 So, hello everybody. To present myself, my name is Anna Berantel, and I'm a PhD student in Geography at the University of Sarawak, London, France. And in my research, I concentrate at work on heritageization process and heritage production in discourses within World Heritage Serial sites. More specifically, I work on prehistoric pail dwelling sites around the Alps, World Heritage Site, since 2011. So with my presentation, I would like to highlight some specificities of serial sites, especially from geographical points of view, considering the way they produce and reinvent the concept of space and place in archaeology. I hope this will get your attention and maybe open a debate on the ways of specialization the heritage and how this influences the way of managing the archaeological sites. So the first descriptions on the list of the World Heritage happened in 1978 and already by 1979, only for the region, so speaking only for the region of Europe and North America, out of 32 properties inscribed, 23 were cultural, of which eight were already of serial category. So serial properties composed of more than two spatially separated elements. So then the first recognition of the serial sites came only a year later, in 1980, when it was recognized by the Texas Convention that the state parties may propose a single nomination of a series of cultural properties so the series that is related because of belonging in the same historical cultural group or the same type of property. But provided that such a series, the series as a whole is of outstanding value and not individual sites itself. Also, such selection of sites has to take into account the possibility of effective management of the whole. And the constitution of management group is highly recommended. So where do we stand with serial sites in 2019? Only in the European Union of 28 countries, there are 350 World Heritage cultural properties of which more than one third is actual serial, which means that, so mainly it means, 121 properties are serial, composed of two more separated elements. Most of them are of national or regional geometry, such as, for example, the 20 case of the Paleolithic cave art of northern Spain. But 16 of them is transboundary, such as, for example, the case of 12 sites of heritage of Mercury located in Spain and Slovenia. These sites, as we can imagine, they face a certain level of challenges which are proper to their serial nature. As said before, a common management plan is necessary. And should it be for national or international serial property, as and for this, for its execution and organization of a management group is strongly recommended. The challenges of managing such a serial site is that with the multiplication of component sites within a serial property, this one gets composed of sites in different administrative units which provokes the effect that by their local cultural policies, the sites will have different effective protections and they have different protection statuses, which will also, later on, impact the different interpretations of what is a site management. So the question that we ask ourselves is how these differences firstly reflect in the specialization of the heritage site and which are then, later, their impacts on the heritage perception. So here I would like to make the link with what Cynthia was saying before, is that in the setting of the inscription of the World Heritage Property, we have this authorized, as you call it, the authorized heritage discourse that will later be adopted by the site managers who are not necessarily archaeologists and will also impact the perception of the World Heritage Site for the public. To illustrate this, I would like to show you three examples of different serial properties, each composed of more than 100 archaeological elements, all three of them situated in Europe. So the first one I would like to evoke is the Serial Property Affrontiers of the Roman Empire, a transboundary serial property of 414 sites in UK and Germany. Geometries of these sites differ from one German state to another, but also between the countries. For example, in Bavaria, in German Bavaria, it is mostly a rectilinear core zone with little buffer zones. That can even be, as we see here, individually inscribed without their core zone. In the German state of Hessem, the rectilinear core zone is protected by fairly more consequent buffer zone. In the state of Rhineland, the core zone seemed to correspond to the actual archaeological remains with corresponding buffer zones. What happened then later in England is that in England, they decided to make an entire buffer zone for the whole of 194 different core zones, so different sites, the 104 sites that are inscribed in 414, but they have the common buffer zone. So within this case, the difference observed with the spatial conceptualization of the case opens question of what is actually considered as the limes. The physical remains, or let's say the hypothetical archaeological remains, as it's opposed with the rectilinear core zone in certain German regions. The difference in precision of core and buffer zones opens questions on its coherence as a whole and the message that is later on transmitted by its heterogeneous spatial construction. The second example I would like to talk about it is the national serial property of rock art of the Mediterranean basin on the Iberian peninsula, composed of 758 sites inscribed in 1998. In some cases, the same physical site, or the rock shelter, you can say, is inscribed as three different sites out of 758 for its different rock art type. Namely here, for example, we have three sites, depending on whether there are deer figures, zomorphic figures, or one with, for example, 14 geometric figures. So within the same property, we can have another example of five different rock art shelters within the same buffer zone, which are inscribed as five different sites out of 758, within still the same buffer zone. Also, within the same property, we will find one buffer zone with three different rock art shelters, which, again, will represent eight sites out of 758. So this example of the serial property shows us, again, a heterogeneity of site definition that can lead, in a way, to the loss of transparency of what is considered as a site in archaeology, whether, in this case, would it be a rock shelter, a group of same art sign presentation, or maybe something else. And the last example that I would like to show you is the case of prehistorical pelgonic site, which is a serial property of 111 sites inscribed in 2011 that we find in six different countries. So there are, for example, examples of one archaeological site with its precise core zone and buffer zone. Or we can have also the sites where, in the same site, we will have some associated sites that can be found either within the buffer or within the core zones. Also, we can have rather complex sites, still within the same serial property, within which we can have two core zones with one buffer zone, or we can have, for example, even up to a few dozens of sites that will be associated either within the buffer or the core zones. So this phenomena, in a way, complexifies the lecture of what is actually inscribed and protected site in the serial property, whether it's one archaeological site, one archaeological layer, an inscribed area, a core zone, a buffer zone. And it really depends on each country's and each region's legislation and heritage perception. So to conclude on this presentation and not to make it too long, I would like to conclude on the fact that mapping and spatial definition of archaeological site during inscription process is an important step when inscribing the invisible and especially for the archaeological heritage, the invisible archaeological site in space. Protection parameters of core and buffer zones, in a way, create them and contribute to their comprehension and transmission to the site managers or the public. The heterogeneity of definition can therefore provoke losing of transparency of what is an archaeological site and the understanding of world heritage property specifically. And I think it's important to emphasize for the non-archeological site managers and general public. So therefore, a clear definition of elements and of what is defined and is considered as a site is important during the inscription process, which facilitates setting out a coherent long-term management system and also a cohesion among managing bodies. This already has to overcome and deal with differences in level of protections and differences in administration seriality. So there is really an important step to take to homogenize at least the vocabulary during the inscription process. So I would like to thank you for your attention. Thank you. Good job.