2026-03-12 Disability in David Narratives in light of Armed Conflicts in Africa (Huli Ramantswana)

Okay. Um, so, I'd like to welcome everybody uh back to our Badè Museum Archaeological Research Facility at UC Berkeley online lecture series. Um, and uh of course, I'm Aaron Brody, director of the Badè Museum at Pacific School of Religion, and I wanted to take a moment to highlight our uh our theme for this year, and to briefly discuss how our series promotes social justice issues through meaningful dialogue. The Badè Museum is an institution dedicated to advancing knowledge of the archaeology and history of the ancient Levant. Over the course of the last few years, we at the museum have realized that such knowledge is enhanced by reflecting on and engaging with perspectives that have been largely ignored by modern-day society, and as a result, have been erased from mainstream historical narratives. The Badè Museum particularly welcomes scholars who are presenting marginalized perspectives, and that contribute to creating better equity in scholarship and society more broadly. This series, Disability in the Ancient Middle East and Mediterranean, lifts up the experiences of people with disabilities whose voices have been typically overlooked in the study of the ancient world. This program bridges the past and present through study of disability in antiquity, its contemporary reception, accessibility, and its continuing impact today. Contributing to a more nuanced, inclusive, and complete narrative of the past. So, today I have the distinct pleasure of introducing our speaker, Dr. Hulisani Ramantswana is Professor of Old Testament at the University of South Africa, and chief editor of Old Testament Essays. His research interests encompass decolonial and postcolonial readings of the Bible, black theology, African biblical hermeneutics, biblical theology, and translated Bible Bibles in the African context. Today, Dr. Ramantswana's talk is titled Disability in the David Narratives in light of armed conflict in Africa. Welcome, Dr. uh Huli, and the floor is yours. Thank you very much. Uh it's a pleasure and an honor for me to be here and to be part of this uh lecture series. And as you have already indicated, the topic for my lecture is disability in the David narrative narrative in light of armed conflict in Africa. Armed conflicts, be it in Africa or anywhere else in the world, whether viewed positively as a means of conflict resolution in the face of deadlock or struggle for freedom, or negatively as an act of violence or oppression, or suppression, require bodies for injury. Armed conflict, be it for the good or for the bad, are more than just sites of violence, destruction, scars, torture, rape, and death. They are also sites of disability production through direct and indirect causes. At the geopolitical level, armed conflicts also serve as imperial tools to establish and sustain relationships of subordination and domination, not just through killing, but also through injury and the weakening of the other. That is, disabling the other in order to gain control of this of the other's resources and control of the other. Following Mikosha, Pour, Siebers, and others, disability does not have to be viewed simply as a physiological condition. Disability is also a result of which renders certain people as targets for injury and impairment through structural and systematic poverty, war, and colonization. Disability in the decolonial or postcolonial framework is also a lens for examining the dynamics of colonialism and imperialism as a system of disablement or weakening of the other. For the purpose of this lecture, I intend to reflect on the Davidic narrative in light of Africa's experiences with armed conflict as a tool that not only produces disabled bodies on the continent, but also as an imperial tool that systematically keeps Africa impaired. However, my intention is not to reflect on the Davidic narrative in general, but specifically on the disability of Mephibosheth, the surviving son of Jonathan, and a grandson of Israel's first king, Saul, in order to draw an understanding of Mephibosheth's disability, I will also rely on the ancient Near Eastern sources that highlight the imperial dynamics in the production of disability in the context of armed conflicts. The Davidic narrative spans from 1 Samuel chapter 16 to 1 Kings chapter 2 verse 11, beginning with the anointing of young David and ending with David's death. It should be noted, however, that the Davidic Davidic narrative is at the same time interwoven with Saul's narrative, which spans from 1 Samuel chapter 9 to 2 Samuel chapter 21 verse 7, beginning with the anointing of Saul and concluding with the burial of Saul and his son, Jonathan. The relationship between the two figures, Saul and David, is presented as one which evolved from peaceful relations to armed conflict. The disability of Mephibosheth in this case has to be understood and viewed within that context. When David is first introduced to Saul, he is presented as a multi-talented character. In uh 1 Samuel chapter 16 verse 18, uh in the JPS, it reads as follows, "Then answered one of the young men and said, 'Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse, the Bethlehemite, that is skillful in playing, and a mighty man of valor, and a man of war, and prudent in affairs, and