 I'd like to begin with a land acknowledgement and then I'll pass it over to Nicola Lut to introduce our speaker. The Archeological Research Facility is located in the Chin, the ancestral and unceded territory of the Chichenya-speaking Aloni people, successors of the historic and sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County. We acknowledge that this land remains of great importance to the Aloni people and that the ARF community inherits the history of archeological scholarship that has disturbed Aloni ancestors and raised living Aloni people from the present and future of this land. It is therefore our collective responsibility to critically transform our archeological inheritance in support of Aloni sovereignty and to hold the University of California accountable to the needs of all American Indian and indigenous people. So with that, I'd like to invite Nic Lut to introduce our speaker. Great, great. Thank you, Nico. Yeah, so Joseph Aguilar is a role member of the San Yldefonso Pueblo in New Mexico and currently serves as archaeologist with the Bering Straits Native Corporation and is also the Pueblo's Deputy Tribal Historic Preservation Officer. Dr. Aguilar completed his PhD from Department of Anthropology at University of Pennsylvania and his general research interests include indigenous archeology, museums, landscape archeology and tribal historic preservation. He is currently working on an exhibit and content development for several museums, including the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture in Santa Fe, the De Young Museum of Art in San Francisco and the Chapin Mesa Archeological Museum at Mesa Birdie National Park and for the School for Advanced Research in Santa Fe, New Mexico. And I want everybody to join me in welcoming Dr. Aguilar to give us our talk today. Thank you. Good afternoon, folks. Thanks for having me. And thank you to Nick Lalu for making this happen and the folks at the ARF for hosting me. I wish I could have done this in person. Like many of you, I'm sure you guys have missed other commitments in person. So maybe one day I'll get back out there, I hope. So yeah, I'm just gonna talk very briefly about some of the work I've been doing as it relates to the archeology of the Pueblo Revolt here in my home Pueblo of New Mexico. And before I go further, Patrick Naranjo, thanks for acknowledging me in my work. It's good to see and know that there's some Pueblo folks and other indigenous folks out there at Berkeley. So yeah, it's a good knowing that and thanks for your words. So my work for my dissertation at the University of Pennsylvania focused on the historical and kind of anthropological history of the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 and its aftermath. I chose to study the Revolt as it relates to my own home community of San Aldefonso Pueblo where I'm calling from now because it's a pivotal point in Pueblo history. Many of the events that occurred during that period have direct effects and consequences on contemporary Pueblo people today. So it was important for me to kind of dive in into that history and offer a new perspective on the Revolt because what we've been presented with was very one-sided. It was void of any indigenous voices and I felt we needed to remedy that. So I did it in my way by bringing archaeology, critical review of ethno-historic records and incorporating indigenous worldviews, including oral histories into this work so combining those kind of disparate components of the past was a challenge but I did my best and so I'll present some of the results of my work and where I hope to be headed with my work in the future. So like I mentioned in our communities, we learn about our histories in different ways non-Western ways, if you will. And outside of our communities, we learn about our history through schools, museums, popular books and this is taught to us by anthropologists, archeologists, popular writers, almost all of whom are non-Pueblo people so my work, like I said, is informed by my own traditional values and academic discourse. So all of this is kind of founded by the tenants of the burgeoning field of indigenous archeology and I view the public revolt, which was an indigenous insurrection against the European settler colonialists and an insurrection against European settler colonialism as an assertion of indigenous sovereignty. So the overarching goal of my work is to present an indigenized anthropological history of events surrounding this era and I used the term indigenized specifically rather than decolonized because the events that I'm analyzing, this period of Pueblo Revolution in 1680 from about 1680 to 1696, that was to me, in my view, was a truly decolonizing event. It was necessarily violent, but in my view, those actions and the course of actions that were taken by Pueblo people then were truly decolonial. So I choose to use indigenized because I'm not ready, I'm not equipped, I'm not totally prepared to decolonize archeology or museums or whatever else I engage myself in because those are really drastic actions and we can chat more about that later if you want. So I'll begin with a quick slideshow and I hope this works. We were trying to work out the kinks in this before we came on. Everybody see this, okay? Good? Looks good. Okay, cool. So this Mesa here that you see, I mean, it's just outside my window here. If I could pick up my computer and put the camera out here, you'd see this Mesa. We refer to this Mesa as Tuño in the table language. It's one of the four cardinal Mesa surrounding our Pueblo. So in Pueblo cosmology, the