 Thank you, Julien. Merci, Merci. So I'm going to jump right into it because since we have all this time in the discussion time, discussion slot, I'm not going to go over a lot of the sort of comparison debates about the different approaches. There are some excellent articles, especially issues of paleoanthropology, among others, that have gone over some of the differences. I thought today the point was really to compare, contrast, combine ideally these approaches and ideally separate these differences and put them together, reconcile them if you want. Reconciling sounds like maybe we had a divorce, but I don't think we ever had a divorce. It was probably a amicable separation. But anyways, we can come back to this. I just took a lot of this from Odu's and also from Gustave Van's article in 2011, and we can come back to it. And these are just maybe some more talking points. But what I want to do today is give you three examples of work that I've done in Eastern North America, Eastern Canada, Quebec, from the three different periods. That I hope will show you that we are able to combine these two approaches. We're very fortunate in Quebec that we, of course, French, so we can read a lot of the French work as well in French that may not be translated. And I'll give you three examples, one from the Thalia Union period, so the oldest period, where it's really dominated by Bipatial technologies, one from the Archaic period, where it's a radical change to Unifacial Micolar technologies, and then one from the later Woodland period, which is, I don't even know what to call it, but there's groundstone and some stuff that's chip stone tools that sometimes I really wonder what the hell they're trying. So the Thalia Union period, of course, some of you may have heard of it. It's the first colonizer in North America and Quebec, the late Thalia Union is a period when people are still hunting caribou in periglacial settings, nine, 10,000 years ago. This is what the environment looked like near the site that I'm going to present. It is the kingdom, the empire, the by-face. People say that North America were obsessive by-faces, I think it's true. I think these people were obsessive by-faces and let me tell you they were incredible Flintnappers. I worked for several years on a series of quarries and lithic workshops in Gatsby of these late Thalia Indian people and essentially what they're producing, 99.99% of the time is by-faces. And what's wonderful about these quarry workshops is that we have everything, the entire sequence of production from the extraction of the rock from the quarry face right to the production of finished by-faces and points projectile points. Now, when I first looked at this, being trained in North America, I took one of our Bibles, which is Eric Callahan's work. Eric Callahan, if you don't know it, it's a fantastic piece of work. You can get it in PDF format. He's an experimental archaeologist, replicated a lot of this stuff himself. The drawings are fantastic. I think they're as good as the European drawings. And it's really an incredible piece of work for understanding bifacial technology, especially for paleo-Indians. So I thought, this is fantastic. I have like my guidebook. I'm just gonna apply it. So what I did is I find it. I played his approach to reduction stages of the by-faces. I used, it's primarily based on sort of ratios of width to thickness of the back lights and pre-forms and finished by-faces. And that was great because it kind of helped me to talk to other specialists in the paleo-Indian and tell them what we were doing, what these people were doing up in Gas Bay 9,000, 10,000 years ago. But of course, at a certain point, all you can really say is that, oh, okay, they produced a lot of pre-forms. And sometimes they finished the by-faces. And sometimes they went down to the seaside and finished the by-faces down there. But of course, at least it's an excellent way of studying these by-faces. And it's based on, like I said, replication, a lot of replication. Now, I wasn't really totally satisfied with that. So I went to another excellent source, DC Waldorf, another plant napper, another guidebook for North American analysts. And DC Waldorf could actually look at this similar kind of by-facial production where you're starting out with a tabular piece. And I thought, okay, maybe I can get a better understanding of what they're doing here. I'll use DC Waldorf and I'll sort of understand how they're going through the sequence from the tabular pieces down. And that helped quite a bit. We were able to even see how some of the by-faces kind of rotate, the cross sections rotate on these pre-forms. And it really, really was very similar to what Waldorf had described. And so that took us one step further. But I still felt like I hadn't really gone to the end of the story. So more recently, one of my graduates was by Nicolette Carr. He was trained by Nicolette Pijot. But he's in Montreal. So I said, my Nic, you know, I think I've only, I've gotten to the end of the story of what I can do with my training. I want you to take a Chenepe d'Agoin approach. So he has done a Chéma-dietritique of hundreds of these by-faces. This is his drawings. He has grouped them into technological groups. And his PhD is almost done. And so what he's done is he's essentially shown us that there is, of course, much more variability in the production at these quarry workshops that we probably didn't see. He's given us a much better insight into scale and the learning that's happening at these quarry workshops. And he's even able to group these into technical technique, which I think are going to give us a much sort of better insight or finer insight into what these people are doing. So I think that's sort of a success story. Of course, I can't take credit. My neck is really the guy who can take credit for that. Now, we jump forward into the archaic period, a very long period. This is, there's a big change in lifestyle here. Forest covers coming in. People are becoming more sedentary. They're starting to fish. They're starting to trap a lot of smaller mammals, for example. It's a really big change in lifestyle. And I looked at a collection from a site near Quebec City. This is a crazy collection. I mean, I am at ease with by-faces. Anybody who analyzed the courts know that the court is hard. Every tool in this assemblage is about this big. There's no by-faces on this assemblage, none, zero. And it's all made out of courts, both vane courts and crystal courts. And so I said, I don't really know what to do with this. And archeologists in Eastern North America were kind of, I don't know, they were kind of stumped. They were at an impasse, I think I was too. We didn't know how to explain this. Obviously it was a big technological change, but we didn't know how to deal with it. And I think that we were kind of falling back always