a comely person, and the Lord is with him.'" However, from the narrative flow, the introduction of David to Saul and Saul's embrace of David of David already spells disaster. The seed of conflict has been sown already. David is already anointed, which leads to the question, was he not looking for an opportunity to supplant Saul from the onset? However, the pro-Davidic slant in the narrative projected Saul as a failed king whom Adonai had already rejected. Furthermore, the pro-Davidic slant further advances the idea that Jonathan, who in the narrative flow was supposed to be the successor of Saul to the throne, was willing to give up his right to allow David to take his place. The problem with such a narrative line is that it does not reflect what will naturally unfold in the royal families. Saul, the first king of Israel, like any other king in the ancient Near Eastern context, would have wanted to establish a dynasty. The idea of dynasties is also expressed in Judges chapter 8 verse 22 to 23, which reflects the wishes of the people during the tribal society. Therefore, it is also reasonable that Saul, who would have would have hoped to build a dynasty, as 1 Samuel chapter 13:13 alluded. Furthermore, Saul also warned his son, Jonathan, his potential successor, of the danger that both David posed to the establishment of the Saulite dynasty. As the narrative suggests, the conflict between Saul and David eventually led to the rise of two kingdoms. What started as an interstate armed conflict developed into an interstate armed conflict when David established himself as a king among his fellow Judahites, founding a small kingdom of Judah alongside the kingdom of Israel with which Saul, a Benjamite, a Benjamite founded. The death of Saul and his son Jonathan in the armed conflict with the Philistines would have brought chaos to the royal house at various level. First, chaos would have erupted within the royal house regarding who would take over the reign. The king and his other potential successors, Jonathan and the other two unnamed sons were dead, leaving the other sons to contend for the throne. The installation of Ish-bosheth by the army commander who went on to rule all Israel was likely to end the power struggle. This is considering that other brothers may have annexed some areas and crowned themselves kings. Second, the house the houses of Saul and David continued to engage in violent confrontations. The narrative highlights that there was a continuing armed conflict between the royal houses of Saul and of David. In 2 Samuel chapter 3 verse 1, the reader is informed that the war between the house of Saul and the house lasted a long time. David grew stronger and stronger, while the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker. The narrative then introduces Mephibosheth as a digression to the main plot. When Ish-bosheth was murdered and his head delivered to King David, who was from Hebron, the murder of King Ish-bosheth finally opened room for King David to take over the kingship of all the tribes of Israel. At this point, the reader is informed of Mephibosheth's disability, which happened when he was five, the time when Saul and Jonathan died in the war with the Philistines. The disability of Mephibosheth is described as follows in 2 Samuel chapter 4 verse 4. Jonathan, son of Saul, had a son who was lame in both feet. He was five years old when the news about Saul and Jonathan came from Jezreel. His nurse picked him up and fled, but as she hurried to leave, he fell and became crippled. His name was Mephibosheth. The disability of Mephibosheth was not a temporary injury, but a permanent injury, which implied that from that point, he was lame his entire life. While the disability of Mephibosheth is presented as an unfortunately unfortunate accident in this verse, the overall story suggests that there is more to it than meets the eye. The context within which Mephibosheth, an able child at the time, became disabled matter. It was in the context of armed conflict that Mephibosheth became paralyzed. While the in to children as victims of war. The Mephibosheth disability incident should be viewed as something that occurred among the privileged in society, the royal house. Therefore, it may just as symptomatic of the plight of many children during during armed conflict in ancient Israel and broadly. Who would have care and treatment Mephibosheth would have had. Would not have had the care and treatment Mephibosheth would have had. In the ancient context, children lost their parents and their abilities. And those who escaped with their lives in case of defeat were not just displaced. Others were enslaved. The girl children having to suffer from sexual violations and rape and forced marriages. The devastating consequences of armed conflict on children are not confined to ancient narratives. A study on the Libyan conflict between 2012 and 2017 established that there was a total of 16,126 deaths and 43,633 injuries resulting from the conflict. Most disabilities in that case were attributed to blasts. Another study on the epidemiology of injuries sustained in armed conflict highlight that civilians suffer immensely with children accounting for 34.7 of the injured, with blasts the primary cause of extreme injuries. In 25 October 2026, Save the Children reported regarding Israel's war