four directions, six directions are important and this Mesa marks the north for our Pueblo. And it's an imposing place. It's a spiritual place. It's a beautiful place and it's in my backyard. So this work is very near and dear to me for these reasons. So founding this work at the foundation of a lot of the work that I do are indigenous and collaborative archeologies. The decolonizing mission set forth by indigenous archeology is a response to the colonial frameworks that continue to deeply influence institutions of knowledge and power. So at stake for indigenous peoples in this endeavor are the inherent right to control and contribute to the production of knowledge about our cultures and histories. The inherent right to protect, preserve and present our heritage on our terms and the inherent right to present our own accounts of our history and our past. At the core of this mission is the recognition that as a Western scientific practice, archeology doesn't hold a monopoly on understanding the past and that archeology can benefit from engaging with non-Western, i.e. indigenous peoples and perspectives. So although collaborative and indigenous archeologies both advocate interaction with stakeholder values, knowledge, practices, ethics and sensibilities, they differ on one central point. Collaborative archeology is defined as a range of strategies that seek to link the archeological enterprise with different publics by working together. In contrast, indigenous archeology identifies and privileges a very specific public, which is indigenous peoples. So indigenous archeology is not a single idea, but rather a broad approach that incorporates a diverse array of indigenous ontologies, practices and peoples. Accordingly, indigenous archeology is highly contextual with the goals, methods and outcomes of interaction differing across tribal communities. So for example, my way of practicing or promoting indigenous archeology will vary and differ from, say, Nick Lawlick's way of doing a form of indigenous archeology. So some of the foundations of indigenous archeology, it's rooted in some forms of Native American activism. Joe Watkins, a Choctaw archeologist, states that archeology is the study of people, not things, and that these people have a present and a future as well as a past and that archeologists must integrate the concerns of the American Indian people with their research. What Watkins is essentially calling for is a fundamental shift in the way that archeologists operate. And he published his volume back in 2000. So it's relatively a recent trend, a recent movement within archeology, but it's gaining momentum. So instead of viewing indigenous people as objects, archeologists must acknowledge that Native people are living people with a unique set of complex histories and identities. In this sense, archeologists must begin to think of themselves as working with Indian people instead of working on Indian people. Underlying indigenous critiques of archeology and a formulation of indigenous and tribal archeologies are the writings of Vine Deloria Jr. In his book, Huster Died for Your Sins, he articulates Native sovereignty and very kind of bluntly rejects the colonial project of archeology and anthropology. One of the greatest contributions of his work is his ability to articulate the distaste that many Native people have felt for the pretenses of science. Deloria's primary objection to the anthropological study of indigenous people is that historically, there's been no ethical relationship between the subject and the scientist. For Deloria, the meticulous gathering of anthropological knowledge is detached from the plight of its subjects. And I like using his quote there that the compilations of useless knowledge for an archeologist's sake should be utterly rejected by the Indian people because for much of the history of the discipline of archeology, there's been no benefit to Native people. And it's Native people themselves who have kind of turned the tables within the discipline. So I like turning to Deloria for some of his critiques of archeology. So as it applies to the public revolt of 1680, I'd like to discuss a little bit how the foundations of indigenous archeology, the tenants of indigenous activism, how they apply to the work that I'm doing. But first I'll begin with the kind of brief summary of the revolt of 1680. It's aftermath and some of the ongoing kind of historical effects of the revolt. So this quote here is a quote from Pedro Naranjo of Santa Clara Pueblo as recorded by Governor Antonio Oderman who was the territorial governor of New Mexico in 1680. Many of his journals have been translated by Hackett and Shelby at the University of New Mexico from Spanish into English. And so a lot of my work is based on the translations of those journals themselves. But as I mentioned before, these sources are one-sided, very biased, void of public voices. Nonetheless, they still provide an important resource for kind of broad kind of historical facts. I mean, historical interpretations of this period. So I like using this quote in 1680, Oderman refers to Popeye as coming down in person, ordering the publics through which he passed that they instantly break up and burned images of the Christ, the Virgin Mary, the other saints, the crosses and everything pertaining to Christianity, that they burned the temples and break up the bells. Again, a true act of decolonization. So while the initial act of the public revolt in 1680, the uprising is well-known in the kind of annals of history, what is lesser known is the attempts at reconquest after the