 It is my great pleasure to introduce Professor Michael Chazen, who is in the Department of Mental Apology at the University of Toronto, which is my modern piece. In fact, lunch, my piece is for supervisors. So everything I learned about lipics, I learned from this guy right here, for better or for worse. There's no way I'm doing lipics with you right now. So I met Michael when I first arrived at the University of Toronto as a brand new, shiny, PhD student, and it was his second year there as faculty. And the other person that was my co-supervisor was away on Spanish for the year. So Michael kind of took me under his wing and got me started to a graduate program there and got me very, very interested in lipics. Before coming there, I was definitely into the geo side of things, which those of you who know me know I still do, but he really got me engaged with lipics and thinking about them in very different ways than I had been taught about them before. And he's going to speak a little bit about some of that today. He is a paleolithic archeologist, although he has worked in Israel on lower paleolithic sites and published quite extensively on all time periods within the paleolithic. He's now also working on a Roman site in Israel, around the purpose of the site. And for the last 15 years or so, he's been working in South Africa and working there. And some of them he will speak about today. He is going to talk about a book that he's recently published amongst his many very impactful publications. A new book that is right here called The Reality of Artifacts. So perhaps without further ado, I would like to welcome Michael Chase. So this is an informal talk, which I like the furnishings because now I feel informal. Let's say I've never been to Berkeley before, and it's really a pleasure to be here. But there are a few connections. The first is, as Lisa says, she was one of the first graduate students I worked with. And I was like, hey, and others being a professor is not so bad. They just go on and get their work done. Of course, years since I realized that Lisa was one of the most remarkable students that I had the opportunity to work with. And then she brought along Danielle McDowell to something you know that's probably remarkable. So yeah, so there's that connection. The other is, as Lisa mentioned, for the past 15 years I've been working with a very large team that we kind of collaborate together to work on the Vonderberg Cave as well as other sites in the northern Cape Robbins. Just an absolutely remarkable early Stone Age record. And it happens, Vonderberg is kind of one of, as Francis Stackery says, the greatest site of its type in the universe. You know, that's pretty nice, but it's pretty unique site. As an archaeological record going back almost two million years, it's probably the longest continuous, not continuous, but kind of the longest sequence of any site, any cave site in the world. But the first excavations there were actually from, for the University of California expedition to Africa. I did some soundings, so one of my goals in coming out here, Lisa's absolutely been helping me arrange this, is to see what the heck came out of the ground and came over from Vonderberg to California. So all of that made me very happy to come over and add it to it as an opportunity to talk to you a bit about what I consider a certain level of, you know, I don't need to be dismissive, but almost like a vanity project. Now it's published by a real publisher, just it's really legit, okay, it's not that I went out and published my own book, but it's the first time that I wrote something that the motivation wasn't that I have a lot of data that I needed to report or that I tried some kind of, you know, analysis that I needed, but that I really wanted to try to structure and to put into some coherent form my ideas about the artifact world. My background to that comes largely from my life as an archaeologist. I worked in the past with ceramics, I now work for quite a long time with lithics, I'm very much an artifact person in the archaeological realm, and a long time ago I also had a background as a craftsperson where people were making ceramics which couldn't really shape my view of things. And I wanted to try to put my ideas into coherent form, and this was helped a lot by teaching a course in the anthropology department at Toronto that was, I was sitting in a departmental meeting and I decided that I try to create a course that didn't have a colon in it. So I had these long titles, so I said well I want to propose a course called Artifacts, and that's actually the genesis of this book, was that then I teach a course where a group of students from across the university actually was in only anthropology thought about what artifacts are and how we should think about them. I teach a similar course in how we have a material culture program at Victoria College, which is one of the first in Canada for sure, and again it's a very open-ended discussion of what artifacts are. And before I describe the structure of the book, I'll contradict myself a bit that I say that it's a vanity project, but it's a vanity project in the sense that I think it really matters. I think that there's something missing in contemporary discourse in general, although it's emerging here and there, about the importance of artifacts. Those of you who have read Jane Bennett's book, for example, I don't agree with most of what she says, but I do agree with her passion in a sense that this is actually important, that the way that we interact with artifacts shapes who we are at a very fundamental level, and it's something that we kind of overlook. And adding to that, and to me the sense of courtesy, is I get very, very frustrated that in that discussion of materiality we often call whether it's in computer science, or it's in cognitive science, or whether it's a, you name the domain, you know, philosophy. The data and examples they're drawing on from the archeological literature go back to the 1930s. And I'm a big advocate for archeology. I think we do unbelievably interesting