 So thank you very much for accepting our talk. We just want to make some remarks concerning the interpretation of fortifications. And we have to deal with two issues. The first one is the definition of fortifications. And we think that we need formal definition, which does not mix the definition of the phenomenon with the interpretation of the phenomenon. So just a formal definition, and in particular, because we have a wide range of different kinds of fortifications, this is a very important point. The next one is the interpretation. And here we think that we should include a much wider range of ideas of reasons for building fortifications into the interpretations. Here we have the definition. The fortification is a structure which enforces or delimits a certain area or region using rather permanent means, such as ditches, walls, palisades, hedges, and pit zones. So we don't say anything about the purpose of the fortification. It's just a formal description. The interpretation is much more complicated. So the best of our talk deals with the interpretation. We have many different considerations concerning the interpretation. We have to think about the character of the fortifications. For example, the effort of building and of many fortifications is something which influences the interpretation. We also have to think about the conditions. What about the carrying capacity? How many people can be fed at this workplace? Does this correspond with the number of people which are required for many fortifications? The third aspect is the context. During building fortifications, people have to make many decisions. And those decisions depend on the local and regional context and influence this area. So for example, if you build a fortification, this has side effects on nature, culture, and economy. The fourth point is the connectivity. What about the relationship to other fortifications, to other settlements in the region and to other remote sites? The interpretation itself can be focused on, I think, mainly three functions. It's to protect, to symbolize, and to delimit. And those functions can be applied to different subjects, to people, communities, institutions, values, and status. And by the list of functions, it covers most of the functions. The last point, the reasons is open. There are so many reasons for building fortifications. For using the functions, protections, symbolizations, and so on. So it's very difficult to get a complete list. But here we have some, for example, violent trees, certain frictions, synergies, and so on. So we have to consider a very wide range of possible interpretations for fortifications. But today, we focus on conflict and conjugation. Conflict is one of the main aspects we usually consider concerning fortifications. But what we want to present is that conflicts itself are something rather complicated, which makes the interpretation of fortification even more complicated. Conflicts are a kind of disagreement. And they tend to escalate. And this is the point which is important for us. Here we have an escalation curve. We have different steps in the process of a conflict. It starts with a conflict potential, with a certain situation, which allows conflicts to grow. Then we have, in the second step, the actual conflict, a conflict of interests, different demands. The third step would be a fourth step, actual violence. And the fifth step, determination of the conflict by exterminating the conflict partner. This would be the extreme case. But in such a process, you can, at every step, decide to stop the conflict by de-escalation. So we have, at the same time, a de-escalation step. At the first level, you just can decide to cooperate. If you have a situation, for example, limited resources, you can decide to fight. Or you can decide to use the resources together. Cooperation is a very good option. And this is something we have to consider always when it comes to conflict. The second step of de-escalation is regulation. Using borders, centers, laws, hierarchies, and many other things, we can regulate those things which otherwise would escalate to violent treats. If we all accept rules, even if we don't like the contents, it works. If not, it's difficult. And if not, we have in the third step the conjugation, the negotiation. We have to talk to each other about our different demands and talk about possible solutions. The fourth step is just to capitulate. This means I will survive, but my demands are not met. And on the fifth step, there is no de-escalation possible. Indicators for the different steps of escalation and de-escalation are manifold. Here, we just have a small list. And what we want to do next is to go through each level and point out some examples and indicators. The first level is conflict potential. And here we start with placebo. As placebo, it's evident that there is a lot of pollution. In this example, the fortification is rather the starting point of the conflict. It produces the conflict potential, which leads us to the point that conflicts are usually parts of conflict chains. They are related. And even the solution of one conflict can lead to another conflict. Examples for cooperation, it's difficult to think about finding cooperation in the past. But in fact, we have a lot of examples. Trade is nothing but cooperation. If the one partner has some resources and the other not, trade allows to meet both demands. Conflicting interests. Examples are elites at fortified sites or production sites. In this case, we definitely have conflicting interests. People also want to be involved in the process of production. And the production place is secured by fortification. Regulation is, from my point of view, the most important aspect of a conflict. We have different means of regulation. For example, we can establish borders using fortification, for example. We can establish centers. We can establish rules, which say same thing about the social status, and so on. And our examples, here we have the Pizzu fortifications. They all presented them two days ago. It's an example for linear fortifications, which delimits certain territories. Treats of violence can be seen in those depictions from rock arts with weapons, or the Trelleborg fortifications. Here we have a field guard, which are interpreted as bootcamps. As we do here, bootcamps are also an indicator for violent threats. Regulation. Here we have two examples. The symbolic fortification, from the fact, could be mentioned in this case, and hordes, including weapons. If the weapons are not any more usable for violent threats, this is also something which reduces the conflict potential. Actual violence can be seen in battlefields, or in weapons which are used, and are found at fortifications. On the first step, we have again negotiation, but this time it's a different kind of negotiation. We don't have a picture here, and we have questions for the examples. Perhaps some battlefields without the extension of one partner can be an example. But I think it's very difficult to indicate this level. And capitulation. This is something we can indicate with written sources, think of Alasja, or perhaps, for example, from Rue de Montserrat, where we have many dead warriors. This is an example in this category. Coming up, we think that fortifications can be seen as very sensitive indicators of different social, economic, and historical processes. And if you think of conflicts, we also have to consider the other side, the conciliation side, which is also very important. And our last point is that even if we presented some very focused examples, we should consider polyfocal interpretations. Thank you very much.