 So I'm really just going to summarize pretty quickly my pre-circulated paper that I think you can download from Middle Savagery or whatever. I apologize in advance for being a little bit self-referential. I've been working over the last few years on ideas that I think first about practice. I'm interested in digital practices, but really digital practices on, and I don't really like this term, but I'll use it anyway, the edge of the trial in the field, like in that particular space, that particular interpretive space. And I became interested in performativity and the way in which we improvise, and I was interested in thinking about that in terms of punk rock and the way in which punk rock creates this kind of performative space that has on the one hand certain rules that dictate what it is, but on the other hand has opportunities for egalitarianism, radical freedom, whatever. And so that was kind of my point of departure and the way in which I became, I do digital stuff first off, but I've become very anxious, which I think are profoundly human, not transhuman emotion, about the way in which our digital world is transforming that practice at the edge of the trial. I'm actually a survey archeologist. I don't really, I hate digging. I'm a terrible excavator, so I say on the edge of the trial and I'm just like totally lying to all you people, like really what I'm talking about is like walking through a field with a clicker, right? Which for some of you maybe is the only kind of marginally archeology to begin with, but anyway, so I became very concerned about the way in which digital practices affect that. Just drove me back to read, and this is kind of the second part of my little paper, drove me to two mid-century thinkers. They're both Christian anarchists. They're both burdened with tremendous problems, and I'm aware of all of those problems. One is a cat called Jacques Eleux and he writes about efficiency and he's very concerned about the way in which efficiency has come to dominate the justifications for all practices in modern society. That everything we do is driven by this kind of relentless drip of efficiency that we're always, and I don't know if y'all are like this, I am, but like when I get up in the morning, I'm not quite Steve Jobs or something, but when I get up in the morning, like the last thing I do when I get out of bed is plan what I'm going to wear. And I think about my lecture in the shower, like I'm never just doing one thing. Cause I have this, my father's German might be the issue, but anyway, I have this like constant push of efficiency and I think that shape, practice is really shaped the way in which we at least rhetorically approach arguments for digital practices, right? That digital practices at least rhetorically in terms of practice in the field, right? My very narrow sliver of the world. There's almost always, we can do this more accurately and we can do this more efficiently. We can do this more quickly and then we can have, I don't know, maybe more days off. Actually, that's not ever the case. We can do more, we can dig more, whatever. I'm also interested in Yvonne Illa I think is enjoying a little bit of a resurgence and very small, probably quite odd part of the world. Ilitch is another one of these Christian anarchists and he worries about modernity undermining our ideas of conviviality, which for him is that those radical spaces where individual ideas emerge from conversation and engagement. Part of the reason I don't use PowerPoints, I've stopped using PowerPoints is because I think they kind of, first off, they take a long time. And I didn't have time to do them. But the second thing is, they tend to distract people from what you're saying because you're staring at something. And I'm sure many of you are still staring at the white screen, but that's fine. I can't control that. But on the other hand, there's this kind of spirit of conviviality that Ilitch approaches. And so, and conviviality to him is one of the things that organized society. And I think Alil would have argued the same, argued in different ways the same thing. And so the final part of it, and so, oh, this was all part of this larger kind of agglomeration of ideas, which I termed slow archeology, like getting back to those moments of conviviality in the field. So we're not all looking down at our iPads or filling out our form, our context form, our survey form, that this doesn't become the driving thing that the first step of engagement when we should be really engaging our colleagues and what we're seeing on the ground, but instead we're actually engaging a damn form. And I know everyone doesn't do this, but I do think that there is an element of this in almost all of our practice that's only being pushed further. By our, the affordances offered by our digital tools. And then the final part, and I promise I'll be done, is I became interested in the way in which these things shape ontology, right? And I began reading people like Manuel de Landa, but more importantly, I read a book on logistics by Deborah Kellan, she's not an archeologist. Let's call it the deadly life of logistics. And I began to realize that the transformation that's happening in archeological practice is our shift from the assembly line, right? So efficiency was largely funneled in this assembly line, which begins at the trench or the survey unit and ends in the monograph or book or report or agreement, whatever, right? Like that is the process. To one that because digital tools have tended to fragment knowledge at the edge of the trough or in the field allows us this granularity, it also allows us to have this transportability, right? And so the model for archeology has shifted particularly in the last 20 years from one driven by this linear assembly line that's very hierarchical and very well organized, the one that's driven by logistics, which is increasingly mediated by digital tools. So this is something that comes along to transhumanism that digital practice becomes increasingly transhuman because we're increasingly engaged with not simply the affordances of the tools we choose to use, but probably we're gonna have PowerPoints that I put together some. I just like, why find my apartment or the hotel I was in here was terrible and I was like, screw it, I'm not gonna do these, right? So this entire network of things that connected the way in which we get some very simple piece of an archeological talk is interrupted, right? But how many, I'm sure many of us when we're in the field, we run into those same things. And it's not just in the field, it's when we're transporting our data from our trench or survey unit all the way back home, in my case, to the center of the US when we're sharing it with a colleague who is in another continent that we've begun to create a destructured and an assemblage, right? This vast assemblage that is logistics and logistics, I was walking through one of the neighborhoods down here, has a logic of its own and the logic of its own has recently come under so I think fairly compelling critiques. I mean, after all, the beauty of logistics is the thing that drives forward, the potential of Uber, the potential of Airbnb, the potential of us to export a kind of neoliberal regime of economy and utility that may not be Jacques-Galut's efficiency, but might be actually something much more pernicious. So while Ruth's talk was uplifting mine, I'm afraid it kind of ends in this sort of cul-de-sac of anxiety and dread. That not only am I stuck doing this stuff maybe for the rest of my life, but I'm somehow complicit by having used these tools, and I have a little notebook, which is slightly better than my iPhone, sitting on my iPhone.