 Let's change the scale. It is well known that in the first half of the first millennium BC, travel and colonization in the Mediterranean were taken up by different societies that had grown up on its shores in a movement spreading from east to west. One key feature of the ancient Mediterranean world is its cosmopolitan nature, created by decades of interaction between peoples from different regions with distinctive cultural backgrounds. In this era of ever increasing connectivity at both regional and interregional levels, material culture can reflect the movement of people who took with them their own identities and mentalities. The second key note for cues on the religious practices of the Ubyans abroad along the sea routes in the Mediterranean area. The question is if the characteristics of Greek sacrificial practices outside the immediate Greek sphere can be traced through the archaeological evidence. Sacrificial practices are part of the complex system of identities which a person can display in an ancient society. Their appreciation would allow us not only to better trace the passage of and the installation of incomers of any peoples around the Mediterranean, but also in the case of their settling, any noticeable regional variation rising in the organization of the parent cultural, political and economic forms. And secondly to gauge the phenomenon of acculturation and or of appropriation in the complex ritual mechanism of interaction, integration that brought together different groups and communities through collective religious experiences expressed in communal practice. Many of these developments will of course be seen through the prism of Greece changing world. The formation of the city-states seems to have been a long process that experienced various shifts in its focus. It apparently started in the 8th century, not to say before, and was developed in the 7th century with community bonds being achieved by commensality, the communal drinking, a feasting in temples, eras and other public buildings and spaces as as bestowed in heritory, chariots and horribles. The ritual practices of the Greeks, foremost to Sia, sacrifice, where the thick bones and tails were calcinated, leave highly distinct traces in the archaeological encode in the immediate worksfair, and the assemblages issued from Ubiacentraries are among the best examples. The Sanctuary of Apoludaphneforos, the nearby sacrificial area perhaps dedicated to Artemis, the Sanctuary of Athena at the top of the Acropolis in Eretria, and the Sanctuary of Artemis Amaricia in the Coral at Amontos, as well as the ritual assemblage in Lefkendi, and the sanctuaries of Plakkari and Karababa in the Caristosa region in the south of the island. The role of the funnel remains in the debate on identity markers in ancient societies is not yet fully developed. The study of animal bones is indeed now conducted with a relative rigor, but all too often, the analysis of faunal remains site-wide. The systematic identification of animal assemblages in excavated cult areas in Mediterranean should in the future identify the actors of the rights, one's differences in sacrificial practices are highlighted, at least between the Greek and other populations. With the Greeks, we should first expect to find sacrificial habits identical to that known in the emerging cities of the early 1st millennium BC, such as those in Euboea. The question is, what would it mean to make sacrifices in the Greek manner? Hellenistic terrain, as said Strabo, at the end of the 1st century BC, beginning of the 1st century AD, concerning the cult practices that the colony of Frosian Masalia transmitted to other colonies in the Mediterranean goal against local populations. Were there overall Greek practices? The worship of divinities varied on the local and regional level. City-states usually had clearly articulated cult practices, which varied from Polish to Polish, and often colonies adopted this from their mother city. Next to this religious plurality, we note in the final remains collected in the Greek sanctuaries the almost recurrent presence of bones from the practice of Tussia, that is calcinated thick bones and tails since the 8th century, if not earlier. After the disintegration of the Mycenaean civilization, Euboea becomes one of the pioneering regions in the emerging early Iron Age Aegean and Mediterranean trade networks. Even near the end of the 8th century BC, Euboea was still an important node in Mediterranean trade networks. The Euboeans seems to have maintained a steady growth for the centuries as evidence from the settlements, sanctuaries and cemeteries of Euboea island, the Euboean Gulf and the Euboean colonies in the Mediterranean all shows. Greek strategic position at the heart of the Mediterranean is obvious. That of Euboea is less so, and that of Lefkandy, Halki San Eretria, situated on the