of medieval archaeology, which can draw back earlier. It's a discipline of modernity. The two examples I give is briefly with Gabriel de Mortier and the notion of natural sciences. And in some more details, and perhaps to be a bit complex, with John Evans, also a 19th century archaeologist, a very important one, who talks about the natural selection of coins, makes a link between coins and flints, etc. And issues of transition from antiquities into archaeology. I'll also mention this in the 20 minutes I have, yes. And I will conclude then with the question of interdisciplinarity. And I will urge us, and I will see this again, to move from a celebratory mode to a more critical appraisal that will be useful for the present 21st century when we are applying for grants, for example, okay? So the first example is Gabriel de Mortier. So I said prehistoric archaeology is important. He's dealing with something else, but he's a prehistorian. He's a very famous musist from Germain-Olet, etc. I don't know if you've seen this plate. It's a very interesting plate that was just after his death in 1902, I think, near the succession of typology of different types that he created, Mortier here in the middle. So he's a flint typology person. That he writes in 1879, Le Coutier à l'Ubroc, metteur de sens naturel appliqué à l'archéologie. I don't even need to translate it. I think, and this is a question I'll ask you as colleagues, have a look if you see this type of titles or this type of explicit statement, I am going to apply from somewhere to here. I don't know if you've seen from this view from the 1870s. I think it's fairly precocious, but I'm looking for your insights on this. And what Gabriel de Mortier is doing in this paper, he is arguing about the advantage of prehistoric studies. So he's talking as a prehistorian. I mean, to listen to all the archaeology, the rigorous precise method of natural sciences, only through these methods with archaeology properly speaking, be able to secure rapid and important progress. So it's a rare definition of the discipline, the old archaeology, the properly speaking archaeology that is being worked through by the application of analysis. So for the study of what the signature to bear its fruit, we must absolutely borrow from the naturalist the exact and impartial method of observation. And the actual naturalist, the exact and impartial method of observation. So you may wonder, I did wonder, what are these methods that come from the naturalist? And he tells us, it's very surprising, to the world, it's so cute to not let you. Terminology is extremely important. You must be precise, etc. I should have said, so he's looking at the signatures of Samyan Web of Terasigilata. So it's classical archaeology, but he's looking at it from prehistory at this signature and he's trying to make a catalogue and a record, etc. So the most important thing is nomenclature. Only when we are in agreement with the staff and the group of subjects would be able to do it. And after nomenclature comes statistics. So what he considers to be the input of natural sciences is the statistics to arrive at the synthesis, to study, to proceed with the analysis. So I don't know about you, but it is surprising that he is looking at pottery as a natural scientist and he's not looking at chemistry, he's not looking at photography, he's not looking at trace analysis, which are things that existed in his time. So if you're looking at what his colleague, Alexandre Brognard, yes, at the manufacturer, you have a lot of science of ceramics in materials. He's not doing that. For him, natural sciences is nomenclature and statistics. That was my first example. And the second example is John Evans, so a very famous figure, a father of Arthur Evans, father of Joan Evans, who did several, three different, I tried to disentangle a very complex contribution, three different aspects. The first is the natural selection of coins, as he called it himself. The second is his contribution to prehistoric archeology, when he visited the Bouchet Pert in 1859. And the third we'll get there is his explicit conscious take on his disciplinary position. So this is, I don't know if you've seen this plate, it's a very famous plate that he published in 1850. In fact, it's his first article ever as in the Mismatism of Coins. You see on the top the statue of Philipus II of Macedonia. That was probably coins paid as to the mercenaries of the empire. And it arrived through Belgium into Britain, because Britain obviously was part of Belgium. And the question that he's addressing is, was there coinage before the Romans arrived in Britain? Because Julius Caesar, at one point, says that the Roman tribes they paid the tribute in metal lamps and not in coins. So a big question, and this is of course a very antiquarian question is, did coinage exist in Britain before the Romans? He's trying to demonstrate that it did, but this very, very, very important, very, very important image which is the generation transformation of the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of the coins which he estimates must have taken 150 years. So if the stutter is 300 BC there was enough time for coinage to exist before the Romans arrived in Britain. And this image is so important that it has been adapted by another important edge, Petrovis, who reproduces this image. You see the evolution of tax in ancient British coins and this is one of the very few plates that Petrovis copies from others, because he used to make his own, especially after 1881 he had all the money and he couldn't buy people. This is, and he talks, I won't go into detail, but he says that the chariot and horse of the Greek coins of Philip Macedon in the hand of evolution with his artist gradually lost, etc. And he, Petrovis, applies this model to ethnographic example of the decoration of paddles in New Guinea in the Pacific and he's applying this model, this gradual transformation model, also to stone artifacts later on. This transformation model is inspired from the coins. Fascinating, but I won't go into detail. And the second point now is that Evans is starting to realize that what he was proposing, this gradual transformation echoes with the work of recent people who we knew personally because they were all in the same club which is Charles Darwin. So amongst the barbarian nations the laws which regulate the type of coinage of this kind consisting of successive copies of copies are much the same as those which according to our best naturalist Darwin governs the succession