work, with, there's an importance of bringing the new data and insights into discussion with the theoretical literature. And particularly for the paleolin, the guy had found that this wasn't happening, so I'd give it a go. The difficulty, though, as one of the reviewers of my proposal pointed out, was that the way I was developing my ideas, and this is intentional, was not through the normal sequence of saying, I'm going to take all of that work, the logical writing, about the nature of reality. I always try to avoid the ontology work because I don't know what it means. I didn't want to do that review of the ontological term as it's called sometimes. Simply because I don't think I'm the person to do it. I don't think I'm the person to summarize this literature because I'm not a part of that discussion in the central way. So there is an extent to which I hope some of you may read this book. At some point, you might say, wait, why isn't he summarizing more how he fits with these other archaeological discussions? And I accept that as kind of a limitation, but it's almost an intentional limitation. Luckily, a couple of colleagues who do that kind of work pretty well. I think there are folks of that sort available. So what I want to do now is talk to you about five minutes about the structure and overall arguments of the book. It's pretty short, so that's why I'm going to do that briefly. Then I want to talk about this central chapter, which is kind of a pivot chapter in the middle of the book, about invisibility, which I think is a pretty cool topic, and explain to you what I mean with a couple of examples. I'm watching the clock get back and I'll try to finish by that quarter up because it would be immensely interesting to me to get some feedback and have some challenges or some questions so that I can learn something as well. So the first point is what I mean by artifacts. And the goal of this book was to argue that artifact is not a kind of thing, but it's a status of things. Now I'm at University of California Berkeley, so John Searle is a known name, and it's largely inspired by his ideas about status functions, about how we create social realities. In his argument, it's simply through speech acts. One of my goals is to argue that in fact the using and making of objects, even the appropriation of objects, is also a kind of, has that same function, can make something something else. But I think he over-emphasizes speech acts in developing this concept. But overall, I really like his idea of the centrality of these status functions that change the nature of a social grouping of a project. And what's different a little bit from some arguments, for instance, it's more nuanced and absolutely different than Lambra's Malachoris, for example, he speaks very eloquently about the agency of materials. I put the agency very much on the side of the humans. I think that materials have affordances, and materials definitely push back. But I see that what happens with the artifact world is artifacts are things that we bring into our human conception of time. Then in very simple terms, an artifact is a thing that hasn't passed present and future. Objects, material objects outside of that status don't, they just are in the world. We as humans, we exist in the world in which past, present, and future exist simultaneously. And I think in those things that we brought into our world and into our sense of self, and a lot of what I read about, is this construction of self and the role of material in that. I think we give these things that past, present, and future. There's a fun kind of idea that comes out of that about archaeology, which is, I see archaeology as essentially a creative act. That for me, with the purposes of this discussion, an artifact, what we would call an archaeological artifact, while it's in the ground actually is not an artifact in the sense that I'm talking about here. When we recover an object, and I write about this, and put it in a bag, and label the bag, and put it in our collections, suddenly it becomes an artifact again. It's been an artifact in the past, it becomes an artifact in our own life. So artifacts can go through cycles. I think the artifact that's an archaeological artifact is very different from the artifact in its first life cycle. Its nature of its embeddedness is different. So that's the central argument, and one aspect of that is that artifacts take on a certain hybridity, that they're at once material and cultural, or whatever you want to call it, a second term. And that's what makes archaeology so interesting, right? We deal with these unique things, that it's not enough to just do material science on it, it's not enough to just do linguistic analysis. They're not just ideas, they're real things. But they have this hybrid nature, and I'll come back to that hybridity in a few minutes. So the book goes through a number of discussions. First I'll talk about the role of concepts, of ideas in the mind, in constructing the artifact world, in the making of artifacts. And of course this plays in discussions of typology, and the role of what are cognitive constructs versus material realities. And from there I talk about artifacts and the body, the way that artifacts become absorbed in our sense of self, connect to our body, and also have the potential to expand our world, expand actually our self. And I became very interested in this idea that artifacts that belong to us, that we still have this relationship with, we don't have to have physical contact about it. So there's a Socratic idea of you having a coat on a hook, and then sitting down on a hook somewhere, but it's still your possession, for me that's very evocative, that there's this ability to extend yourself to things that are far away, that are no longer part of you. You no longer physically attach to you, but they are in a sense a part of who you are. Lisa mentioned that I work on the Roman site, I don't do much there except tell them they should think more about geology. It's a very evocative article that I use as well about slave colors, in the Roman Empire you have