revolt. There were several failed attempts at reconquest. And in one case, Vargas, who was the person to lead one of the major efforts at reconquest for the Crown of Spain, he led a couple expeditions into New Mexico to reclaim the former territory of New Mexico. At one point, he took ritual possession of New Mexico. He toured the Pueblos where he was cautiously greeted, and where he promised a new peaceful era of Pueblo and Spanish cohabitation in the region. So this quote here, and I'll just read it, is from his journals from about 1690 to 1696. In view of their having relapsed into apostasy again, and as such being traitors to and enemies of our holy faith, I ordered a death sentence carried out against these criminals, the agitators, leaders, captains, and other Indians who caused the people of these nations to leave their Pueblos, escaping to the Mesa summits and Canyaras to fortify themselves in those places, and who with them may be safe from this punishment they have so deserved. So here he's talking about Pueblos who have sought refuge in their Mesa-topped communities after his return to New Mexico. So while Vargas has been coined the peaceful reconqueror, Anoxymoron, if I've ever heard one, a lot of his own words and actions kind of contradict that peaceful narrative that's been kind of put forth. So this narrative of the bloodless reconquest of New Mexico has been challenged in recent years by indigenous peoples, independent indigenous native-led organizations who have called for an end to the celebration or the glorification of colonialism reconquest. So what you're seeing here on the right is a picture of an annual, what used to be an annual reenactment of Vargas's reconquest of New Mexico, which has been coined a peaceful reconquest of the region. It's been met in recent years with protests by indigenous groups. So here you have a photo on the left of indigenous people protesting in downtown Santa Fe where this event was held annually. This was about three or four years ago where things came to a head during the scheduled reenactments of the reconquest. There was some arrest, there was some violence and after some debate, after lots of kind of discussions both in different forums and venues, the group Caballeros de Vargas who put on this commemorative event eventually dropped the Intrada portion of their celebration. So, I mean, it's a contentious issue here that's still very kind of hotly debated to this day. So these are kind of the lingering ongoing effects of this event in New Mexico. So moving to my work, I look at the events during this period from a broader perspective, a landscape perspective and at the onset of Vargas's reconquest mission, the center of gravity of the public world shifted from mission villages which were at or near watersheds such as the Rio Grande. A lot of their mission villages had been contaminated through bloodshed and people sought the protection of upland areas near their homes. The deliberate movement to Mesa villages was the result of many different strategies of resistance as public communities anticipated the return of the Spaniards. After all, prior to Vargas, there had been several failed attempts to subdue the public by Antonio Oterman and others prior to Vargas. So it characterized the reconquest for the Pueblos was not only its violence but the Pueblos' adamant resistance to it. So while the Pueblos made some compromises and accommodations and even in some cases made some alliances with Vargas, resistance was overwhelmingly constant throughout his reconquest. So at the time, three major centers of resistance emerged, one surrounding the Cochiti district with the Keras people. Another in the Hamas district which surrounded over the resistance of the Toa people Toa-speaking people and in the Tewa district here at Tunio at San Francisco Pueblo where the Tewas coalesced together. So Vargas' reconquest looks like this after taking a ritual possession in 1692, he returned to Mexico presumably to gather more supplies and settlers. And when he returned to the area he found the former capital of Santa Fe heavily fortified and occupied by Tewa people. Vargas then attacks the former capital and he executes public leaders publicly executes public leaders within its plaza. After this, there was wholesale movement of public folks to Mesa top villages. And in 1694, he began his military campaign against the Mesa top villages. In 1696, what is commonly referred to as the second public revolt which was just a continuation of the Mesa top resistance. This was quickly put down by Vargas because he was a little more prepared at this point. It's important also to note that the revolt of 1680 and the events of the resistance surrounding the resistance of the reconquest in the mid 1690s was not an isolated event. There's been a long history of resistance to Spanish settler colonialism in the region by publics that is still to this day poorly understood but we do have a ethnohistorical record of this resistance which has been compiled here through a series of smaller uprisings and revolts beginning in 1623 all the way through 1696. 