 I think that after rectification of multi-convention by my country, probably the best thing that had place recently was the fact that our institute became a maverick, you see in Marjad is really something I expect to influence positively the practice of archaeology in Bulgaria. In order to not demonstrate the kind of ignorance, I quickly read article four and nine of multi-convention and I can say that there is no problem with implementation of four, but as for the nine and to make our stuff really most accepted, popular and cause chaos of our people, we have many things to do in the future. But in the introduction it is important to emphasize that only two years after the fact we became a member of the European Union, a new cultural heritage act was adopted and quite acceptable from the professional point of view of archaeologists. I would say in the very beginning, unfortunately this discourse, this debate about how to protect and how better make proper and sociable cultural heritage is not very frequently on the table of professionalists, whatever in my country, it's really very pity. Between the archaeological collagium, we are really sharing opinion, criticism, hopes, etc. There were an institute about cultural heritage, but it was closed. Actually there are two or three persons engaged with the problematic, if that could exist really, two or three persons in the ministry of culture, but the efficiency, the effectiveness of this work is really very low, totally unsatisfactory. So another good thing is that in the article two it was written that archaeological sites and object originating from the territory are public state property. It is still valid and it works quite good. And the resource needed for rescue field work should be provided by the contracting authority. It is still valid and for the moment it's working but with kind of bad symptoms. This time about the so-called preliminary archaeology, preventive archaeology, etc. we started to do, not even to articulate as such in 2004, when I was invited by Kybe as usual by Jean-Paul Dumoul in Lyon Conference of EAA to present the beginning of contract between the archaeological institute because our institute is the methodological center. Someone can say it's, let's say, some kind of remain from the communist era with the monopoly of the state of one institute, etc. But believe me, it is practice that is really quite good and we have no any objection about that till now. We have no objection even of another institution's authorities which are dealing with archaeological problematic. So then the first negotiation and contract with the agency dealing with high motorway infrastructure, etc. started and till now it's progressively really rising and it is the most, let's say, big scale and productive field of archaeological research in Bulgaria. We are calling not the preventive archaeology but the rescue or selfish archaeology. I think it's just a matter of terminology not of the content of the work and the theoretical concept of this work. What is very positive? It is that we have an opportunity to make a survey in the big scale. We have a particular program called Archaeological Map of Bulgaria with really very extensive survey, marking, fixing, documenting with details the promising spots of territory in Bulgaria where the archaeological trench excavation or bigger scale excavation are really needed. And it is always thinking in mind by the contractors that we have to, by, let's say, priority this work instead to start to look spontaneously for something where to put some money and to do some probably useless excavation. And regulation of conducting archaeological field work is a quite big document created with the efficient help and really big help and efforts by archaeologists, professionalists, and it's a inscription with minor details about how archaeological works, different kinds of, should be done, how the documentation should be prepared, how and who is allowed to apply for permission, permit for excavation, all kinds of conditioned prescriptions etc. And I think in my view it was one of the biggest success of our collegium of archaeologists because till now everything is really in a good format and because it was a discussion about archives, documentation, etc. the aspect of documentation is very, very well developed because the requirement is very severe. If you don't present a detailed documentation in paper and digital format, you are really absolutely not allowed to apply for a permit. So you can forget about the field work. And every year we have so-called report session, it's a huge meeting of archaeologists where everyone reporting detail again with documentation, PowerPoint, somehow interpretation of what Han has field work in situ and this scientific committee of archaeology should approve and accept the work. If not, the work will be stopped. As I said, rescue archaeology, it is the term adopted in my country and as I said as well, our institute is the main institution dealing with all aspects of this work, theoretically, practically, applications, negotiations with contractors, with Ministry of Culture. In several cases, Ministry of Culture starts to be willing to mediate in this process but I don't think it's an efficient function. But at least we have not, still or not yet, the big problems with Ministry of Culture, the problems are on the other level with development-led partners. Several images of this year running rescue excavation on the Struvamontu Bay, really big scale. Some of them are quite relevant scientifically. Some of them succeed to catch the tension of the public and even we had the kind of, without precedent till now, very large scale movement of population in the region where the excavation were in order to prevent the archaeological site and the people. It is just the people from the region who climbed to make a kind of in situ museum or somehow to conserve, to restore and to offer for the future generation the finds made by archaeologists. Unfortunately, their spontaneous demonstration was not well accepted by politicians, even by some of the archaeologists because they didn't put such attention and didn't agree that it's the only site that deserves such kind of particular investment and expeditions. So it was just as a kind of example that in some unknown way the community, the society could become very engaged with the kind of work linked with archaeological excavations. Yeah, they're always very impressive, has picture these excavations. What is unfortunately the big unsatisfactory site is that it is totally impossible to exhaust all this territory in the aspect of very careful archaeological stratigraphic excavation, documentation and interpretation. Some of this huge territory could be done properly but some is not possible to be finished and we are just satisfied to fix the archaeological structure etc to put some notes and preliminary comments without the opportunity to achieve stratigraphically properly the archaeological excavation on such huge infrastructural projects. And the graphs that my director prepared in this presentation are very very clear. It's not necessary for me to animate them but as you see there is a more or less balanced quantity of excavation in Bulgaria in the last decade. Territorially it's not in a necessary equilibrium but it's not necessary to be by the way, there is always territory a little bit advanced and other a little bit late but more or less we keep to push the work in all regions of country. You see it's a little bit more interesting in some years regular excavations are predominated that is from present day the point of view it's even curious for myself because what I remember from the last decades it's a prevalence of the rescue excavations totally as financial resources as a scale as effect post excavation post field effect as if you want perspective and so on. It is interesting because to be frank it's from time to time you hear a weep hear a