on Gaza that at least 1,009 of the children killed were under the age of one, with nearly half of these babies born and killed during the war. At least 42,011 of the children have been injured. And according to the UN Committee on Rights of Persons with Disabilities reporting, at least 21,000 children left permanently disabled. [clears throat] Thousands more missing or presumed buried under the rubble. In the recent US-Israel war on Iran, the bombing of a school in Iran resulted in the death of 165 girls. Such a war war crime draws attention not only to the lives lost, but also raises urgent questions about the fate and well-being of the survivors. The psychological and physical toll on those who endure such attacks is immeasurable, echoing the ongoing plight faced by children in conflict zones throughout history and into the present day Africa and elsewhere. Children living in armed conflict situations like Mephibosheth get injured and some eventually die. Therefore, the disabilities of children emanating from war stand out as a symbol of terror. The underreporting and non-reporting of the impact of war of wars on children prevent us from realizing the true cost of war. Just as Mephibosheth was kept in hiding and many of the children who are victims of our modern wars are kept out of our sight and their plight is not considered worth reporting on. The disability of Mephibosheth does not have to be viewed simply as an accident, but should also be viewed as an act of maiming that would have resulted not simply from the fall, but likely from the trampling of those who knew who he was, a grandson of Saul and a potential heir to the throne. The disability of Mephibosheth would have served those who desired it in order to project it as a shame to Saul's royal house. In 1 Samuel chapter 11 verse 1 to 11, Nahash the Ammonite threatened to make a covenant with Jabesh-Gileadites through mutilation. And there we read, "On this condition, I will make a treaty with you, namely that I gouge out everyone's right eye and thus put disgrace [clears throat] upon all Israel." As Lemon notes, this text explicitly states that it is a desire to shame the Israelites that moves Nahash to mutilate them. Other Old Testament examples of those maimed include Samson, who when caught by the Philistines, they gouged out his eyes. Another example is that of King Zedekiah, who when the Babylonians captured him, killed his sons before his eyes and then proceeded to gouge out his eyes. These maimed leaders are left to live and imprisoned. The Balawat gate of Shalmaneser III depicts prisoners of war being tortured and mutilated. The Assyrian Empire was notorious for its brutal treatment of captives, inflicting severe torture and humiliation upon those they conquered. The reputation for cruelty was so profound that individuals who faced the prospect of falling into Assyrian hands often considered death preferable to the suffering that awaited them. In some instances, suicide became a means of escaping such a fate. In a royal inscription at attributed to Ashurnasirpal II, it describes the brutal treatment of a rebellious city as follows: "In strife and conflict, I besieged and conquered the city. I felled 3,000 of their fighting men with the sword. I captured many troops alive. I cut off some I cut off some their arms and hands. [clears throat] I cut off others their noses, ears, and extremities. I gouged out the eyes of many troops. I made one pile of the living and one of the heads. I hung their heads on trees and around the city. Thus, in the ancient Near Eastern context of armed conflict, the maiming was intended to bring shame to the conquered and to serve as a symbol of terror for those who refused to give in or for those who rebelled and to deter others. David's act David's actions towards Mephibosheth are framed as acts of kindness, fulfilling his oath to Jonathan. However, beneath the surface, these actions bear troubling issues. When Mephibosheth is invited to the royal house, the psychological damage has already been done. Mephibosheth views himself as a dead dog, signifying that he perceived of himself as insignificant and not a threat to David at all. And this due to his disabilities, meaning that he was incapable of gathering an army to challenge David's rule. Living in close proximity to the king thus placed Mephibosheth in a position where he was living on a knife's edge. David's kindness, which includes returning Saul's property and moving Mephibosheth from the margins to the royal center to dine at the king's table, appears at first glance as genuine benevolent. Yet, this kindness embodies an imperial tactic, disabling individuals so that they can become dependent on those who disabled them. As Seedal notes, some military leaders will prefer wounding rather than killing opponents as it forces their adversaries to expand valuable resources caring for the wounded. David's approach keeps Mephibosheth under constant surveil- surveillance, reliant on David and positioned for potential failure or elimination. After his servant, Ziba, accuses him of plotting to restore Saul's house, Mephibosheth's lands are transferred to Ziba, effectively reversing the earlier kindness. According to Roos, David's later actions make his earlier benevolence questionable, reducing Mephibosheth to a victim once again. Drawing on