1696 however, marks the kind of last major kind of violent resistance to Spanish settler colonialism. Again, a different view of Tuneo or Black Mesa cardinal Mesa to the North for the Tewa people. This is where the focus of my work is centered. So I'll dive into the events that surround the reconquest at Tuneo. When the rebel enemies of the Tewa nations and their followers discovered us at the base of the Mesa they gave great war cries, crowding the tops of the Mesa, it's Panyoliz and all around it. They said they were awaiting the Hamas, Keras, Coachti, Apache, Zuni, Mokino and many other nations. They spoke shameful words which led us to fire a few shots at the people but the heavy snow did not permit bringing the war in the proper manner. We saw that there was a risk of losing the battle completely because of how fortified the enemy was. So this quote is taken from Vargas's journals and this is kind of his assessment, his initial assessment of the Mesa in February of 1694 where it was covered in snow but yet people were occupying the top of the Mesa's. And at this point there was at least nine Tewa Pubblos who sought refuge on top of this Mesa. And we'll talk a little bit more about the groups who were up there. Because of the snow at Tuneo, Vargas turned his attention to the other center, one of the other centers of resistance which was at Old Coachti or Hanukut yet were people from Coachti, San Marcos and San Felipe Pubblos had occupied the Mesa after a bloody battle in April of 1694 after which 342 women and 13 warriors were captured. He captured the Mesa on April 17th, burned a village and returned to Santa Fe where he could refocus his attention to Tuneo. And on the right of this picture is the remnants of the Pubblos on top of the Mesa to the left. Turning back to Tuneo on March 4th, his first Vargas, his first major offensive took place in which he claims to have captured the southern portion of the Mesa. But he was not able to take the rest of the Mesa because it was protected by a defensive wall according to his journals. But if you take a look at the top of the Mesa, we see no archeological evidence of a defensive wall. So this is where kind of comparing archeology in the ground to the ethnohistorical record can bring up some kind of neat comparisons. And you can kind of parse out what may be or may not be real about these historical accounts. So between later in the month of March, he made several futile attempts to take the Mesa. One of the strategies included using public ladders which were taken from Santa Clara Pueblo to scale the steepest parts of the Mesa. This was a futile attempt as the Mesa was just too steep and impermeable. So after this attempt, he again returned to Santa Fe to regather himself. He then turned his attention to Guadalupe Mesa in the Hamas region, which was occupied by Toa people and some Keras people from Santa Domingo Pueblo. In July of 1694, 84 Toa people and Keras people were killed at a battle in which they tried to defend the Mesa. After this event, he turned his attention back to Chuno in September of 1694 where he, and this time he gained allies from Zia, Santa Ana and San Felipe Pueblos who were all Keras speaking Pueblos. He also had allies from Pecos and Hamas Pueblos, both Toa speaking villages. So during these days Vargas's tactics included destroying fields in the valley below, cornfields where Pueblo folks supplemented themselves. He did this in plain view of the Toa defenders on top of the Mesa. On September 8th of the same year, negotiations began to take place between Toa folks on the Mesa and Vargas and eventually the Toa and Vargas and his allies negotiated a peaceful surrender, a peaceful end to the siege at the Mesa. So in this way, the Mesa Atunio was never taken by Vargas. It's a point of pride for Toa folks that they were able to successfully defend themselves against Vargas and he was not able to take the Mesa in the same way that he did at Coach T and Hamas Pueblos. So as I said, there were several attempts at Spanish reconquest but there were a few attempts reconquest prior to Vargas. This is just to go back to the ongoing resistant strategies that Pueblo folks took against Spanish colonial settlers. And in my work, I take a place-based approach to understanding this time period. And what I mean by a place-based approach is that I emphasize the interdependence of time, space and history. And my starting point is the idea that places embody history both physically and spiritually and that historical memories are given life when people re-encounter these places. This place-based perspective is essential for the further development of indigenous archeology in a couple of ways. First, this approach embraces the strong link that Pueblo and other indigenous peoples maintain with their past. For Pueblo people, there is no disconnect between place and time. The contemporary world is that and that of their ancestors are embedded in the same place. It is this reality that generates our continuing attachment to these places. Second, a place-based perspective furthers the aims of an indigenous archeology by reflecting by rejecting the false dichotomy between history and prehistory and the implicit assumption that these places of history are linked to entangled European indigenous encounters while places linked exclusively to an indigenous past are part of prehistory. So the Cardinal Mesa's located in the Cardinal directions near villages, Taylor villages are especially venerated. For example, Tuniel on the top right of the map there. Or Black Mesa is located due north of our Pueblo and it figures prominently in many, excuse me. Figures prominently in many of our traditions at San Luis Fonso and it is but one place on the cosmological landscape of our people. So while the events that happened there are important is the place itself and all that it embodies physically and spiritually that holds the highest importance. So my work is an example of an indigenous researcher working with my own community. And it's intended to provide inspiration to other indigenous students