 Okay, so let's go ahead and get started. Start off with a quick intro. Dr. Keisha Supernaut is the director of the Institute of Prairie and Indigenous Archaeology and an associate professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Alberta. She leads the Exploring Métis in Antony through Archaeology Project, a collaborative research project which takes a relational approach to exploring the material of past Métis communities, including her own family in Western Canada. She's currently a co-director of a new interdisciplinary research project on Métis kinships, sorry, kinscapes of Laxin and Alberta, with a team of Indigenous scholars as well as a co-investigator on cartographies of deep time. Recently, she has been increasingly engaged in using remote sensing technologies to locate and protect unmarked burials at the request of First Nations communities in Alberta and Saskatchewan. She has published in local and international journals on GIS in archaeology, collaborative archaeological practice, Métis archaeology, and Indigenous archaeology in the post-truth and reconciliation commission era. Today, Dr. Supernaut will share with us how ground penetrating radar can be used to identify unmarked burial sites, and we hope that by learning more about this work and technology, we as human rights documenters working in different contexts globally will be able to understand the potential applications of these technologies in our own work. Whether that means changing the way we collect documentation around locations, whether it changes the way we think about memorializing sites, or planning future exclamation work. So without any further delay, I'll hand things over to Dr. Supernaut. Thank you. Thank you, Scott, and hello everyone. Good morning, good evening, good afternoon, wherever you may be. Tensei, kishisuprenantetsikatsan, I'm Esquitius Gaiganogenia, La Machifnia. Yes, so I'm Kishisuprenant as introduced. I'm currently coming to you today from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, which is the land of the Treaty Six First Nations, and also the homeland of the Métis, which are my own people. And I'm here today to talk a little bit about the ways in which my team has been using remote sensing, particularly near-surface geophysics like GPR, to help Indigenous communities locate unmarked graves in a variety of contexts. The contexts that I'll be speaking about today are in western Canada, and the specific information I will be sharing is information that I have permission to share, but the communities are supporting to be shared more publicly. So what has drawn me to this work as an archaeologist? I have a background in geospatial digital techniques in archaeology, but every time I've been working with Indigenous communities, the information about unmarked graves kept coming up. So people wanted to know whether or not we could help them find their relatives and where their resting places were. In many cases, these areas of unmarked graves are associated with the history of colonization, dispossession, and genocide in Canada. So locations where there was a pandemic of some kind, some sort of disease came through, whether it be smallpox or Spanish flu, or other epidemics coming through, and a large number of people may have died looking for those types of contexts. And then, of course, one's connected with Indian residential schools here in Canada, where we know there were a lot of children who died there as well. And there has been the establishment of archaeological remote sensing, so the ways in which archaeologists have used near-surface geophysics and remote sensing to try to identify their locations. And of course, we know this is also well-established in forensic environments as well. The work that we do tends to be in two different ways. So one is in areas that are historic cemeteries where there may have once been grave markers, where graves may have been more formal. Then there's locations where graves are more clandestine or hidden that we might be looking for. And residential school graveyards, which I've been working on more recently, sometimes have a combination of both, which makes them particularly complex landscapes. So while I will focus in most detail on ground penetrating radar, our approach to supporting communities to find unmarked graves' locations relies on a series of techniques that we try to bring together so that we can reconstruct a landscape and make sense of where to take out the ground penetrating radar because of the nature of that particular technology. It's quite time-consuming, for example. One of the things just from a perspective of geophysics and of remote sensing more broadly is that graves can be quite challenging to locate. And I imagine some of you around this call may have had some experience in this way because there's so many different variables that impact whether or not graves are visible or whether or not the disposal of human remains leaves a trace that the different technologies that we use might be able to pick up. So one of the things that we try to find out ahead of time is what kind of burial context are we looking for? Are we expecting more formal burial? Are we expecting mass grave? Are we expecting individual graves? Are we expecting clandestine graves where things are meant to be hidden? Are the burials themselves in caskets or coffins or shrouds or nothing? All of these things will impact it. Do we expect, you know, even with an individual graveshaft, is there one person buried in there or more? Orientation can help, especially with ground penetrating radar because we try to collect as much information about orientation and I'll explain a little bit more detail as to why. Preservation, of course. So the history of the land itself, some of the graves that we're looking for from, say, residential schools, maybe 150 years old of children and