Roos' biopolitics of debilitation, Mephibosheth's disability should not be seen merely as an individual trait, but as a collective experience. The biopolitics of debilitation challenges the notion of simply identifying disabled individuals for care while overlooking the broader material conditions that intentionally intentionally populations. This concept calls for a reframing of disability within the context of deliberate tactics designed to create and maintain debilitated populations. If Mephibosheth, Saul's grandson, who likely had access to the best care, was injured, it raises questions about how many others were wounded and dispossessed during shifts in power, especially following the assassinations and subsequent seizures of estates. David's approach to Saul's family, with its claim to kingship, involved maiming, redistribution of property, and taking lives. David's imperial tactics included both violence and displays of kindness, especially towards Mephibosheth, whose disability served to keep Saul's household household debilitated and David in power. While David presented himself as a benevolent in seeking solutions for Mephibosheth, his actions were also implicated in the events that rendered Mephibosheth disabled. Some scholars, like um Some scholars link Mephibosheth's disability to the interpretation of 2 Samuel chapter 5 verse 8b, "The lame blind and the lame will not enter the house." Some argued that the lame represents the failure of the northern kingdom, Israel, embodied by Mephibosheth, while the blind represents the downfall of the southern kingdom, Judah, represented by Zedekiah, a Davidic king. The Samuel-Kings narrative uses disability imagery to highlight the decline of both Israel and Judah. David's treatment of Mephibosheth mirrors imperial tactics, inflicting injury while simultaneously showing kindness to maintain subjugation. The empire holds the power to injure and let live, as seen with Mephibosheth, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. The David-Mephibosheth story operates within the imperial ideology of injury and benevolence, casting the Davidic figure in the image of the Babylonian Empire. Thus, caution is necessary when interpreting David's actions as exemplary for treatment of people with disabilities. In the African context, armed conflicts have produced many disabilities through imperial tactics designed to keep states reliant on their former on the former colonial powers. These conflicts are often fueled and supported by external actors. Most African nations are consumers, not producers of arms, ensuring ensuring that violence persist. The biopolitics of debilitation must include international arms trade. As major suppliers, the USA, UK, China, Russia enable disability and impede progress. Africans must remain vigilant against imperialistic tendency from Euro-Western and rising powers whose objectives may be to disable rather than empower. The biblical story of David and Mephibosheth serves as a warning against such tactics such tactics. As Roos contends, redeeming Mephibosheth's identity requires rescuing the marginalized from external manipulation. In decolonial terms, disabilities resulting from armed conflict in chil- in children are largely the result of imperial powers. Though self-in- inflicted realities such as power struggles, corruption, and illegal trade by elites and cartels cannot be denied. The David narrative is ideologically infused with imperial ideology. Therefore, the disabilities highlighted in the narrative are not innocent disabilities, but rather reflect a violent imperial logic. Maiming, debilitation, and dependency are deliberate tactics of the empire, ancient and modern. The Mephibosheth's disability highlights children's disabilities in armed conflicts. It is the often neglected and untold stories of children as victims of armed conflict which are the terror of armed conflicts. Reading the Da- the Davidic narrative through disability and decolonial frameworks exposes the violence and terror underlying the narrative. Thank you. Wow, uh Dr. Ramantswana, thank you so much for that uh fascinating and inspiring talk. Um Yes, many many clapping hands. I love to see that. Um do you mind uh stopping sharing your screen uh and then we can invite audience members to ask questions? I I might be able to do it as well. Yeah. Yeah, all right, let's see. Okay. Yeah, perfect. Okay, so I'll just uh ask if there's anyone in the audience um who has a question uh for our presenter, uh if they could unmute themselves and also um turn on their videos and ask their questions directly. Um or maybe first raise your hand um either um using the reactions part of the the Zoom or, you know, you can uh um turn on your video and raise your hand as well. Um if none of our uh guests who are watching live have a question, um I could um first of all, I want to thank you. That was uh a really stimulating talk. Um but I wondered if you care to comment on because both Mephibosheth, who was of course the focus of your talk, but also his father, Ish-bosheth, uh have unusual names. And so if you might comment about the last part, the bosheth part of their names, I think that might inform our audience about another aspect uh to the to the theme that you were talking about. Yeah. And I did not really get into it. I think it's something that one will have