who have an interest in pursuing archeology by providing insight into the ways in which I have engaged with my own community. I hope to illustrate the successes and pitfalls of my approach. So my choice to do archeology at the village of Tuniel which is occupied by my own ancestors provides an opportunity to engage with my own community's history. This also requires me to consider the implications of my research while reflecting upon my own subjectivities. Methodologically, I'm committed to providing suitable alternative archeological methods to indigenous people who may have a vested interest in archeology but are concerned with the limitations of traditional site-based survey methods and wish to refrain from engaging in invasive archeological practices. So in my work, I focused on the cartographic documentation of the Mesa and I used drones or unmanned aerial vehicles which provided a more culturally appropriate alternative to other less appropriate methods like excavation or ground surveys. And this had virtually no physical impact on the heritage resources of the Mesa. Aside from being more culturally appropriate, it provides a more efficient and precise means of creating topographical maps and maps of habitation places. And it should appeal to all archeologists regardless of their methodological leanings. So the project itself, I named it the Tuniel Research Project. And some of the main goals were to identify and understand the social processes and strategies of resistance surrounding the founding and occupation of Tuniel during the public revolt period and incorporate archeology into San Diego Fonso Pueblo's own understandings of the second place within the context of public revolt history. The central focus was to assess the context of the nature of the archeology of the public revolt village on top of Tuniel as well as to evaluate the ethnographic and historical data within the context of revolt settlement patterns. The main component of the archeological investigations involve the mapping of the Mesa village and its associated defensive features. Because there's so much work to do at the Mesa, I really wish I could do it all, but just given the scope of the dissertation and my research there, I chose to, instead of trying to do everything, I chose to do smaller pilot projects for my dissertation, in addition to the main component, which was the mapping. So I engaged in a pilot ceramic kind of analysis of the Mesa. Some of the ceramics you see here are what are called Tewa Polychrome, which date directly to the public revolt period itself in the mid-161690s. I also did a pilot rock art survey where I kind of did a informal survey, pilot survey, just like it's called, of some of the rock art features on and around the Mesa. So this involved me just hiking around basically and there's a picture of me on the left kind of dangerously scaling the edge of a cliff to document some rock art there at Tuneo. I did a defensive features survey. So what you see here is a wall fortification, the remnants of a wall fortification on top of the Mesa that were constructed in an effort to prohibit Vargas and his allies from scaling the Mesa and there's an abundance of these defensive fortifications on and around the Mesa. I also did a informal survey of ammunition caches and these ammunition caches, if you look at the picture on the right are just collections or aggregations of river rock, quartz cobbles that were used as projectiles against Vargas and his troops. And this quote was taken directly from Vargas's journals where he directly references the use of these stones where he says the danger to the men of being killed was great because this place is so impregnable. The Mesa was completely rocky and covered with boulders and the enemy so well prepared that they had many rocks from the river to bombardus, hurling them with slings. So that's kind of an interesting kind of neat comparison of the ethnomastoric record with the archeology. So what I did in my work was create kind of visuals, maps that helped me interpret the lay of the land, if you will. This map shows the distribution of these types of defensive features. Many of the defensive features occur only on the most accessible portions of the Mesa. So if you take a look at the green lines, they represent trails. And these are parts of the Mesa where the topography allows for human access or foot access to the Mesa. So on the left of the Mesa where you had that very steep topography against the river, there's no need to create fortifications there because the Mesa is naturally defended by an 80-foot cliff. So I found this distribution to be kind of cool and very telling of the military strategy that table folks were engaged with. And this is just a close-up of those features at Tuneo, some of the fortifications and the ammunition caches. So for the last phase of this research, I partnered with Archeo Geophysical Associates, Chet Walker and Mark Willis who are really awesome, who are pioneers really in the mapping of archeological sites and features with drones. They do work all over the world and I was fortunate enough to have them come work with me because I'm not smart enough or capable enough to operate drones myself. So I outsource some of my work. So any of you grad students out there outsource your stuff. It's, as long as you get approval from your advisors, these guys are really awesome. They came in and did work in ways that I couldn't in my own tons. So that's a picture of one of the drones that they flew over the Mesa. Here's some of the methods we used. So data acquisition was