kind of voice is claiming for okay archaeological institute contain let's say the the core of the professionals in archaeology but they are museums they are university etc but let's tell you that in very few universities in Bulgaria in spite of the fact that they are huge amounts but I mean just a real normal adequate scientifically based university there are very few archaeologists so the concentration is in our our institute and in some of the big cities of the country they are occasionally some archaeologists but not regularly not obligatory so this prevalence of blue is not just because the institute would like to be a monopolist what does monopolist and to make this balance in the relationship with other colleagues it is just the reality as you see municipalities try to participate with some fundings but even out of the crisis it's very rare cases of success and that is the state till now that is really keeping to provide necessary probably expense minimum but necessary for carrying carrying out every single year some kind of excavation money and for him as we see international so-called projects or program etc is negligible that is a little bit sad and we have to put to pay attention more of that my colleagues me etc and yeah last year's the state is really remarkably generous I don't know if it is a tendency our kind of political conjecture and you can expect some bad news in the future but till now the dialogue is okay the state is prevailing definitely the private money are not very much it's in contrast with the private appetite about making archaeology a kind of hobby business and collections for the new rich people because of the totally not based on the normal archaeological survey reasons as you see Sao Bulgaria was recently much more developed in the sphere of rescue excavations but it is just because you provide us money for the infrastructure and regions to whom was really offered as money is in Sao Bulgaria there are some plans to start to do something more extensively in an open part of the country but it is still a kind in the sphere of let's say wishes and perspectives as for the regular excavation the equilibrium the balance is more or less stable and it is normal because the the professionals they are really trying somehow not to to go very deep and very accentuating to some region and to to less another absolutely deprived by archaeology and here is the moment to say that I saw something similar only in israeli Bulgaria is small but it's difficult to find several square kilometers without archaeological remains it's really extensively rich in remains everywhere the problem is how we will be able if we will be able to provide relevant and useful work on on them you see how the state is became representative in this graph and ministry of culture tried to to be a little bit visible but I couldn't say that is very successful until now and here I should emphasize that that it is a little bit in the context of what we discussed the so-called president working lunch which kind of skills archaeologists should cultivate in themselves in order to respond to the present day challenge in order to to continue to be alive and not to die because there was a very let's say dark perspective articulated by some colleagues and here I should say that in my personal view it is quite enough if in one archaeological community there are several persons of persons of one or I don't know who are capable to be to keep competent and informed in legislation in theoretical and practical opportunities to implement this legislation adequately in the country and to be able to find people if they not they are not capable to do themselves to negotiate between the interest of archaeologists and the interest of developers it's not to everyone every archaeologist to deal with such skills because that that will be in my in my imagine that will be in a total chaos and an article way to try to do something useful and the final results I think will be not at all what we would like to be so I can say that the director of fire institute actually will have very soon new one I hope it will go to the same direction was not the lawyer was not a economist fine assist etc in the beginning it's just a very good scholar but the position that he had and the vision ambition to do something really good for the for the people for the colleagues for the country for the so-called archaeological heritage archaeological heritage made him to be really very very efficient surprisingly for me and many other people on these levels I mentioned before so I don't think everyone of us should be a kind of super human being capable to deal with all kinds of challenges but we have to to choose as leading persons in our small communities individual who has this capacity and the text that you'll see several slides I will not read because it's stupid to read something that's written but just pay attention to that because it is his rezoning about the problems that he he's think are really critical in archaeological practice and life in Bulgaria and he's very aware that the appetite that he called up of NGO private collection year rich people politicians with say the cultural ambitions want to do is to introduce a private sector in our archaeology but without any normal and let's say grow till now basis to do that smoothly and normally it will be just as this ridiculous jump from a socialist to savage capitalism as in my country and probably some other that has nothing to do with democracy with our hopes without our let's say dreams etc so me personally I'm skeptical as well it's not because I'm solidarity in solidarity with my director but what you have now as a monopole of the state on everything that is in the field of archaeology in the field and in the laboratory and in the scientific audience I think it's something that is really still working and at least preventing a brutal introduction of interest that for sure will not be harmonious in the interest with the interest of the professional archaeology so you see there is a clerk used as a terminology and this question and the sentence in both I think even the the question could be a little bit reform late is the question not whether but when the archaeological will be admitted and till now there is no symptoms that it will be processed going for the common let's say a solid review and success and agreement etc there are municipalities and for example people working in the tourism sphere that will be very happy to have private companies and NGO etc in order to push a little bit archaeology more deeply involved in the so-called cultural tourism but this cultural tourism it is not always cultural and what is offered to the public some somehow it's not something appreciable but just a metaphoria of archaeological ruins etc so we archaeologists when we share our opinion about that still are we are still skeptical about promoting private archaeological units in Bulgaria just because as I said emphasized and we repeat we have not good tradition in this field of private community dealing with state property and there there will be collision it's it's for sure and what we articulate quite often is probably it's not relevant in the context of what Leonard know and we all discuss here but and probably it's a little bit futuristic and surrealistic but if there is a law to be in equivocally instrumental as a kind of prescription for archaeological heritage it will be okay because every nation every country adoption of some document as one colleague says said very well it's a matter of country political so situations circumstances dialogue between professionalists and politicians but I think if there is something that is severe law in european scale the politicians who are always very keen to be very very nice with the Brussels bureaucracy they will be thinking a little bit more on this on this field and the last sentence is good but it's a little bit let's say depressing and it is it's all thank you