island's western coast and so facing the mainland, is even less obvious again. The recent archaeological discoveries made in the Euboeo-Tessalian geographical arc have come just in time to confirm the role played by the region on the Mediterranean map. Ongoing excavations at major sites in this arc all show that these sites were continuously cupped between the Bronze Age and the archaic period and that there was contact between the Mediterranean and the East. The sites include Lefkandy on Euboea and on the mainland opposite Euboea, Mitru and Kinos in Locris and of course the Sanctuary of Apollo at Calapody in Focus. Most notably, the excavations conducted at Lefkandy have kept emphasizing the importance of the relations of this foundation on the Euboean coast with the Mediterranean and the East. These recent discoveries have helped to establish the place of Euboea in the 8th century within a regional Euboeo-Tessalian geographical network with which Oropos opposite Eretria on the mainland must have been associated and indeed with a regional continuity that had originated in the Bronze Age. This proximity is worth stressing and may explain the Mediterranean-facused development of these regions. For our thematic on the sacrificial practices, it should be noted by a change traced from the late-elastic 3C to geometric period when the quantity of uncancellinated bone collected in the ritual assemblages in the Euboean-Tessalian geographical arc fell while the amount of calcined thick bones and tail bones increased. We therefore observe a progressive practice of Tussia when established in the 8th century. Sacrificial refuse areas or deposits will create further attention in the settlements founded by the Greek Offer Seas beginning in the Bay of Naples and then as aware in the Mediterranean where Euboeans or other Greeks settled. The logic seems correct but the evidence is not so clear as desired. First, reflections on the commensality practices of the first Greeks in the Italic Peninsula and elsewhere tends to take into account only the symposium practice in the strict sense of the world without its food accompaniment that stemmed from the sacrificial practice. Secondly, the Greek religious contexts of the early period are rarely published foresight in the Italic Peninsula. It is mostly domestic areas, craft facilities and funerary assemblages that are explored there. No place of worship of this first phase of Greek occupation has so far been excavated on the island of Ischia, and rarely as well on the Bay of Naples. The centuries excavated until now in Cuma are from more recent times. The temples of Apollo and Zeus in the Acropolis in Cuma were erected at the beginning of the 5th century, the temple of Apollo over a place of worship from the first half of the 6th century. Let us conclude this review with a mention of current discoveries conducted by Matteo D'Acunto from the Universitial Orientale of Naples in the settlement of Cuma that has developed on the plane, and Carlo Ascigno from the University of Campania Luigi Van Viterli in Cazerta on the Acropolis. Series of technical observations on the main temple located on the Acropolis have allowed to identify archaeological levels. Remains date back to the late geometric period, that is the second half of a century, and indicate that already at this time the top of the Acropolis of Cuma was frequented by ritual activities. Unfortunately, there is no further information about the first archaic building, which most likely was a sacred hut located in the center of the hill, because everything was destroyed by subsequent monuments. The continuation of this very archaeological excavations is promising for our discussion. To conclude my keynote and to open the discussion of the sanctuaries of Ubia Island and its colonies, the challenge now is to advance our understanding of the characterization of the sacrificial assemblages in central, south Italy and Sicily, and in other regions in contact with the Ubeans. Presence in sacred spaces in south Italy is now vital to this issue. The focus of discussion begins to turn in this direction. In Sicily, careful attention must be paid to studies of the native and foreign people, Greek and Phoenicians and others, as in Mochie and between the valleys of Himera and Aligos. The figures of Ubia and the Ubean Gulf, Xenaharambiru, suggest that the social developments observed during the 8th century, including the existence of literate elites, members who adopted a simple-tick lifestyle, ceased after the beginning of the 7th century, at the very time they lost their control of trade rules in the Aegean and the Mediterranean. Matteo da Cunto observes that their lifestyle may have lingered in the colonial world. An evaluation of the degree of conservatism in their sacrificial habits could appreciably add to this discussion. I thank you for your attention.