those particular graves may be harder to try to track using the technologies we have than a more recent adults coffin burial, for example. Now the work around finding these locations, of course, is always sensitive and deeply emotional. It can really be very traumatizing with the folks that we're working with. So we always come to this work with that in mind and try to take a very trauma-informed approach, both for those working on collecting the data and for the community itself as well. So I want to talk a little bit broadly about the types of technologies that we've been using and then I'll get more into more detail on the ground penetrating radar and then I'm going to talk about two case studies of this in practice with Indigenous communities here in Western Canada looking for different types of burial contexts and then I'll step back and talk about some of the things that I've learned about the application in these contexts that I hope will be helpful. So one of our first steps, of course, is to try to narrow down locations to use ground-based methods and we use a suite of things. So we certainly draw on satellite imagery. Historical aerial photos are extremely useful in our case because we are often looking at landscapes that have transformed a lot over the past 60 years. Many schools stopped operating in Canada, for example, in the 1970s and therefore the landscapes have changed a lot. So we try to rebuild the landscape first and then we will use a series of sensors that may usually drone-based in our case and this can include things like LiDAR to map surface features. We've also been looking at the application of multi-spectral imaging so taking photos with multiple spectrums of light to map vegetation change. The challenge, of course, with these types of methods is that they rely on minimal surface disturbance. So if there's a location where there were burials and little has happened to the ground since, we might be able to detect them with multi-spectral imaging or with LiDAR. If significant amounts have changed, obviously that can impact whether or not there's anything visible from the air. Just a couple of examples of how this has worked in Canadian contexts. So this is an historic cemetery with no grave markers. This is from the Nishinaabek First Nation shared with permission from my colleague, Scott Hamilton. This is just drone imagery and it's used to create a topographic surface and point out sort of mounds or depression areas associated with potential graves within a known cemetery context. These are formal graves. They are not super visible from the surface, but you can detect these from the air and they were able to locate a number of potential unmarked graves in this location. This is not a picture from graves, but this gives you a sense of what we sometimes have been able to detect using multi-spectral imaging from other contexts, archeological contexts in these cases from about the same time period as many of the graves we're looking for. So in this case, we're able to look at the different photographs, do some analysis in the GIS and start to map out patterns that don't tend to match natural patterns. And in an open environment where the land hasn't been modified a lot, it is very possible that this technique could be used to detect graves. And we've had some success. I just don't have information that I can publicly share about grave specific multi-spectral imaging, but it is showing potential and promise as well. Now, one of the reasons that we try to integrate aerial methods first is oftentimes the landscapes that we're trying to search can be quite large. And there has been an emphasis on ground penetrating radar, but to scan an area of, you know, 150 acres would take months and months and months of ground penetrating radar survey. And in some cases, there may be ways to prioritize particular areas using these aerial methods that can help to really narrow down areas that need more intensive coverage. I will mention, although again, I can't share results yet, we have been working with a team that uses a drone-mounted ground penetrating radar, which might have some value in, again, narrowing down areas, but won't give us necessarily the information we're looking for to determine that what we're seeing is, in fact, grave. And aerial methods certainly haven't been as well proven and there's so much that's dependent upon the history of the land itself. So the surface needs to have some expression of graves in most cases for us to be able to detect them with aerial methods, but we can sometimes narrow down areas for future targets. So then we often bring in ground-based remote sensing, near-surface geophysics, as they're called, and I will focus here on ground penetrating radar, but there are others. So ground penetrating radar is definitely the gold standard for detecting especially discrete individual graves because of the type of information it provides. In other environments, ground penetrating radar is not always suitable for every environmental context and has some limitations in which case other options are available that may help, but definitely have more specific application that may or may not help us with unmarked graves. And I will briefly mention those in the presentation as well. This is just a couple of images of different contexts where I've been working with my team to look at different types of landscapes using ground-based remote sensing, in this case, in both cases, that's a ground-based GPR. So GPR. Why is GPR sort of the gold standard? Well, it is really the most useful in detecting change below the ground that can give us information about the depth of the size and the shape of anomalies. And then we can look at particular characteristics of those anomalies to be able to determine what may or may not be a grave. Of course, this technology, I apologize if you hear my dog