the development of these colors that would be worn by slaves with a tag under, that say, hey, I'm a slave, grab me and take me back to my owner. And these slave colors are evocative of the way that artifacts have the capacity not only to extend ourselves, not only to the outwards, but also to shape and constrain our world in very essential, very powerful ways. To give you a sense of the kind of archeological thing that's relevant is, again, one of Lisa's colleagues, co-branded students at the University of Toronto, Jane Wilkins, who I worked with me, has argued, I think very compellingly, that some of the artifacts we find at the site of Cateche are spears dating back 500,000 years ago. And I started to think about the way that composite tools are found to stretch tools beyond simply an extension of a hand, and then ultimately the development of long-range projectile points allows us to push that further yet again. Both of them are domains in which there's a lot of contemporary, current, active research that's generally not brought into theoretical discussion. Okay, so now I'll be talking in a couple minutes about this sense of the invisible, but just to know that it's kind of a breaking point between these things asking about the mind and the body and how artifacts fit with both cognitive models and the physical sense of self. I then go on to talk about art, and the reason why I didn't talk about that here is that it builds on this idea that the invisible would be a slightly more protracted talk that I see out of our work at Bundaberg Cate where we have very early evidence for the use of ochre and specularite in unique places going back about a half million years. I argue for very gradual development of art to have a sense of wrapping the interiority of the materials and the essence. So in a sense something that's invisible about these objects. And then in the last part of the book I challenge a bit my own bias towards the human that I'm very critical of Jane Bennett's ideas about materiality being vibrant, but on the other hand she has a point. And there is a sense that in some cases material can become vibrant in a sense can have an autonomy from its human interlocutor. Some cases of that come from ethnographic cases where material actually is thought of as being alive and I consider those. But I really, one of my main focuses there was to think about the difficult aspect of drawing boundaries around the artifact world. But there are things that are just too big or too big. So if I say that a Boeing 747 is an artifact you say, yeah, but isn't really. And this was the funnest book to write ever. I got to write about my fear of flight which working in South Africa is a terrible thing to have because every year I spent 18 hours terrifying in two directions. So I got to think about where is that, how is that going to be? And actually it took me back to Lisa's work in Khurana which I think is, I don't have pictures too, but I argue that there's a sense with architecture that we're seeing the development of something that develops into what I call machines. Things that have their own temporal autonomy that structures us rather than us structuring them. The Charlie Chaplin movie is what I used as an example when Charlie is trying to tighten some bolts or something but they keep coming faster and faster and he goes crazy. So that's the sense of where we fit ourselves to the time of machines is something we're all very familiar with. And I think there's an argument to saying that actually in Khurana we're finding the very earliest stages of that because the Khurana huts rarely enough they come back to. It always strikes me as a bit odd and Lisa's written quite a bit about possibly what they were doing when they were leaving these places and then we see in the PBNB and the Pre-Hunter and Neolithic the intensification of architecture until you have built environments that survive past a single individual's life and structure the world that people come into. Anyway, so that's an argument for a sense of autonomy of objects and it's where the sense of using artifact as a status rather than a type of thing allows for these kind of jagged edges or kind of, you know, is the electrical grid an artifact? Not really. But can I draw a line that says, no, this is where artifacts start and things like the grid start? No, I can't. That's not terribly problematic. And then the final part is an argument for an ecology with objects that we should be, in thinking about ecology and the future we should be thinking about the role of artifacts the profound role in our lives and include that in our thinking about ecology. Okay, so I left myself 15 minutes to talk about invisibility and invisibility. Part of this comes from talking about cognitive functions and the role that I read quite a bit on the Schema-Ferard-Twaab in lithic production and I, as a person who split that, not very beautifully, but quite fit and this work is a ponder. I know that you need to know things in order to act in order to your world and I try to elucidate what I mean by that and I think I have some good things to say, I do. But this sense that there are aspects that are not tangible that are present or part of the artifact world. And so in a sense this chapter is arguing for a second hybridity. Artifacts are at once cultural and natural. They're also at once visible, tangible and they have an element of invisibility. And the first thing that that gave me a couple of interesting things to think about and the first I find to be a very intriguing idea has to do with the very origins of human tool use. Again, I went to, I do stove tools so I went to a faculty meeting and the graduate faculty rather than Lisa started to teach a course in lithic analysis and they said, what is that? And I said, well, I have a, you know it's how people make stove tools and that so they say you make breaking rocks. And I said, yes, I have a PhD from Yale University in breaking rocks so it must be a respectable topic, right? And I say that a lot you know in kind of self-deprecating way of like, yeah it's just