of type in the Organic Kingdom. So as early, in fact, already in 1860 so a few months after the application of Darwin's work, he said, oh, what I did, Resengos, yes, is what we call now the Darwinian archaeology. Again, in 75 he writes a paper, The Coinage of Eastern Britain and Natural Selection where he talks about the succession of type follows certain laws to a great extent analogous to the laws found by the organic life. Another example from 1890 in fact, and this is very interesting, retrospective, in fact, attempted in 1850 to apply the principle of natural selection to numismatic inquiries. And one 10 years later Darwin's great work on the origin of species was published, I found, I did prose without knowing, I found that I had been approaching the study of barbaric art on the same line as those which he conducted are more important hidden secrets of nature. Very interesting retrospective repositioning of a scholar in a different milieu where different disciplines emerge and take of course an ascendancy. And this example again arranging chronological sequences, morphology, again were published 10 years before the appearance of Darwin's great work on the origin of species. Five minutes, okay, sure. So what does it mean? 10 years before, it means that maybe this model is not Darwinian, okay, and it is not Darwinian and it is actually very much closer to another very important figure which is our Venkjelman, yes? Venkjelman, when he talks about Greek art and the generation and the gradual transformation of Greek art he is giving the reflexive elements to someone like John Evans, so there is a convergence between this sort of antiquarian history of art type of look at transformation and the new modern, sexy grant-giving natural history model. So very briefly because I have still seven minutes left. So this is the second part of Evans when he is sent in 1859 to who claimed about his hand axis and he, the key point my mission was to look at the objects from an antiquarian point of view, okay? Joseph Pess which was a geologist, so you have a geologist and an antiquarian point of view so he is doing all kinds of things and I want to go into detail but he is looking at this, this is the plate from John Evans, he is looking at the hand axis as if they were coins, both in terms of illustration, the same illustrators the momentum, patina, striking okay, everything is inspired from the Lomismatic knowledge to interpret and to understand stern artefact, okay? And the last point, it is almost there at the end of his life Sir John Evans, I should have mentioned if the British people were offended someone gets a name Sir and is not mentioned So Sir John Evans is the president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1897 that meets in Toronto and is giving a presidential address in which he is doing this precisely his retrospective self-conscious look at what the past 50 years or 60 years of his life has been happening with regards to archaeology So it is no doubt a hard to define the exact limits which are to be assigned to archaeology as a science and archaeology is a branch of history and bellettro okay? A distinction is frequently done etc etc it must however I go to the next paragraph like knowledge and distinction does exist between archaeology proper and what for want of a better word we may call antiquarianism so this is a moment when antiquarianism becomes the poor cousin the old fashioned the dusty the the localized the unscientific right? and so he explains of course it is important to be able to distinguish the styles of the modern characteristics of the styles of Gothic architecture and English coins etc that's very interesting but it can only in time till it possesses to be enrolled among the botaries of science so in order to in order to approach the boundaries of scientific archaeology we need to be interdisciplinary but also we need to put a hierarchy on antiquarianism okay? so this is my completing slide approaching the boundaries of scientific archaeology so these two examples should help us to think what counts as scientific archaeology and by feedback what count as archaeology at all okay? and Evans particularly Evans is a traitor of the worst kind because he first of all he was he was paid to go to to Sibouche Pert as an antiquarian and it is as an antiquarian that he looked at these stone artifacts okay? and even more so there's a correspondence Darwin at one point writes that he he was shown this object and for him there's a meaningless shattered of stones he couldn't Darwin the non-antiquarian couldn't see the importance of these stone artifacts and it's Evans as an antiquarian who was able to do so and now at the end of his life he is downgrading antiquarianism so clearly there's a crucial role for the humanities for the belet classical learning in in priest's talk I just remind you when you find some artifacts yes and you draw a table where you write materials types, dimension provenance okay? we've done this before so this is an 18th century numismatic practice if they invented it okay? and we are following on their footsteps so why has it been so the question now becoming more political to end why has it been difficult for us to perceive that antiquarianism does have a role an extremely important role to play in the creation of 19th century archeology okay? what has been included and what by actors themselves and by subsequent commentators and on the contrary what is gained and what is lost by forging particular alliances with some disciplines okay? the strategic alignment tool for generational renewal of course you want to get rid of the old guard and you bring in DNA studies in order to do away with the people who are into pottery the path that I have taken I think is an issue I need to look at the connection and of course the interdisciplinarity that goes beyond and above the disciplines the importance you mentioned the religion but the importance of industry of commerce administration yes? our bureaucratic practices of sciences even follow the bureaucracy of capitalism yes? it's the capitalism who makes ledgers and audits and balance and we are in the same so this is also a wider field that we need to go to and really last point our role as historian is again I said it earlier and again not to celebrate but to to critique to questions to ask questions and to be able to eventually to improve but at least to participate in the 21st century debate about the knowledge who produced, who produced it for wine and so forth thank you very much