accomplished through a digital process called photogrammetry. So the drones were set on a specific path. So the alignments there of circles you see is the path of the drones. Each one of the circles represents a photo that was taken while the drone was in flight. All these photos were stitched together like a quilt, geo reference with targets on the ground. This is where the Mark and Chet's expertise comes in. And with this data, they were able to create really cool hillshade relief maps that really brought out the topography of the ruined settlement on top of the Mesa. So if you look at the kind of dimpled surface of the Mesa there, these high resolution images, we can have the architecture, and this is architecture that we're seeing, it begins to really pop out. So it's very different from a lot of the other revolt era sites in the region. I showed you a picture of the remnants of the village at Cochiti, where you have masonry walls that are in some cases still standing. Here the topography doesn't allow for that type of architecture to be built. So instead you have a kind of unique form of architecture on top of the Mesa. This was my kind of best estimation of what this looks like. Each of these kind of polygons represents pitch structure of some sort, which I presume were used as a habitation spaces. So unlike masonry architecture, which leaves a very clear material signature later in the form of standing walls, what we have on Tapatunio is a lot different. So this informal construction or architectural type may be consistent with the fact that the move to Tapatunio happened very quickly and involved multiple social groups from different publics in response to Vargas's military campaign. And there's no historical descriptions of the Mesa itself or its architecture because Vargas never made it to here. And so parsing all of this out was like really interesting. And while I'm still, for the dissertation I did what I could, as far as interpreting the architecture here, there's still lots to be analyzed with this data and there's so much more to do. Here's just a close-up of some of that that kind of topography that was created with the drone imagery. And when I talk about broadening indigenous archeology, what I hope to do with this work is provide kind of new avenues for archeological research that aren't kind of rooted in the colonial foundations of a Western architecture and traditionally practice archeology. I really hope to present new perspectives, new ways of understanding. And I continue to do this with some of the work I'm proposing for Tapatunio. I had hoped to talk more about an oral history project that we propose with the National Park Service but we didn't get funded for that program. And so we're reformulating our proposal to make it more attractive to the funders at the Park Service. So what I hope to do in this next phase of work with anthropological research affirm based in Tucson, Arizona is to collect oral histories and more ethnographic information about the Mesa from our own people because as it is in many indigenous communities especially with the onset of the COVID pandemic we're beginning to lose elders and with them a lot of these stories go with them. So the next component is heavily focused on ethnography and collecting oral histories in the public as they relate to Tunio. And I hope to combine this with some of the previous work I did on the archeology of Tunio and just create new narratives that challenge outdated ones rooted in colonial histories. So if I went a little bit over, I apologize but I have some time or if there is some time I'll be happy to take some questions. Thank you for your time this afternoon. Thanks very much, interesting talk. So yes, please post your questions or comments in the chat or we can also have you ask them directly you can raise your hand and resume and ask them directly. I see a question here from he says, many thanks for your great talk in your Tunio research and your mapping of the habitation fits. On top of the Mesa, did you find very many material remains near or in the pits? Yeah, on top of the Mesa itself there weren't very many artifacts that we observed. Again, I didn't do 100% survey but just based on my informal surveys there's not a whole lot up there. And this could be because folks just didn't take very much up there. Or it could be because of the tumultuous period that surrounded the occupation of the Mesa. There just wasn't a whole lot to be found in the aftermath of war. That's really what it comes down to. This is a battlefield and it's a unique battlefield because the battle didn't happen on and even kind of playing it happened vertically. So I have a lot of investigations to do like on the slopes, the talus slopes but as far as the top of the Mesa there wasn't a lot of fighting that happened on top of the Mesa but rather on the slopes themselves. See a question here from June since Sarah. June, do you wanna ask you a question? Yeah, just in case my connection's been spotty. Hey, thank you for that excellent talk, sir. Appreciate it. Man, super sweet drone maps. Very impressive. And having been asked by a couple of community partners to help them demonstrate some of the kinds of things that are threatening their heritage sites including lots of erosion from cattle that the Forest Service is running on the site or things like that. I was wondering if some of those fantastic maps you have you did a like a, you had, when did you take those shots with the drone? What year was that? That was back in 2016, no, 18 maybe? I forget, it's been so long ago. Yeah, I know, I