in the background, but this technology was developed in the 1970s. It was an application of radar technology that was used in World War II, for example, and then they started placing it on the ground and sending that radar wave into the ground itself. So when the wave goes down, it travels differently through the ground and reflects back differently to the sensor, depending on the characteristics of the soil and the geology. And then when there's a disruption to that soil or that geology, it detects that. So fundamentally what we're doing with ground-penetrating radars, we're building a three-dimensional map of the subsurface based on change and difference. So you pull the ground-penetrating radar along the ground, it sends the signal down, and the signal changes at a certain location, and we can see that change. And then we correlate that with characteristics of a pit consistent with a grave. So we're really looking for the grave shaft. It doesn't detect human remains within it unless you take down into the grave shaft itself. It's sometimes, in good conditions, will provide information about whether or not there may or may not be a coffin or casket involved because there is a distinct anomaly that can be associated with a coffin. Basically the air, even in a collapsed coffin, you're going to have more air inside of the coffin itself, and that will reflect the wave differently than the surrounding material. So we collect these profiles, we examine them, we look for particular types of characteristics, and then we interpret them to be probable or possible graves because it does provide depth, size, and the character of that anomaly. So our first step is to collect, and we collect in usually transects, we walk a line and we put down a grid and we'll walk lines across the grid. There's very specific survey design for detecting unmarked graves, especially of children because they're small. So we run very tight lines to make sure that we're covering every inch of the ground underneath the surface. So the collected data looks something like what you see on your screen. Sometimes it's in color, sometimes it's in black and white, depending on the machine and that. But you're basically here seeing there's a lot of activity and then there's a change and then it goes back to some of the same. And then we start to visualize. We say, okay, something is happening in this profile where there's a lot of something's going on here that's different from what's happening here. And again, certain types of anomalies have certain characteristics. This technology was originally used for finding buried infrastructure, things like pipes or other buried things. And something like a pipe has a very distinct signature in ground penetrating radar that looks very different than say a pit. And so we're able to visualize and pick out, say, what might be a pipe? What might be a piece of metal, which was really, really reflective? What might be a rock? What might be a tree root? And what might be a pit that we could associate with a grave? So then we try to interpret. We say, okay, what's going on here? We see the shape. It's about this far down. And then we map this in three dimensions. So we'd add this slice, which is looking down, looking vertically into the ground. And we'd build it out with a series of these. And then we'd start to visualize shapes in a more three-dimensional or in a plan view, where we're looking top down and looking at certain depths below the surface. Now, a lot of times I work in environments where people have a Christian idea of a burial, so like six feet down in particular orientations. But ground penetrating radar can capture both the top and the bottom, sometimes of graveshaft. So you could start to see things relatively shallow and going all the way down to, you know, 1.5 meters or six feet sometimes. So fundamentally, we're building out these three-dimensional maps and these plan views of possible anomalies that we associate with potential graves. The thing is, is that we cannot be 100% sure from a ground penetrating radar what we're seeing is in fact a grave because we don't see the remains inside. So determining the presence or absence of human remains inside of that grave is something that GPR cannot do. So being able to say this is exactly what we're seeing, at the same time, there are definitely environments that we can be pretty sure that what we're seeing is a grave and that's because it has characteristics that we've seen in known graves or it's in a cemetery where we would expect to find graves. So it can be really helpful to know what you're looking for if there's another example somewhere nearby with a similar environmental context so that you can get a sense of what the pattern might look like. There are some other limitations. Ground penetrating radar requires ground coupling, at least the techniques that we use. The airborne doesn't, but again we're not sure if it will be sufficient, it hasn't been tested yet. And therefore the area needs to be very clear. An ideal environment for ground penetrating radar is like a grassy mode field. Now there's lots of environments that are not like that where you might want to try to find unmarked graves and they can be challenging. One of the most challenging is if there's a lot of dense bush, so if there's a lot of low vegetation, ideally that would be cleared out before you bring in the ground penetrating radar because it really does need to sit right on the ground. There are some environments that it does not work well in. One of the places that I've been working with my team is in an area which has a lot of clay in the soil and which means the clay basically, what we call it tenuates the signal and that is not reflective at all. It just conducts the signal further down and you never get any information back. So it almost just looks blank below, in this case about