 So, what we need to explain, we are not kind of conference maniacs, but we are here, but I think this is a very interesting example of how we can combine anthropological and archaeological data, because in my impression when I look at the own fields of publications is that we treat anthropologists like a table provider. And the problem is also that archaeologists believe this data, they really believe these tables, but what Garzina wanted to show is that this data can be easily modelled and actually the final results and also the whole knowledge production process should be discussed. So, we want to show you the case study from the China, which I think is a very interesting example of this cooperation about cooperation of anthropological and archaeological data. So, I'll just make a short introduction and Garzina will continue. So, what we wanted to see was the connection between the deceased population and the living population. And also what we did, our assumption was that graves, even the own field graves, they really differ and we can find these differences of course. And also, can we speak about social stratification only about only basic archaeological data? This is also only on the archaeological data obtained from the graves only. This is also the problem, because this is very general question. Is this real world of the dead people, which is as much stratified as the world of the living population? And also, how can we effectively compare the archaeological and anthropological data? And also, what kind of variables can be taken into consideration when we are looking for some social stratification? And also, is there a link between biological quality and grave apparatus? So, this is just some detailed aims. We took two features of these graves. I will show you why, because they are very not interesting. Because archaeological data is selection of grave goods and we focus only on two things. One was metal objects and mammal number of vessels and also type of grave pits. Because when we look at this cemetery, it looks very much all the graves were the same and the only differences were number of graves and there were some metals, very very few and also some had this chambers and some had not. So, I think there are only variables that can be studied. And also, we have human remains. I use my coffee break to calculate the children graves and we have 137 children graves from this. But this is not total number. The total number is more than 600, but some of the graves which were partly destroyed we are not sure if this bones belong to this grave or that grave were just excluded from the test because the site was excavated 40 years ago or even 50 years ago. It's famous for the fortified site and for the really huge fortifications. And what is very interesting for us that is one of the best dental chronological data at archaeological sites in Poland. So, we have very clear chronology of the settlement and also of the cemetery because the settlement was destroyed and we know exactly when it was abandoned and never settled again and the same was with the cemetery. It was not used again after this date of the mid-6th century BC. So, this is what we have and we look at the chamber graves. So, you can see we don't have the actual remains of the wood, but we can see the very suggestive shape of the outline of the pot and we have some analogies from Brandenburg, from Billentofkultur when these chambers are observed in the excavations. And also, Greggs are mostly pottery. So, from the archaeological point of view, when you want to tell the status, this is the worst situation because the metals we have are very, very poor. This is also interesting because when you look, there are only pins and most of them were fragmented, were bent before the position because even just very fragmented, like the heads only or missing tips or just some parts, they were bent. So, this is also an interesting situation and when we don't have like pins, we have metal lamps which might be pins also cremated together with the body. Just for comparison that these metals, there were so few in the Greggs, not because these people didn't know how to make metal objects, they did. These are some examples from the settlement context and also the area is surrounded with bronze deposits. So, you can see the work on iron and gold and bronze, of course. So, what we have, we wanted to check, can we measure the status, the possible status of this population combining this, comparing this archaeological features like grave chambers, metals and minimum number of vessels and some biological indicators. And this is good enough. So, we use the individual information concerning age of death and this cultural data consists of minimum number of vessels, present or lack of chamber, grave chamber and metal objects. And for this data set, I have selected some statistical methods, cheese square paste, Kaplan-Meier survival function which was discussed earlier during the morning presentation and Cox proportional hazard models in order to capture which of these social and cultural variables we have focused on influence the age of death and which of them had the strongest impact on age of death. Age categories, we have the following age categories of children and adults. As I said earlier, adults who started at age of 15 and social strata. So, we assume that these variables were a proximal social stratification. So, minimum numbers of vessels and for two models, the first three categories and then two categories, 1, 9, then 10, 19 vessels and equal and higher than 20 vessels, 1, 9 and more than equal or higher than 10 vessels. Presence of a chamber or lack of chamber and presence of metal objects and lack of metal objects. So, our proposal of these variables as a proximal social stratification of the population are studied. And this slide presents the distribution of minimal number of vessels according to child and adult age categories. So, as we can see, the first model, three variables of minimal numbers of vessels or three categories of minimal number of vessels and the proportion of the distribution of the minimal numbers of vessels in children and adults. And the second model, two categories of minimal numbers of vessels and children adults and the general conclusion as follows. Greater minimal number of vessels occurred in adults' graves more frequently than in children ones. So, for example, 1, 9 vessels were represented in 72 percent in children's graves but almost 88 in adults' graves. In the second model, 72 percent of one, two minimal numbers of vessels were represented in, or occurred in children's graves but 75.5 percent in adult ones. So, statistical significant distribution in the light of two square tests of minimal numbers of vessels according to children and adults' graves. Here, survival probability, I discussed this slide earlier. It provides information about what the fraction of individuals survived to age X. So, here again, to the onset of reproduction, conventionally, the age of 15 survived 50 percent of people up to the age of 30, for example, 40 percent of people, et cetera. But what is characteristic is the fact that the number of vessels, the minimal number of vessels, distinguished survival probability, estimated survival probability and differences in the estimated survival probability according to the number of vessels contained by two square tests, the statistical significance. So, in general, the greater number of vessels, the higher survival probability. So, for example, in the situation where there were 20 more vessels to the onset of reproduction survived over 90 percent of people, but for example, when the vessels were between one and nine, the first category, 50 percent less or 40 percent of people. So, a kind of stratification in the bracket stratification in survival probability according to minimal number of vessels. Then, according to the presence or lack of chamber, and here again, Gahan generalized Wilcoxon test, confirms significant differences in estimated survival probability. So, the first situation, presence of a chamber to the onset of maturation survived over 70 percent of people, but the first situation without presence of a chamber, 50 percent of them, so significantly less. But lack of differences in the right of statistical test in estimated survival probability according to presence of metal objects or lack of metal objects. So, here, in this case, the fact of occurrence of metal objects in a grave did not influence estimated survival probability. And the second question was, so if there is a group of cultural variables influencing survival probability, which of them had the strongest impact on aged dead? For this, we used cox proportional hazard methods, these three cultural variables. First, I checked the impact of minimal numbers of vessels on aged dead, and then I added next and next cultural variables. So, finally, we have three cultural variables, and let's focus on this red marked line, the strongest impact, statistically significant impact on aged dead was caused by minimal number of vessels. What is characteristic is the p-value here and world statistic p.5.6. So, the strongest impact on aged dead, minimal numbers of vessels was the only factor significantly influencing aged dead. Let's sum up, minimal numbers of vessels occurred more frequently in adult graves than in children ones. Survival analysis, the Kaplan-Meier curve confirmed the impact of minimal numbers of vessels on, and the presence of the chamber on survival probability. There was lack of such impact in the case of metal objects. And finally, cox method, cox proportional hazard models showed that the first variable, minimal numbers of vessels had the strongest impact, was the strongest socio-economic factor or social factor affecting aged dead of individuals. So, that's the group of researchers focusing on this topic. Thank you very much for your attention.