 Yeah, sorry, I'm not René Olraud. René Olraud just ended in his PhD and after that got ill, so last week unfortunately. And actually we would have made a presentation together, but in this way this was not possible and I just recycled some slides to give you an impression of what a prehistoric archaeologist who usually does not deal with urbanization. Sometimes thinks if he or she discovers very large sites. So such large sites exist in European prehistory, for example near Sevilla or around 3000 BC or 3300 BC, but they also pop up for example in the Ukrainian and Moldavian area in societies which are labeled Tricholje and research just talked around 3900 to 3700 BC. So it's a relatively short story of maybe 10, 15 generations and then this kind of giant settlements or mega sites disappears again and at Key University a research project since some years is installed in the collaborative research center states of transformation dealing with these different sites. So as a prehistorian archaeologist, I, not me, but for me it was very important that there are many different concepts of urbanization. I mean we are talking about the Oriental concept or the Islamic concept in classical Greek about a different concept that the European concept or the Hindi concept or an African concept. So many different concepts of urbanization and what is a city or what is a town are fluttering around in the world and I think if we don't come up with a how should I call it westernness or just European or white European approach we should consider all these different concepts and at least for me it became quite clear that within all these concepts it seems to be that idolized planning of towns or cities is at least very important for terminology which uses then later on the notion city, town or whatever. And in my presentation I would like to focus a little bit on three aspects of these different concepts. So okay the acclimation of population in cities as central places or whatever, the institutionalization of traditions within these huge places and maybe the centralization of power which might be a mean which is taken over within such huge complexes. If we look at European prehistory or proto history between let's say 6000 BC and 500 BC and if we map the biggest sites which are known in relation to population reconstructions it seems to be quite clear that at least before 1000 BC the figures from the Near East with 10,000, 100,000 and more inhabitants in one city for example never were reached in European prehistory that in Scandinavia and Central Europe and Southeast Europe for example we are dealing with population figures below let's say 2000 inhabitants. There might be one exception and this is the exception I think you will talk about later and me also this north Pontic region where the gathering or the living of up to 10,000 people for example might existed for this short period and reaching this numbers here from from near eastern from the near eastern area and it's probably a political decision which was taken over by these people to to end up with this accumulation again and to be like a food not in history without any how should I say it innovative approach to further history but nevertheless it's very interesting at least for a prehistoric archaeologist we are getting into this area here with up to 10,000 inhabitants of this area around 3700-3800 BC it's in our research areas on the one hand here in central Ukraine in Moldavia it's nice because it's a kind of degrowth for us it's nice but for the people there it's very difficult and the in contrast for example to medieval cities or whatever these are these are the places or this is a place my own excavation excavate and where the geomagnetic of the Rymysch-Germanische Kommission and also of Kyiv University with 20 sites was a kind of eye-opener and confirmed the Soviet research which already in the 1970s documented somehow this big site by geomagnetic methods that was never reached and never recepted recepted in the western world but this was confirmed by these geomagnetic results and and if you look at at such a topographic map these are 10 kilometers these sites they have a size sometimes of 1.5 kilometer of up to 360 360 hectare in size and if we get a little bit closer it's quite clear that for example Maidan-nes-Tajanki and some other sites existed contemporary in a distance of 15 kilometer but it's also clear I don't want to go into detail at least and that's our primary research result the carrying capacity of this very fertile area was never reached so it seems not to be the case that environmental problem was responsible for later on the crash of these sites okay this is a geomagnetic view of for example Maidan-nes-Tajanki with its different geophysical features it looks like an American parking lot or a hippie festival and some people have a hippie ideology about this but these are houses these are houses with rubbish pits sometimes of 10 meter in diameter and 4 meter deep the amount of rubbish which the people left here is enormous and these these are if you're excavated you can't excavate that what what what is necessary to do to excavate some structures and then with test trenches or target trenches to to come up with seafolding dates or other dating materials to discuss for example the contemporaneity of this concept I mean it's a concept which is clear visible of these different grains of houses with these these rubbish pits where this immense material of living there is a problem for us archaeologists because many teams don't analyze these amounts of material here we try to do that and it is quite clear that we are dealing with 3000 houses for example here in Maidan-nes of which for example probably 1000-2000 existed contemporary so that we are coming up with about population figures between 7000 and 15000 inhabitants there is an empty space in the center we did some trenches there some sedimentological analysis it's empty so that's it and there are some rings you could also discover some track ways and so on and so on you also discover some ditches and you discover some violent houses or structures and closures which are different from the other houses it's a question what kind of organization what kind of principle was behind such a I don't know town no it's it's not urban it's agrarian I mean urban could be agrarian and so on and so on but it's our botanists and and the archaeologists and osteologists we are dealing with a typical neolithic agricultural site here only the size is tremendous and the excavation is very hard somehow we have now about 350 c14 dates from these different sites with the variation approach it's possible to say that these remains of the houses principle it's not necessary to excavate then because you have such nice models which you could find there but if you excavate there it's fun and you could reconstruct really what is also visible in the models fireplaces relaxing areas in the houses we are dealing with household economies here with a clear waste system and so on and some communal activities differences between the houses in respect to the integration into subsistence production and that's my last point or less also craftsmanship is visible there there are these kilns three channeled kilns were excavated by us here and are excavated now by colleagues from side to side there are already I think about 25 of these kilns now excavated which are very elaborated you could compare them with the kilns in Germany for example in the römische kaiserzeit or in the early medieval period this is not the household production that's a different kind of production and within meadow nests there are some indications that kind of quarter was possibly or at least the kind of secularization of this fine ceramic production in these kilns so that's a kind of tendency and how to govern such the place so to make it short there are these kinds of enclosures or megastructures they are called they are here in this public spaces and they are known not only from this big sites but also from earlier sites which are which had a more dispersed settlement pattern they probably link somehow quarters within this oh this one slide missing doesn't matter they probably link special quarters within this megastructure but beside this kind of archaeological evidence here also in this communal area it's quite clear we are dealing with different decision processes and different identities there of the people I don't want to go into detail here but there is no indication of the central institution at the moment at least it seems to be that that's the big difference for example to the development in mesopotamia in contemporary uruk where you end up with this public places and temples and the decision to have a state to have a bureaucracy to come up with all these nice things we have to deal with nowadays they didn't want it and around 3700 pc the whole site was left it was an acclomeration of people of 10 000 people without any other satellite sites or smaller sites in the hinterland and they decided again to live them in a dispersed settlement and I mean prehistoric times are times when the the division between profan and ritual life is not so clear and every activity which is an economic or political activity is at the same time a ritual activity and you could see this in the background of a painting or photo montage with a legezine in the museum it's rising the fires up to new york but in maydanetsk it's a two days there is this talk talk it's the deep road situation which might be nice for hippies but which is really very very difficult for the people who live there now and okay i have the wrong presentation that's it it's all published in a volume 2017 here of the european association