a foot foot and a half, so about 30 to 50 centimeters. Therefore ground penetrating radar is not a sufficient method to determine whether or not there's unmarked graves in that location. And then the interpretation of ground penetrating radar for graves in particular requires experience and specific knowledge around what traits tend to be associated with graves. There's no one singular trait, but we're building a collection of traits that can be associated with graves from known locations to be able to be more confident than what we're finding our graves. But in my team's case, we only ever say probable when it has many characteristics that we associate with graves at the right depth over the right number of slices of the data. And then we have possible graves, which have some of the characteristics or may only occur in a few slices and not as many as we'd anticipate for a burial. When there is not a good environment for using ground penetrating radar or there's some issue that might prevent it, there are certainly other techniques. We have used magnetic techniques. Specifically in our team, we use magnetic radiometry, which measures the difference in the magnetic field below the ground against the Earth's magnetic field. So it's looking for variation. And sometimes that can find different forms of buried objects. It is most successful at finding either metallic objects or areas that are burned. So if you're expecting something that could be associated with burnt Earth associated with a grave or other form of disposal of a body, for example, it may be able to detect that. We often, sometimes we'll layer this on top of ground penetrating radar because it potentially could detect, say, hardware with a casket or a coffin, some nails or hinges, things like that. Another method that has had some success is resistivity or conductivity, which are basically very similar to sort of doing somewhat the opposite thing. They both involve sending an electrical current through the ground and detecting changes in how the ground either resists or conducts that electrical current. And the example that this is a resistivity data here in the multicolors. And this little spike is associated with a grave that also occurred on a ground penetrating radar. And there has been some success in historic cemeteries for using resistivity to detect, again, this sort of shape of things below the ground. So ground-based methods are, again, the most sort of tried-and-true, most well-established ground penetrating radar being the one that's most commonly used. They work very well in formal cemeteries because you have patterns, you have somewhat consistency in grave orientation. You certainly can build often the history of what the cemetery might have. Sometimes you might have marked graves in a cemetery where you're looking for unmarked graves. It can provide precision. So unlike something from the air, which can narrow something down, this gives more detail about what's happening below the surface if it's used in the right ways. There's a capacity to layer different methods as well. It does take time. So on a good day, we cover between 1,000 and 1,200 square meters. So about a quarter of an acre. And like I said, that's a good day under ideal conditions. So covering a large area takes a long time because we do very tight spacing in our grids, for example. Locating grays requires specific knowledge. So we not only have standards about, we run a line every 25 centimeters. We also have standards about the frequency of ground penetrating radar that we use. You can get ground penetrating radar that ranges all along frequency of megahertz. The ones we use for unmarked graves tend to be between about 200 to 500 megahertz. Our kind of ideal range for what my team uses is at 350 to 400 megahertz range for the center of the wave, which seems to give the right balance between going deep enough. So that would go down in good conditions, two meters, maybe two and a half meters with detail. So the lower the frequency, the deeper it goes, but the less detailed information you get, the higher the frequency, the shallower it goes, but the greater the detail. So our sort of ideal range is that 400 range or so, which gives us what we need to try to look for the types of grays we're looking for. And then of course it may not work because of the soil type, because the ground cover, because of the terrain, all these things can sometimes be a barrier. You can do it on a slope, but it requires correction because if you have the ground penetrating radar on a slope, it's sending the signal straight below it. So you need to correct all the information to make it look like it's flat. And that requires mapping out the surface, for example. So I now want to show you a couple of examples of this in practice. So I've talked a little bit about the techniques that we use and our overall approach of bringing multiple types of techniques together, but I'm now going to show you two different examples. Both of these, again, shared with permission. All at Requestive Community, we only ever work on graves when communities approach us and say we want to know about the ancestors and the relatives. And these particular cases are from different environmental contexts, but within Western Canada. So we have certainly some geological variability and some environmental variability, but there's still some consistency within them. One is from a historic cemetery, and this is in northern Alberta. And one is on an unmarked burial ground here in Edmonton. So it's in an urban environment, which also adds some complexity. And then I'm going to talk a little bit about what this might mean for residential school burials, which have both historic cemeteries and other unmarked burial grounds associated with them. So when we're working on historic cemeteries, we gather as much information as we can about