breaking rocks. But it's actually false when you really start to think about it. And it has implications for understanding I think the evolution of human technology. Let's think about it this way. How many of you, when you're teaching introductory things or thinking about it saying, well, chimpanzees break nuts and that's pretty much the same thing as making an old long chopper? I would never claim exactly say that when I say things along those lines. They're both similar physical operations. In which case they're both likely similar cognitive and physical operations. But there's a difference and it's a very, to me a very interesting difference. It turns out there's quite a large literature on breaking nuts. Because of your processing palm nuts, you use machines now and you don't want to break nuts. So there's a whole thing about physics of breaking nuts. When you're doing, when you break a nut I spend weeks on this. It's a great period of my life. But when you're breaking a nut you're causing failure in a structure. You have a physical structure that has a coherence and you're causing it to fail. You're loading it with force and it fails and breaks. That's really something that can be seen by cause and effect easily without inferring anything invisible there. It's a pyramid. Making a chopper is actually a different thing. It's what you're doing is you're causing fracture. Fracture is breaking molecular bonds and separating a piece into two different masses. They're distinct mechanical processes. Now, okay, all of you teach and think about these things or 20 years ago heard about them and you say well, but conzi, the chimpanzee makes stone tools, right? And that's why I went back and looked at what does conzi the chimpanzee do? Because I remember Nick Toth did this work with conzi and there's big newtons in a box tied with a string. You have big newtons if you can get conzi to mimic you making stone tools you can show how similar we are to conzi. But conzi doesn't make stone tools like any older one stone tool maker made them. What conzi does is he treats a rock like a knot basically. He's trying to cause failure in the rock. You're getting is not causing fracture you're getting pounded. So conzi will sit and smash the rocks together 30 times. Now, I'll come back to how I know they're not doing that in the older but I know they're not it's not an inference it's like well, it's an inference but it's a strong influence but conzi does that initially what conzi did it's a very funny story if you haven't heard it initially the way conzi would make it chimps are really smart what would you do if you needed to break a rock and you would throw the rock on the floor because conzi lived in a cement floor enclosure and that was a stone tool manufacturer eventually he took them outside to sell floor so then he's like okay well I see this guy they toss me they're doing that like I'm smart enough to do what he's doing there's not an understanding of the underlying invisibility which is that what Nick is doing is causing fracture propagating fracture through this material conzi does fracture them but it's through an action that's basically to cause failure how do I know that they're not doing this in the older one well if I bang two rocks together I cause an incipient cone it's a very discussion anybody who's nabbed for an hour you've done that a lot you know my first like two months of wind up and they're like God why doesn't anything come up well if you look when you're smashing a rock and nothing's coming up it leaves a fracture cone in it and we can see these they're preserved forever and you see that in terms of how the cores look they're still on assemblages but they're really rare moreover if I go not to 2.5 million years ago but I go to 2.3 million years ago and this is where again archeologists have been doing work that's not being taken seriously if I look at the site of the Lava what the people are doing or who will whatever he's doing is taking up a block of rock conceiving of it as having a surface and repeatedly striking along the surface of that the circumference of that surface up to 20-25 times not recurrent so that's not the same as I'm smashing again and again to cause this thing to fail so my argument is actually that this suggests that already at this initial stage of stone tool production we're seeing hominins work on the basis of an invisible which is fracture and that's a different thing than what chimpanzees do now some of you know that there's Lamecway which is 3.2 million years old there's some stone tools there we don't know a heck of a lot about them yet except their description but it may be more like a consequence but it's still not clear enough from the data that's available and that to me is a super interesting question why does this invisibility no matter where does it come from well it comes from in part the discussion about theory of mind and a graduate student colleague of mine, Daniel Oginelli has convinced me that chimpanzees have the same kind of theory of mind that humans do that humans act on a theory of mind which is an invisible thing you know like you are really bored you know that's not by who not but it's my I need to say that you are meant to be with a perspective like my own and he argues that chimpanzees don't use those kinds of cues and I actually kind of agree with it in terms of chimpanzee's ideas about physics that they don't work on the basis of invisibles I think archeology can add to that that actually by the time, by about 2.5 million years ago humans are I'll just note about one other aspect of this idea about invisibles that I think is kind of interesting but on a different for those of you who don't know about that I'm going to add to that there's a plus from Paul Bloom who's asked whether water is an artifact can sprite be an artifact I'll cut to the chase because I have a whole elaborate thing of thinking about it but my argument is actually sprite is only an artifact if you have a sprite body not only an archeologist would think this way but the minute I have a friend who collects water