to look into closely. Uh and and as you say, um I will look into it and I will consider it and see how I can expand on that. Thank you. Thank you so much. Right. Um So because So my understanding, I just to follow up a little bit, if you don't mind me making a comment or two, um those names are actually changed by um uh by the writers. And so the bosheth part actually originally was uh the um theophoric name Baal or Bale. So and I think somewhere in Chronicles, right? Uh instead of Ish-bosheth, we have Ish-baal. Mhm. So presumably, Mephibosheth was originally Mephibaal, but the bosheth part actually means shame in Hebrew and so is added on because the writers at the time viewed that uh element related to a different deity, the um indigenous storm god Baal or Bale, uh as being uh an act of shame. And so bosheth replaces Baal um as uh as a commentary on whoever did the naming uh of both of those characters. And in a lot of ways, that really supports, you know, your um beautiful interpretation of the the maiming also bringing shame, and not only to you know, to Ish- uh um I'm sorry, Mephibosheth, um but also to the family, right? Because right, he's a a course a descendant, I mean, in this case most importantly, uh of Saul. And so as a rival, you know, to the throne, there's uh you know, these writers are sort of shaming not just the character, but also the family and the family line. So I thank you. Your talk really opened that up for all of, yeah, for for me too. Um so I'll just take a a moment and see. I don't think anybody um we have several in the audience, but nobody's raising their hand or coming onto camera. Um well, in that case, I will just again thank you so much for such a stimulating presentation uh and such a wonderful example of, you know, unpacking these ideas around disability for the ancient world and how of course there are parallels in modern Africa, but also so many differences as well. So thank you. Thank you so much. And I did um want to take a a moment and just say by way of uh concluding this presentation that I'd like to inform our audience uh of actually our next two talks in this lecture series because they're both in April. On April 1st, uh which is a Wednesday, which is unusual. We usually have things on Thursday, but on Wednesday, April 1st 1st, uh at 4:30 p.m. California time or Pacific Standard Time, uh which is Thursday, 9:30 a.m. in Australia, um our presenter, who is based in Australia, Hannah Vogel, uh will give a talk titled Ableism When Accessing the Past, Studies of Disability in the Ancient World. And then the following week, uh on the 9th of April, which is a Thursday, at 9:30 a.m. Pacific Standard Time, uh Karina Guerrero will give a talk entitled Physical Witness, Atrocity uh versus Disability in the Hebrew Bible. So we have another Hebrew Bible a talk coming up um on April 9th. Uh and just uh as a way of concluding, I'd also like to ask our audience that's going to see this video uh on YouTube, uh to please follow the QR code uh that we are going to put below in the comments section uh in order to support future presentations like this marvelous one that we heard today uh from Dr. Ramantswana. Oh, we do maybe have a question now. I'm sorry. We can't quite conclude if that's okay. Uh Huley um Hombana, would you like to unmute yourself and ask your question? Thank you. Thank you so much. Uh sorry for the delay. That was struggling with technology. Yeah. Uh mine, perhaps, it's really not a question, maybe a comment, uh particularly in relation to the power dynamics attached to the naming. Mhm. Uh especially considering the South African context Yeah. and the [clears throat] uh past apartheid laws uh where since um those who were in power at the time could not pronounce our native indigenous names. Uh through their imperial power will grant us names that are foreign to our own people, which later became even surnames to this day. Uh you know, like the Roy Butts. That's a closer surname to this day. And if you trace back where this comes from, you know, and what in interesting is that it has some power dynamics in it and at the same time identity issues, which to some extent those identities have been lost in the process. You know, and uh yeah, so with with regards to this naming part, which I think uh the colonizers have have have used uh extensively in Africa uh to eliminate uh certain ideas and identities that still uh exist to this day, you know. >> [clears throat] >> So, I was just fascinated by this aspect of naming and and and uh power dynamics are related to. So, perhaps just that small contribution to the discussion. To to to point out that these realities where the colonizers uh >> [clears throat] >> come up with these uh aspects of things to to to this day. And we have those names, we have those surnames that we live with, which makes us even to be difficult to trace back what were the original surnames and the original names of our ancestors. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you. >> Thank you so much, Hombana Hombana. Um Hulisani, would you like to reply? Or do you have another comment perhaps following that? Yeah, I I I I guess I agree with uh what uh Dr. Hombana was saying that uh there is a sense of uh erasure in in in naming. Um uh or renaming. Uh the power dynamics that you are talking about. Um and the intention basically is to weaken uh one's identity uh in that process. Uh and and you are correct in that. Wow, thank you. Such a a rich um set of observations. Uh Ndiko, please. It's your turn. Uh Ndiko, are you Yes, okay. Uh thank you so much um uh Prof. Ramantswana for the wonderful presentation and the manner in which you addressed the issue of um disability um in the in the Hebrew Bible. Um my curiosity or a question um is um how would one um relate um this text to to to Deuteronomy 28? Um especially um verses um 28. Um 28 28 um in Deuteronomy that we uh um given a what Deuteronomy 28:28 reads. Of course, it's in the context of the the blessings and the curses um when um one is um disobedient to the to the law of Yahweh. Um right there in verse 28, it it says the Lord will afflict you with madness, um blindness, and confusion of mind. And of course, it goes further and further. Even before 28, there are some um afflictions that comes um from from from from from God. Um how would you then relate the story of Mephibosheth with this text from Deuteronomy? And um and and and what would you say um because here it seems as if this disability, blindness, and all that comes actually from the Lord uh from God. Um um is is is God the afflicting of blindness [clears throat] as we have it? Um yeah, how do you address um that problem of a God um who seems to be the afflicter of the actual disability? Thank you so much. Yeah. Um thank you very much for uh what you have raised. And I guess uh in reading this text, one has to be aware, as I have said with regard to the Davidic narrative, of the ideologies behind this text. Uh and in this case, you have an issue where uh things like blindness are attributed to curses. Um and do we really have to view, for example, uh Mephibosheth's situation as [clears throat] an element of a curse upon his life? Uh and my reading uh will be different. Is that I will not draw such a line between this text and that text. Rather, I will highlight the dynamics behind uh that text. And for me, the dynamics behind the Davidic narrative um are those of imperial ideology, which uh were intended to uh put those who are disabled uh in a situation where uh it's as if they can't come out and they are dispossessed of their property. Uh and therefore, we don't necessarily have to see everything as if uh it is God's doing. Uh and perhaps uh in such a reading, uh we are able to even uh have a corrective of some of these perspectives, which will just render uh the divine being as the one who has inflicted or will inflict um uh such as curses. It It is not always as curses. Uh it also comes as a result of human actions. Mhm. Wow. Um well, thank both of our Thanks to both of our audience members for those uh brilliant questions and comments. It really has enriched um this presentation. Uh and uh before I let you all go, I just wanted to insert again, sorry, uh but um my own comment, which has to do with, you know, names in general, not just in um uh in ancient Israel, but in other ancient uh Middle Eastern countries, um you know, that have that were seen as a way of blessing the child uh at its birth. And I'll just lift up the example we already spoke about, which is actually uh Mephibosheth's father, uh Ishbosheth. So, if you look at his original name, Ishbaal, which was changed later by editors to Ishbosheth. Ishbaal literally means the man of Baal, or the man of the storm god, or the or the person. So, it's a way of dedicating this young child um just after birth to the divine. Um and I I I'm not familiar with African naming traditions, but um there may be some similarities among, let's just say, you know, traditional cultures around the globe today. Um and then also as a way of of comment, I think following up on Dr. Hombana's um uh astute comments, which is that there are also many cultures um that are under empire where they choose a second name or they have two names, actually. One where they can interact with imperial uh peoples and forces because it's a name that's, you know, understandable by the empire, and then one that is understandable by their culture. So, and I'm thinking it's still a practice among uh modern Jewish populations to have a name related to the language of the culture in which they live. Um so, I can just use myself as an example. I'm here in the United States, and my name in English is Aaron. You can see that in the bottom of my um my Zoom screen. Uh you know, but in Hebrew, it's Aharon, which is different. It's the same name. So, if I'm speaking with Hebrew speakers, I can use my Hebrew name. Whereas, if I'm speaking with English speakers, I use my Anglicized name or my English name. Um so, I just wanted to add that to the richness of this conversation. And again, to thank uh our live audience and to let everybody know um that as soon as this uh video is transcribed, uh it will be posted on both the Badè Museums um YouTube channel. Uh just look under Badè Museum of Biblical Archaeology or it's also going to be on the Archaeological Research Facility at the University of California, Berkeley's YouTube channel. So, it'll be available uh to watch uh on the internet, okay? Again, I'd like to conclude by thanking Dr. Ramatswana uh and giving him a big hand. Thank you very much. Yeah. Yay. And um let's see. I think to ask uh folks if they could stop the recording, please.