what we know, what kind of date range we're looking at. In many cases, the environments that we've worked in will have a few marked graves, sometimes more than a few marked graves. And we are there to help understand the full extent or to explore older portions of a cemetery that might already be in use. A number of residential school burials that have been announced over the past several months are from community cemeteries with unmarked graves. And so this is one of the things that we're trying to unpack because we don't know who's where. And sometimes we can get a sense of child versus adult, but even that can be somewhat tricky. We mostly base it on size of the actual graveshaft. Historic cemeteries often have internal structure, usually consistency and orientation. There is a range of ages of people who may have passed and been buried in the cemetery, but they can have a high proportion of children. And only prior to about 1940, we see a large portion of the burials being children. I have learned not to trust fences at historic cemeteries because invariably there's also material outside of, there's burials outside of the fence. And these can often be connected with community and two traumatic events. So these are places where we sometimes hear information about there being more than one individual buried in a grave. So for example, when the Spanish flu came through in 1918, 1919, many communities talk about having multiple people buried in the same grave shaft, single grave shaft, but two caskets inside of that. So the example I want to share with you is from the Chippewan Prairie Denny First Nation. So this First Nation approached our team to do some work on a historic cemetery in their traditional territory in northern Alberta. It was an area that they had lost connection and contact with, but they knew generally where it was. There was an old fence that was sort of falling down and it was kind of off in the bush. There was one grave marker standing, but it was in sort of this clearing area. And there was an area that had some surface visibility of sort of depressions and potential remains of grave markers. But it wasn't known the full extent, how many individuals were here, where the specific graves were. And so we took out the ground penetrating radar in this case because they knew generally the target area wasn't a very large area. So this was a day's worth of work and we're able to collect information about this. So what this shows you is sort of our process. So from those slices that I showed you, what we do is we create these plan view maps. And then we, this is just what one depth and then we do multiple depths. And then we start to map out where the possible graves or probable graves are. So as you see here, the pluses are probable grave anomalies where there was enough characteristics to be more confident that we were finding it. A possible grave, so maybe not as clear. Something was not as clear there. And then when a grave was identified both in the profile or slice view and as well as in the plan view, it was then mapped as an approximate extent. So the anomalies we see with graves tend to be oval in shape as opposed to rectangular because there's often collapse in the walls. But we can get a general sense of where they were. And so the recommendations were to extend the fence a little bit further. We think we probably caught the edge. There weren't a lot of additional probable graves further outside of the area that we were aware of. And so we were able in this case to make a recommendation to the community about how they might want to mark and preserve that. The grave marker also helped with orientation in that we think that the heads were in this case to the east and the feet were to the south. So if they were going to put up markers for this, they then could put them at the correct location. And this particular cemetery was known to be in use in the late 1800s and early 1900s. So it was a little older but not really, really old. One of the things this project showed us is that in some ideal cases, we can have pretty short timelines because the conditions were ideal for ground penetrating radar. The soil was made for very, very clear reflections and anomalies that were able to map. And we were very much led by knowledge that the community had about where to go, what we were looking for, even the numbers that they thought were there matched similarly to what we found. They were able to provide some real time. This is where we think we're seeing things. And so it was a very good process for everyone involved, for sure. It's not always this simple and it's not always this quick. So we learned from the historic cemeteries, and this is one example of five or six that we've done, that environmental conditions matter in terms of how quickly we're able to produce results, the quality of the results we're able to provide, knowledge about the depth type and time period of burials really does matter and helps us narrow down how we're going to approach something as well. Knowledge from the community is very helpful in directing our work and where we want to go. The other thing about historic cemeteries is that they tend to be, you know, there's still sensitivities, certainly, but because the people who were buried there were buried with care, probably with family nearby, that they're a little bit less fraught than some of the unmarked graves and certainly some of the residential school stories and testimonies that we hear. So now I want to talk to you a little bit about another example where in this case it wasn't a known historic cemetery. It was a more ephemeral location where likely didn't have Christian burial practices but had more traditional, in this case, Cree practices, indigenous practices, trying to figure out, you know, what time period they were from. There was a lot less historical documentation