from the Ball River because it's sacred water and he takes it home the minute he pours it out it's watering the river again you need the artifact in order to make intangible things into to have this artifact status that water air bubbles bubbles they can't be artifacts because they're not tangible they don't maintain a form I can't hold on to that but I can make them artifacts because artifact status is what I call sticky if I put water in a sprite bottle I can charge a buck 50 for it because it's sprite it's this thing and we have an archeological example which is pilgrim flasks where you bring water back from pilgrim and that water was sacred water and of course what we find is the flasks and the sense that so the sense that artifact status we can't include in it things that aren't tangible but they can become artifacts when they're enclosed or when they're contained they're within an artifact within a tangible thing this relates to our work on fire and as soon as I have to get fire it's one of our cave fires that's important so Francesco Berna, Paul Goldberg are members of the one per day research project realized that in a million year in all of the context we have clear micro-mortological evidence for fire that was great because it opens up a whole new line of research and we now think we can push that back considerably earlier the use of fire in this cave that was great because at the time I was writing a article about how early humans didn't use fire to annoy but the way out of that for me is to question how do humans interact with fire and in a sense to ask when does fire come to interact with an artifact world come to be enclosed because we can all think of cases where they are centered fires with hard and sense artifacts but that requires the sense of enclosure so when you separately from Francesco this is not his or Paul this is completely unplayed in fact what we have is a long pre-history of fire that fire is not an on off switch and one component of that is the development of things like lamps that enclose in bold fire that bring it into the domain of the artifact world one of the intriguing things about the end of telling use of fire the homo-rectus use of fire where we have very clear evidence for the use of fire so one of the last things to develop is even the most basic enclosure around the rings of stones something that we do instinctually you know how many of us go camping and say let's build a fire without saying oh here's a ring around me that was not there's nothing complicated about that there's nothing cognitively oh my god a ring of stones they could do this but it wasn't the way that they were interacting with fire so there doesn't be a stage in the use of fire where fire comes to be pulled into this artifact world but I would argue that fire liquids in and of themselves outside the artifact realm but they can be pulled into it that it's immensely what I like to say a sticky domain that it can pull things in through this process of encroaching so I'm very proud of myself because I wanted to leave time to get some questions and feedback because I realize that these are questions that all of us think about these are essential archaeological questions and issues and it's been a bit provocative on my part to think that I can try to develop a general framework the only thing that I would urge you as a group to think about is how in contemporary 21st century California how important archeological work on materiality is it's not just a bonus and I've come to feel this question I teach a first gear seminar and the sense that I have of students young people as losing control of our relationship to materiality as digital technology becomes more and more powerful and more and more seductive and kind of all encompassing and I think this question of the importance of the archeological perspective of the long term role of human relationship to materiality and what I try to argue here is how it pervades our very sense of art as people I think that there's something kind of important here to think about so if there are any questions or comments I'm totally wrong that we find so much for your talk this was a really excellent analysis questions about artifacts not to I think a lot of us have had but art is together my question is about the example that really that's it I was wondering about the divisibility or commonality of artifacts because they are made of other things that we would call artifacts and the way there's a sense that there's this invisibility if you're a person who's setting up to build a hut you're not just banging rocks together throwing ropes and things together you have an image in your head of what a hut is going to be that's still invisible at this point there's a way to make something that exists in your mind and that exists really and so it will exist in the physical world and so in a way these artifacts are coming together to make something that's more than the sum of their parts what are your thoughts on this commonality? so there's a real danger so Timingold is very articulate in critiquing the Highly Morphic Model which I agree with Emma 100% that like any of you who have made anything you don't kind of and this is a danger in the way that I talk is you don't have a thing in your head and it just like oof it's there you know that it's through the interactions with the materials that things come into being and it's right 100% particularly with architecture I think one of the weaknesses and it's actually I'm starting a project with a very different kind of topic one of the first things that I realized is that one of the weaknesses of my thinking is not seeing these kinds of linkages we know what we talk about as assemblages how does that or and how do there's always a danger of cutting things off into parts and that's not my intention but of trying to so for example you know Karate is so much food for thoughts of this food but where is the limit between the natural environment and the built environment you know is it an absolute limit between a landscape versus a built hut so I think all those issues are