on our typologies. And because the typologies had no place for this technology, we didn't know what to do with it. So I was very lucky because Killian Driscoll came to spend a year with me. Killian, those of you who know, is a court specialist from Ireland, worked primarily in the Neolithic and Mesolithic, he's published a lot, has done revocations, trampling, even here in Barcelona, he was here in Barcelona. And I said, Killian, I'm not going to tell you anything about this site. I just want you to look at it as a person coming from Europe. And sort of do a more of a technological analysis, not necessarily the Shemadi of Hicic, but maybe look at how you would classify it from your perspective. And so he identified a lot of small bipolar cores, platform cores, things that he classified as scrapers and replenishments. And that of course was great because it kind of gave us, again, a different view of what these tools were instead of just saying, oh, they're tiny, what could they possibly be doing with these things and are they really tools? And I looked through these collections with him and then after we did this, well, we said to ourselves, okay, well, obviously we were a bit frustrated because we still wanted to know really what they were used for. So this is just the sort of the classification just to show you that there's a lot of flakes that are a lot of sort of tools or retouch flakes and things made on flakes that are produced bipolarly. And then there's cores that are also used as tools. And I wouldn't call them recycled. I think the cores themselves are the blanks and then they're flakes that are also blanks. So there is an intentionality in this production, but I don't have time to get into that. But really what we wanted to do was then maybe do use wear. Now use wear on quartz is really hard, but Malini Shev's Young was trained in Denmark and analyzed quartz in sandwiches from the Arctic. And I asked her if she could look at this for us. And we weren't sure if we would find stuff because this has been 9,000, 10,000 years in the ground. So 8,000 years in the ground and a lot of free stuff. But she had a pretty good success rate in finding use wear. And I guess what was amazing was that we were able to find a really very wide variety of uses of these tiny tools, whether they were used flakes, retouch tools, scrapers or things that Killian had classified as an end scraper or side scraper. In some cases they were just flakes that we randomly chose to make sure that we weren't missing something. So I mean, again, I think this was a great combination of sort of different perspectives, especially the high power use wear approaches that are more typical of Europe than North America right now. Now a third example is again a very, very different technology. Now we're talking about people who are living in large villages, they're horticulturalists, they grow squash and corn and beans, they live in these big long houses and make beautiful pottery. And it seems as if they really didn't need stone tools anymore. We have a great assemblage of ground stone tools, which is great. And I admit that I've had to learn a lot about analyzing ground stone tool forms. And so that's one part of the assemblage. And certainly that's relatively straightforward to deal with. But when it comes to the chip stone tool, again it's very, you know, loud word expedient. It's made on different local raw materials, very poor quality. Sometimes they're just things that we might call a retouched flake or a used flake because you might see a bit of use wear on it. And so what I did is in this case, I first started to see if I could do some kind of a technological analysis, a very sort of careful technological analysis of these pieces. But what I found was that a bit like I had mentioned in the abstract, there's, we don't really have a lot of core technologies in North America and with what the French would call complicated imagination. So there's no, it's hard to see a logic and a lot of this technology. I was nonetheless able to, you know, reconstruct how they used the local trick. Pables, a lot of it was bipolarally reduced or worked and then to produce maybe a flake or two. There was a regional material, again, Hornfels Terrain material, you know, Hornfels that they were in some cases flaking. In this case they were managing to rough out forms and I think they were actually then grinding down into axes. So that's interesting. That's a completely different addition to that one. And then the only real formal tools we ever found was that maybe we've won two projectile points and those always showed up on the site in finished form and they come from often quite long distances. So in this case, I wasn't really able to apply the traditional, as you would say, the technique in French of these materials, but I was able to apply it more in terms of what I would call the organization of the raw material economy. In other words, how, when you analyze each raw material, how each one is going through a different Shinneville Atois and how some of these are segmented. In other words, obviously the tools are coming in finished form while you're only having the end of the Shinneville Atois. In fact, they're rarely even reworked. And then in some cases we have local materials that are completely worked and then turned into tools but generally very expedient tools. So that was very fast. We're all into a tour of 12,000 years of human history and have a concert. But I guess my conclusions or just more just like things that we can maybe talk about is, you know, my question was can these two approaches be combined? I think they can, but not uncritically. This is something that Gustav and said in 2011. Are they two approaches compatible? I think they are. But again, maybe not necessarily on a theoretical level in the sense of theoretical as North Americans might refer to as sort of higher level theory or social theory. Again, this is something that Gustav and his mentioned would lose as well. And are there challenges? Well, obviously there's challenges. There's always challenges. I think primarily it's at the training level. I've noticed that, for example, in my university, even though we can read French and it's great to be able to read all these French authors. For example, we don't have a course where we teach people how to draw, the Shimadye Kitsi, to actually do a proper analysis and draw the technical drawings. And so that might be a thing that we could talk about. And then in the future, well, you know, what is the future for this? I think obviously the future is really doing maybe what we're doing here, especially with the younger scholars, that can hopefully move across the Atlantic or it can be trained in different places and have the ability to have this mobility either through Erasmus or other ways of being exposed to different approaches. So, I'm done.