and unlike the previous example, which was in the middle of nowhere in terms of, like, not a lot of infrastructure development on traditional territory, obviously, of the Dena community, but not in a place where there's a city, this particular location I'm going to talk about was inside of the city itself and that obviously complicates what we're able to detect. So this particular location was something that the Papas Jayce First Nation, which is a nation that was supposed to have a reserve land here in Edmonton. I'm actually descended from Papas Jayce. We were disenfranchised. Our land was taken and became the city. So the entire southern half of the city of Edmonton should have been Papas Jayce Reserve. The community had knowledge of a burial ground, which was likely near the White Mud or Black Mud Creek. So the term here, Cascateua Ascii, Ascii is the name of the Black Mud Creek, that's the inquiry. And we were helping to try to narrow down a location where these unmarked graves may be. This was complicated. And there's a number of reasons why. So this is the, this is a map, the red area here is supposed to be the Papas Jayce Reserve. And in Canada, in the middle provinces, the Prairie provinces, we had a township survey system, which gridded up all the land. And then, you know, homesteads and cities and things were built on this gridded up land. And you still see the echo of that today. And so we tried to reconstruct the approximate section of land that was most likely to have the unmarked graves. And then we were also talking with community interested in this area, this section of the land, which you can sort of see between these two. This is a road and then this is another line here. This big field, which is behind a Baptist college, so this is a Christian college, which was built in the 1960s, was one of the areas that consistently came up in the oral history of our nation as having burials. And the creek, it runs in a very deep kind of gully just to the south of it. The other reason this came up was this field. So the college had sold the field to a developer and they were planning on potentially building townhouses or condominiums through this section. So there was concern that if there were burials, they were about to be impacted by the development at play. So I took out our archeological field school here at the University of Alberta. And we conducted ground penetrating radar and some magnetic radiometry survey over the course of about eight days down here. We covered a fair bit of area. What was really interesting is that we started in the Taylor College field and then there was also a couple of areas nearby that were brought to our attention as other areas to have a quick look. So this little red square is in this pink square here. And this was interesting. So the Taylor College field, the area that was open and wide of interest was on the GPR at least quite uniform. So there were virtually no anomalies at all. This could be for a variety of reasons, but it did look like it was partly due to the history of the land because it was sort of empty and flat. And there was farming that had happened here. There was the college that was built here. There was an open sewer pit in this area. So all those things likely impacted, whether or not anything was there, we can't find it with GPR. But when we were out, we always do this work in ceremony. So the community will come out and do a prayer and we'll follow protocols according to the community. One of the elders when we were out there had talked about this area. I think they're over here. And this was the area where we found some potential unmarked graves. It matches what we know about the way that our people like to bury our dead prior to European contact, which was up high above water. So high ground above water ways. And this is quite a steep drop to the river here. Quite striking, I would say. And it's right nearby the water. So the area closest to the water was the area we found some potential graves. In this case, we only found three, but it was a relatively small area. The problem was we could only go up to the edge of the trees because this is all very dense. And it's very possible there's more, but it's difficult to tell with the tree areas. So in this case, we had nice overlap between ground penetrating radar, which showed some characteristics. So here you see the, what likely is the bottom of the grave, pretty shallow. This is only about two and a half feet down. And that is also consistent with our traditional burials. And then we think we're catching the edge of the grave here. And so you sort of see there's like a bit of a pit there. And then we were also able to match up a couple of the areas with probable graves with anomalies from the magnetic data that we collected, meaning that one of these look like it had a metallic object in the grave itself. Now it's difficult in an urban environment because there is a lot of just metal around, but this also we were able to get approximate sense of the depth. And it was about two to two and a half feet down. So both the magnetic data and the ground penetrating radar data indicated that this was a likely grave location. And I would say that one of the learnings of this was that with areas that are less clear, that are less known, it is even more important to use multiple techniques to confirm in part because in many of the places that we're working, the nations don't want to have to exhume. So the more we can kind of build confidence with the remote information, the non-destructive information usually is their preference. If you were doing excimation, then perhaps one method would be sufficient in these more unknown locations. But for us using multiple methods, trying to confirm before any other activities take place is ideal. It can be challenging to find locations. So it's a bit of a needle in a