ones that I don't have great answers to but they're super important you know really relevant I haven't read the books so this is probably a pretty stupid question but while you're genetically go far afield to California sea hours extracting foragers that use tools in some peoples Dorothy Fragazi's work with the monkey in South America chimpanzee and my question is about invisibility because you attribute things to the older makers of stone tools that you don't attribute to these extractors but the food inside the object is invisible to the extractor in each one of those so how do you can you explain how invisibility applies to those so you mean like if I'm doing bone marrow extraction I can't see the bone marrow until I smash it well I think that's the it's not it's not that other creatures aren't super capable of doing things that aren't complex and so you know one thing is that any predator is capable of taking a living animal and transforming it to meet which is something very different than what it was before my sense is that when you're looking at chimpanzees that learning is more it's more concrete and again that's Danny Covenelli's words that it's more the basis of what's there in front of them you know and you can learn a lot by just doing things and saying okay that's what happened so I've seen that happen you're not understanding and it's not that we're it's not that you're constructing some other thing that goes on that's not apparent and the thing with fracture that strikes me is that fracture there's nothing in the rock that tells me okay it's here there's nothing that having seen someone do it before tells me okay I do what they did and this will happen I actually have to say I don't have to understand fracture mechanics because obviously that's pretty complex I have to say I understand that there's some underlying principle and infer that outwards and that's what I mean by invisibility figure and I don't think for cracking nuts that that's involved I think it's you're doing things making observations and saying okay let me do that again and you don't have to you don't have to in a lot of ways inferring a visibility is not adaptive I'm not saying it's a better way of cognitively operating I'm saying it's kind of different and I realize that's a bit subtle but it's not at all to say that it's a cognitive advance because a lot of times I think you could argue that humans make pretty poor choices because they make these kind of inferences or guesses about invisible things but fracture is different and you can't observe it happening you can't see it it's not really it's really really fast and it's not in the material itself it's not already there how do you think about that could be all kinds of different ways but that would be the argument I'm not sure I would accept thinking unquestionably about the fact that fracture is not there because some kind of rock will fracture because of its inherent property right that's why people are making some tools out of cities and so forth and not making them some very good some tools out of the salt or something but anyway so there is something there there's a quality of material that's a really good point no that it's let's say that human evolution started with making stone tools that I felt smart I'd be like okay they're following cleavage planes and that's all there is to it they break the rock and it breaks them and if I didn't this is to me an argument of the validity and importance of really good archeological research so the lokalala project is one of the first refitting projects well certainly for these early time periods so it's a project where you're refitting flakes to cores and I'd be a little bit more hesitant to make these arguments based on the hadard sites based on the data we have but with lokalala it's like wait a minute there's no two sides to this thing well there is once you see it that way but it's not dictated by the form of the matter but they're imposing that they're making it happen and then I mean I've looked at a lot of lokalala stuff and it's they're really good you know that there aren't constant do you do like putting that thing with like some kind of course yeah there's assemblages and an older one assemblage like as it struck you it's like wait a minute because they're like pounding in the middle of the thing and you're like no no go to the edge and look around the angle and they're like no I can't get my head around that I think part of the problem I once thought for making a kind of gender so once I was teaching a group of high school students how to flit now and I was like who wants to try it and all these big guys are like yeah I'm gonna do it and they're all like pounding these things because they're like being cavemen trying to show how strong they are nothing happens that I say so finally a woman says yeah young woman says yeah I'll try it and of course she's more intelligent she doesn't have this fantasy of mine okay how would I organize myself too and yeah great and that was a learning thing there's a kind of thinking that's involved and yeah no I think we do it in our lab course I always look and it's painful to watch because there are so many step fractures and in fractures and crazy stuff I'll just say one note I know that we're running out of time that one it's not directly relevant but it's so interesting that at Bunderberg what we're finding in the older one context which is roughly 1.8 million years old younger is small tools and we have the same thing at Sturck-Montagne and we actually have the same thing in every older one site and that's one of the great questions right now is why is there we all know about choppers in that because they're being but a major component of an older one technology and in some in Africa it seems the major component is making things that are about a centimeter to a centimeter in size intentionally, perpetually that's what they're doing so that's kind of a separate issue but that kind of a question so yeah it's a good point about here but I don't think they're following like colors in the rock but I don't know