 So I'm afraid my English won't be as good as one of the previous speakers. And first I would like to send the organizer of this great session. Following me to present here the result of my feedback in Southern France. And I would like to send them for some signals, also I will send you twice. The other sent you will come at the end of the day. So my aim is to communicate the result of my feedback into terms that allow as much as possible for comparison for discussion by people from outside my own academic background. It's not that easy to try, it's not that easy. I choose in order to make that to try to get rid as much as possible of the most context-specific academic vocabulary or the term we use to use between colleagues. And I do that in order to be understood by as many persons as possible and as many persons as my English allows to be understood by. I will also try to think about the agglomeration as a dynamic feature. This is why you see pictures moving because I try to figure out not like a succession of phases but as a dynamic, as an evolution, as a process, as something that changes through time. As you may have noticed, the one among you that has a big abstract book may have noticed, I proposed in the paper abstract to follow a three-steps evolution for my analysis. More for genesis, more for dynamics and side formation processes. I will only keep one, two, excuse me, of these three categories for a reason. I will explain later. Some more for genesis, it won't be a term I will use. During the Ayurvedic, the Ayurvedic from the Valencian country to the south, from the Valencian country in Spain to the south to the Languedoc, the southern Languedoc to the north, shared a lot of common aspects from an archaeological point of view. Normally, this is not the right thing to choose, but this is a very apologize for that. So they shared a common way of making pottery, a common architectural practices and also a common written language, a common writing. I will focus here, basically, in this area, the northern one, because it's a very diversified area and I will keep myself with a tiny one in the southern face. The bigger sites, those considered to play a major role in the landscape, were mainly enclosed agglomeration, with some exception, enclosed agglomeration of an extension of two exceptionally ten hectares. So I told you there were bigger sites, they are not that big either, because we heard outside of 300 and more hectares before, so mine are dwarfs compared to this one. These sites were also characterized by a dense in our occupation, basically an occupation of domestic buildings built with stone and mud bricks. The settlements were mainly located at the top of hills. So to sum up, settlements that we can... hilltop settlements, relatively small, densely occupied and often partified. This is a typical agglomeration of this region, a typical hybrid agglomeration of this region. These conditions, along with regular post-depositional processes and conditions of excavations, from one site to another, are similar enough. The falling of the roof, of the possible floors and of the higher part of the wall generates an accumulation of material that would fill a sedimentary basin linearly native by the walls of different floors. So the overall archaeological picture associated with such sites is in a certain way quite stereotyped. These settlements are mainly interpreted as a result of a specific historical context, the Greek colonization from 600 BC on point. The local communities would have developed new organizational structure in order to produce more surpluses to trade with the Greeks. The initial phase of these sites here, in Azorin, for example, had generally attracted few attention. This is not for frutus. To sum up, this last moment of occupation generally not considered very interesting by archaeologists, except for establishing a chronological frame. First occupation, generally considered as provisional with some caddins and some us. You can see the caddins, for example. To shelter the builders of the true agglomeration with its stone fortifications and stone and mud bridges. This is the general idea. The sites would be the result of a plan, a project. This project is to create a settlement fit for surplus production. This idea doesn't work. It should work now. This is the general idea. The sites would be the result of a plan, a project. This project is to create a settlement fit for surplus production. A short dynamic moment. The formation believed to be a long, somehow static period once the agglomeration has taken its definitive shape. I would like to challenge these ideas by moving England and Belgium and India in time to the site of my view. We are on the mountains, north from the little water area, but not that far from it, still in a mid-to-run landscape. The site itself is located on a limestone hill, which stock is almost 500 meters above sea level, and 120 meters high. It dominates a small river and is highly visible from other points in the valley and from the opposite side of the valley also. Slogs are around 30%, 40% steep, so very steep, and far as cover is nowadays almost omnipresent. These conditions, along with strong artistic activity, generate a very specific, complicated and complex taffonomy and an original one. We are the first team to develop long-term strategies, acceleration strategies in this context, with a systematic acceleration of 2,000 square meters, one tenth of the world's site. Most of the difficulty comes in the one hand from the fact that erosion has taken away a lot of material while collusion has brought elements coming from uphill. Yet as we will see this modification after the site, otherwise we will present that ensuring some kind of paradox or cohabitation between drastic death friction on the one hand and good presentation on the other. A very different taffonomy than the one of the lowlands I explained you before. Occupation of the site began around the very end of the second million BC and no later, in any case, than the tenth century BC. It seems that the site, during the first phase, it seems that the site was open and didn't have any fortification. The rampart, you can see the red grid here that's the rampart materialization of the rampart, the rampart is built only toward end with BC. We have very few structures belonging to this initial period, only one stone wall and a few layers, but the BC layers were observed and excavated all across the site, in the area as well as in the lower parts of the site. Since the beginning then, the two hectares of the site were inhabited and the natural slopes were leveled through the construction of terraces, but no fortification once more existed until around 800 BC. When the rampart two meters wide and probably as tall as five meters was built, except to the north where a cliff of the natural defense. Most of the remains we know of the inner occupation belong to the period between the erection of the rampart and the end of the occupation by the end of the sixth century BC. Because it's one of eight square meters here, more than