 So, I have the pleasure of taking you to a short trip across the Aegean today since the sanctuaries in question are located in Greece and I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak here today. The question of the intersection of status and cult in the Aegean Bronze Age and early Iron Age of Greece has usually been discussed in terms of official versus popular cult in the Mycenaean period, potentially restricted access to sacred sites. The importance of sanctuaries as inter and intra-regional meeting places and boundary markers and the function of sanctuaries as social arenas for the display of status markers and or prestige goods, the letter of which predominantly apply to the early Iron Age. In addition to these approaches, I would like to propose to have a closer look at the fine assemblages themselves to trace the various kinds of influences that ultimately shape the archaeological record. The material presented here is taken from my PhD thesis, which tried to answer that question via a comparison of the published fine material from sanctuaries, settlements and cemeteries dating between LH3A and the Middle Geometric Period, so around 1400 and 750 BCE. Non-sanctuary sites were included in this comparison to allow for an educated guess when a change seen in the inventory of a sanctuary was directly related to cult and which of those changes were part of a larger society-wide phenomenon. Inventory is used in a rather loose sense here, since fines from sanctuaries can theoretically include everything from votives and cult paraphernalia to objects used in the everyday upkeep of the sanctuary, lost items and in some cases also intrusions from surrounding settlement contexts, so the word is not intended to convoy a judgment on the ritual character of every single fine in the assemblage. The question of status versus prestige versus wealth is a difficult one and even more so in the absence of written sources. I therefore put the main focus of the analysis on objects made from rare and or imported materials and objects which required a lot of time or skill in production or both instead of trying to directly single out status markers, although I am aware that this only gives me a somewhat restricted picture of the potential wealth of a site or rather the wealth of its visitors. To start with a simple and perhaps obvious example, the number of objects made from usually imported vitreous materials drops sharply at the end of the late bronze age, so on the graphic the checkered sites are the iron age sites, light grey sites are the sanctuaries, grey settlements and black the cemeteries and you can see that the cemeteries of Lefkhandi on Oboe are the most prominent exception for the early iron age. This of course reflects changing trade routes in the eastern Mediterranean in the years around and after 1200 BCE, but also the fact that a lot of glassworking was done in then defunct palatial workshops, so the workmen weren't there any longer either. This in turn had an influence on the types of jewelry available, meaning that necklaces in particular which had been a popular offering in late bronze age sanctuaries went out of fashion which of course can then be seen in the inventories of later cult places. Additionally, even during the bronze age, access to vitreous materials was uneven with large settlements and palatial centres scoring higher numbers than the sites on the periphery, for example the cult centre of Mycenae here at the bottom. Recent work by Melissa Fettis and others has shown that the Mycenaean palatial elite seems to promote certain forms of religious expression which are made available to a wider populace but still have associations with this elite to varying degrees, chariot groups and throne models more so, female figurines and relief beads to a lesser extent. The linear bee archives also document a close involvement of the palatial administration with the religious sector and vice versa. Sanctuaries are made to various deities or sanctuaries on behalf of the palace and the palace also seems to be involved in other ways, for example by providing rations for participant and or religious personal during festivals. On the other hand, sanctuaries and especially their workshops are part of the palatial economic network and religious officials are mentioned as landowners more than once. This close intertwining of the political and religious sphere seems to point towards an interest of the elite in backing up and preserving its power via displaying generosity and piety towards the sanctuaries, their priests and their deities or vice versa, the religious sector legitimizing the elites claim to power. After the collapse of the palace system, objects with closer palatial ties vanish at first, followed by those with looser ties like the female figurines which you see down below. Interestingly, this coincides chronologically with Asman's and Van Siena's idea of a floating gap between communicative and cultural memory, which makes it likely that the loss of the palatial past as a reference point for the identity of those communities played a role in the process. Following the early Iron Age, we then see a shift to different forms of status display and sanctuaries, most notably monumental bronze tripods and a new prevalence of false figurines picture on the left. And then new sanctuaries tend to be founded near interregional roots now, emphasizing