know, I know. I mean, I did shots in Mali in like 2012 and I'm still trying to follow up but like the idea that now there's been a few monsoon seasons, some rains and things like that. Is it a priority of Steno de Fonso to kind of think about what erosion impacts are on the site now? Like it is for some of my community partners who want to negotiate how to protect the site. One of the first questions is, well, what do you want to do to protect it? And they want to use some of these kinds of three dimensional topographic models to demonstrate how erosion is affecting their site. You know, like it's head cutting these little arroyos into the site that's causing damage to the adobe or maybe it's deflating the site through some other measures. And they want to demonstrate that their archeological partnership is generating some data that they can use in those negotiations. So they, you know, having us go back up there and do another three dimensional topographic map, we can do like a comparative volumetric and I'm still working that jazz out. And I was kind of thinking, man, here's a guy who's got some pretty rad data, you know, up on your Mesa. And it might be cool to see what, you know, or has that, has that been expressed to you as a priority for Samuel de Fonso to do that kind of thing? It hasn't been expressed as a priority. And this is why our philosophy on preservation is not a standard Western one. So we're not necessarily concerned with preserving a site for preservation sake. If a site is eroding or is being being affected by the kind of natural processes, that's the natural kind of course that some of these places take. And it's not our place to artificially preserve them where they're not meant to be preserved in that way. So that's our preservation philosophy might be a little different from maybe the groups that you work with. But drones certainly are a really good way to document these changes over time. Because you can get to the very fine details of like soil volumes and rock displacements and things like that with this type of data. So I could put you in touch with these guys who could do this work, unless you know them already. No, no, I don't. Thank you. I would appreciate that. Thanks, because yeah, I mean, it sounds like with the natural processes, that's something that also great and has talked about how that's returning back to the world and the way it's meant to be. I think that the community partners that I work with that are concerned about like overgrazing that's being allowed by the Forest Service, you know, that's a little different than like just rainstorms, I think like that. But yeah, for sure. I mean, I'm very interested in providing that as a service to those communities who invited me. So yeah, you know, if you could hook me up, I'd appreciate it, sir. Yeah, we'll chat. Thank you, sir. Do you have any other questions or comments? Is there one more question, Niko, in the chat? There's one from Chew. I, yeah, I can have a notch. Thank you for your great talk, Dr. I'd be like, oh, you're here, would you like to ask me? Yeah, just, thank you, Dr. Aguilar. That was a great talk. I was just wondering about that Tewa Polychrome that you showed us, like where did that come from if it's not from up on Mesa? And how is that related to your studies of a kind of revolt period activities in the area? Yeah, that wasn't from the Mesa itself. I think that pot is from the School for Events Research Collections or the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture in Santa Fe. But I just use it as a representation of Tewa Polychrome, which is the most abundant form on top of the Mesa. So it dates directly to this time period of 1690s during the reconquest. So I just use it as an example to illustrate its abundance there. Any other questions or comments? Moving to mention, I'd work with Mark Willis and he's a terrific, really imaginative guy with the drone and the machine. And also with tetraglyphs, with different kinds of illumination. They're pretty innovative folks who can map almost anything. Very nice to see pictures from the other side. Kundoa. We have another comment. A question here from Julia Franklin-Bach. Thank you so much for your talk, Dr. Aguilar. I was struck by your description of your place-based approach. Do you have any readings or other resources you would recommend on place-based approaches specifically for folks working on indigenous history? Sure. My discussions of my place-based approach are published in a volume. Looking at my bookshelf now, I think it's called The Death of Prehistory. I can send a link to the folks at Berkeley and they could maybe distribute it to the folks on the call here. But I go into a lengthy discussion about that approach. And so yeah, my work is out there in different places and we should have more time to talk about that approach. But I can definitely forward on some places where this stuff can be found. That would be awesome. Thank you, Dr. Aguilar. Of course. I can put these in the description on the video that we'll be sharing from this talk. Any other questions? Thanks very much, Dr. Aguilar. Very interesting talk. Yeah, thank you. It was my pleasure. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Woody. We'll talk soon. OK, guys. Appreciate it. Thank you for your time. Before we go, I wanted to mention that our round back next week is with the panel from the San Francisco State Global Museum. And it's on the subject of removing collector means for museum legacy collections. That should be a fascinating discussion. So please join us next week. Thanks again. Right.