eight square meters there, these appear apparently as early as the eighth century BC. They are probably a sign of increasing social differentiation and that appear also to specific practices as emptying of wide game like deer and more exceptionally bear. This is a bear tooth here, found in the big house itself. Also, fragmentary architecture could be studied because of the presentation of remains in situ. This is one good example of the difficulties of the site. You can see here a lot of stones. Beneath these stones even if it is difficult to believe there was a wall one meter tall conserved against the bedrock. This is how it works. The upper part of the infield of rock came from above by a colegation. The part below is in fact the falling of the walls. There is a part of the accumulation of rock coming from the falling that have been taken out as the erosion and another part of the stone is brought by a colegation. It is quite difficult to figure out a way to study this kind of stuff. We have also in other place remains found in secondary position like wall fallen in one block or five months of wall fallen in one block here. We registered these blocks using 3D scan that allowed for studying the construction and the way it fell in order to verify our hypothesis regarding the nature of the construction. The blocks were still in connection. They allowed for construction for restitution, duty of wall more than one meter high but the blocks were still together by clay and when the block fell the main connection in clay was taken towards the lower part of the sedimentary basin. Fortification, dense in occupation with houses made of stone and clay I think it is clear that my view belongs to the same family of sites that were known for the most recent period of the hibernate. The Mediterranean trade, however, cannot explain what happened in my view. Mediterranean ports are known in the settlement that belong to its last period, the 6th century BC. So my view managed at the end of the late round age and because it became an adornation as we thought only existed in the later high ground age from the 8th century BC onwards. I do not know what were the processes that led to the origin of this site. I do not know that. And I must confess I only had some guesses, not facts about that. But what I know is that it is only after three to five generations that the fortification was built. A period of time which is not linked with the other difficulties of the construction around 1,050 days for one skilled worker so if you have 30 skilled workers, it is 50 days. So it is not that difficult to build. In my opinion, then fortification. Well, if the fortification was built so late because for more than a century it was considered that no fortification was needed. My view was not founded as an effort to be. It was an open settlement on the slopes of a hill and was experienced as searched by its inhabitants. It was founded like that. This is why I discarded the notion of morphogenesis which suggests a linear process of evolution while indeed this evolution was much more fluid than we used to think. In my opinion, the advantage of the fortification is linked with the social dynamics at work within the community. Many factors may have played a role in this process. Increasing internal competition may have made suitable the development of collaborative works in order to increase the cohesion of the group or to some degree. While increasing external competition would have represented an incentive to fight solutions to protect efficiently the community. Landscape appropriation may also be considered. The hill could be seen from far, for example, from the rock of Saint-Bosil three kilometers away which seems to have been an important feature of the landscape. The statue mania was erected there during the calcolithic and two first Iron Age tombs were excavated there also. In this context, with this topography, the rough parts of the world's terraces were all visible from the outside and such a monumentalization of the hill gave obvious symbolic advantages to it. I hesitated a lot before to try that. The morpho in conclusion, the morpho dynamics of my view are similar to the one observed in many sites much more recent of the littoral zone. My opinion is that demonstrates clearly that the genesis, the typical Iron Age agglomation is not related to trade with regular etruscans. The internal chronology of my view suggests much more that trade is a consequence of the emergence of the social groups which materialize themselves through this peculiar relatively small fortified community. The origin of such settlement patterns seem to belong to the late Bronze Age and it seems slightly that the inner mountainous zone were much more dynamic than we used to be. In my view at least, I don't think that the initial moment of the occupation about the architecture that didn't live in its races has to be interpreted as some kind of prologue to a hill fort with stone and clay. But it seems rather to be fully taken into account when constructing the narrative about the site history. Such a narrative is not a model. Similarities can be found with some other sites, later sites, like Nanseri, much closer to the sea, which sort of works as an open settlement for the fire first from 550 BC to around 400 BC. Once more, five generations before the stone ground part is built in Nanseri. Yet, much of the times, my view or Nanseri or other settlements that acquire fortification during their life will be defined as fortified as if it was a permanent feature. Such an approach, frequent, is indeed teleological. We define the site according to what it was at the end of its history. According to the feature we consider most relevant from an archaeological point of view. Such kind of approach leads us, I think, to a misunderstanding about what these acclimations were and what was their meaning for those who were in a digital way. Both fear of cooperation and competitive value are different. Understanding better the nature of interpersonal relations or of interaction relations would give many keys for interpreting the genesis and the evolution of this agglomeration. My sixth question now is that the frequent teleological approach I was referring to similar to the appetite of archaeologists for clear-cut taxonomies and sometimes also for our routine. Providing two straightforward interpretations of what were Iron Age community and in which dynamics they were involved. I think we'd rather have to focus on specifics to study what Manuel called contextual studies or from strongly contextualized studies in order to write local, high-resolution narratives because this is material that can be compared much more easily than more than in my opinion. And I said initially that I was twice grateful to the organizer the challenge represented by a session about agglomeration about this term that is not enjoyed by reviewers or journalists apparently obliged me to think about the processes I was analyzing in a much more fluid way than I was doing at the moment. So thank you and thank you for your attention.