their roles, their role as meeting points beyond the immediate village and regional communities. They seem to lose their close ties to a political elite and have indeed often been described as more inclusive, although I would caution against the black and white schema of strict separation of the elite and the common people for Mycenaean sanctuaries on the one side, so restricted access to settlement and urban sanctuaries versus a non-restricted access to rural sanctuaries and a completely inclusive, more informal model for the Iron Age sanctuaries on the other hand. I would also question whether we do in fact not so much see an exclusive, inclusive dichotomy but varying degrees of formalization with a higher degree of formalization brought on by political control, which would imply that sanctuaries that did not warrant that level of interest or sanctuaries during times where there is no, simply is no clear governing body able to get that control would produce slightly different and even perhaps less recognizable finds and features than their counterparts higher up on the social ladder, for example because they are missing cult buildings, elaborate installations and outstanding votives and equipment. This display does still definitely play a role in early Iron Age sanctuaries though, so inclusive does not equal a lack of social hierarchy here. This does not only concern the votives already mentioned but also the new popularity of animal sacrifice, which hasn't been mentioned yet as a major indicator of wealth, especially during a major festival who could afford to sacrifice a bull and who could not would be noted for sure. It is difficult to quantify that though, since most bone assemblages are unstratified and they range from the early Iron Age to historic periods. Some of these newly founded sanctuaries seem to have been intentionally set up at older ruins and you see on the right as an example the early Bronze Age tumulus in Olympia, which was the site of the first Ash Altar and later came to be venerated as the tomb of Pilops, but this is not true for all of them, all of the Iron Age sanctuaries. There does not seem to be a rule for this phenomenon and I would suggest that it represents a way of dealing with questions of political legitimization and group identity that can but does not have to be employed depending on the challenges the respective groups founding those sanctuaries are facing. Health specific rules can also play a role when it comes to find assemblages in sanctuaries. Dedications of weapons so popular from the late geometric period onward are largely missing before 750 BCE. In the rare cases when they do appear here for example a phylocopy, which is the third one from above, they are usually arrowheads while swords and daggers are restricted to burials. An exception that is not included in the graphic since it's largely unpublished and I couldn't get numbers is the Amiclion in Sparta where dedications of weapons are attested from the protogiometric period onwards. This could mean that there is a general consensus which objects is suitable for offering but that individual cults can still set their own rules and of course also that all of those rules can change over time as well. Lastly, Homeric epic also allows for a glimpse into ancient votary practices. I should point out that I am well aware of the dangers of using Homeric epic as a source for Iron Age Greece and the complications surrounding the date and history of the epic poems but since they are based in a long standing tradition of oral poetry and religious customs usually don't change overnight and also because I follow the traditional date of around or slightly before 700 BC for the composition of those poems, I still believe it is justifiable to include them here at least for the later part of the early Iron Age. They do give us a number of details regarding animal sacrifice but actually surprisingly little on the dedication of objects. One of the very few examples is Hector's speech to his mother in the sixth book of the Iliad which is quoted here and he's advising her on earn a sacrifice to Athena. From this short passage it is clear that the quality and value of the object is important, its size is pointed out so the peplis should be the largest and a later passage also mentions it is from Cedon so it has a foreign exotic origin. Aesthetic considerations and Hector's personal attachment to the votive in question also play a role in the selection of the peplos. So in conclusion, find assemblages and sanctuaries can be shaped by a variety of factors which can be separated into a macro level that includes the general availability of material and craftsmen, widely held religious concepts, notions of identity and also the interests of the political elite. And the latter two can then take various shapes of the regional mezzo level depending on the situation, the community of the community or communities in question and the challenges they are facing. This level also includes cal specific rules, sorry, that may contradict the general religious concepts from the macro level. Lastly, there is a personal level which is ultimately the level of the dedicant making a decision that is covered by highly individual choices as well as the restrictions set out by the other levels. And it is all of those factors that influence how the final assemblage is looking. Thank you for your attention.