haystack sort of situation. And in this case, we found those graves on, I think, day six of an eight-day process. There are limits because of the forest, limits because of the urban environment. You also have to explain to a lot more people what you're doing when you're in an urban environment. And then there were sensitive issues around land title. We were originally blocked from getting access to the Taylor College grounds because the landowner did not want to allow us on. They changed their minds when we told them they'd have to probably do this work anyway if they wanted to develop, and we were about to do it for free. But they were definitely resistant. And the area that we did end up finding material indications of graves was the city of Edmonton owned that land. And I think they would be cooperative about perhaps commemorating. But if we wanted to do further ground survey and clear out some of the trees, it's part of the kind of green belts of the city. And so there's an ecological sensitivities as well that have to be balanced. So just to kind of sum up what we've learned about doing this work, we're doing this work now for almost four years, trying to bring multiple methods to bear. Now, again, we're working in environments where there's not usually, so far, there hasn't been a strong emphasis on exhumation. That is likely to change as we continue to do residential schools work. And so we're trying to support communities in using other methods to help confirm, especially if they're more clandestine or hidden locations. Some communities, for example, have had good success with cadaver dogs in certain types of situations, for example. Historical data, community knowledge is really important in a lot of this work. And the work that we do, certainly, the knowledge of survivors from residential schools is the most valuable information for us to prioritize areas to do this work. The methods have to be tailored depending on the environment, depending on what we're looking for. And so we get questions from communities about other types of locations that were like ground penetrating radar is not going to help you find bones in a wall. But there may be other things that we can do instead. And so trying to tailor information to specific circumstances. We're trying to increase our efficiency with processing of data. When you collect data with these machines, with these technologies, it takes as long to process the data, just to go from the raw information from the computer that we're collecting it on to something that we can interpret. It takes almost as much time as it does when it's collected in the ground. So we're trying to speed up our processes, exploring sort of some batch processing, eventually maybe some machine learning applications, because we're going to be looking at thousands upon thousands upon thousands of these data slices. I'm trying to communicate back what we're finding. This has been hard recently because with all of the international attention on residential schools, many communities don't have good information about what these technologies can and cannot do. So they're often expecting that an x-ray that we can come in and basically tell them all this information and we can't. And then also communicating the results back in a way that community members understand. Not using the term, this is definitely a grave, but sort of saying we think this anomaly is consistent with a possible grave. Because otherwise information travels in ways that are problematic. And then we were always interested in building capacity. So we are working on trying to train Indigenous people to do this in their own communities, in part because we don't have the capacity to do this work for everyone, but also in part because we want to empower communities to do this. We're also very careful about data sharing. So we always enter into data agreements before we begin our work and we have conversations about confidentiality. We recognize Indigenous data sovereignty. So it's not our data, it's theirs. And before we share any information specifically, we always double check and triple check that we have permission to share. You know, I think this is highly emotional work. I suspect those of you around this particular table don't need to be told that with the type of work you do. We take very much a heart-centered approach recognizing that everyone involved is the whole person that might have unique needs related to the process, can be triggering and traumatizing. We follow the community lead on this, how they want to go about bringing people together. We honor the importance of ceremony and wherever appropriate we involve our team in those ceremonies. And I have my own personal practices that are essential for my well-being. Bringing in that oral history and Indigenous knowledge, clarifying expectations and possibilities, you know, what's possible with what technology, what's not possible. The hard fact that there's some of these children around my essential school is that we are never going to find because of the circumstances that were associated with their death. And then trying to provide results as quickly as possible without setting unachievable expectations and that we can't meet. And then I mentioned already data agreements and data sovereignty. So I hope this gives you a sense of how our team has been using ground-bound training radar and other associated technologies to support Indigenous communities in this very difficult work of finding their relatives. And since the middle of the summer, we've done this type of work at five schools and, you know, first stage work at five schools and I anticipate that we're going to be doing dozens more over the years to come. So our methods will continue to be refined as more of this work is undertaken. So hi hi, thank you so much for listening and I'm happy to answer your question.