 I just want to make two points that I knew that Rene or Johannes will be in the format. So I decided to not make a general introduction to the area because, as you heard, he made a wonderful introduction. So it's a bit cheeky that I used. I'm thinking about what Johannes said. And the second thing which I want to mention is that we had to submit the abstracts and the titles as you know, ages ago. And I changed my mind since then. So I'm not going to talk exactly about what you're seeing here. And the other two authors are also here. So I developed further from what I submitted in the abstract. So I'll start with two images. And you've seen a lot of this. And this is the site of Nebelivka, which is about 20 kilometers to the south of what Johannes just showed you. And as he pointed out, there will be a regular planning. And as you can see, this is a very regular. And if you zoom out, you zoom in. Rather, you will see that there are some variations. But in general, you don't need degree in archaeology to see that this is actually something which is very regular, very planned. Something made quite an effort to do that. It's not something that grow out of nothing. There is something which serious planning went off. So the size of Nebelivka is 238 hectares. And it is on the basis of about 90 radiocarbon dates. It dates to the early part of the fourth millennium BC. And this one is a geophysicist interpretation plan of the geophysical plan. And not to see the red things here are actually houses, structures, dwellings, whatever you want burned. Therefore, they're in red. Well, the other color, we are not quite sure. We have almost 1,500 of them, right? So to build these, we need about 67 hectares of forest. And, oops, did I do something wrong? Yes, I did. And this is based on, because some of them, there is a great debate. Are they two story, one story houses? So we decided to do it in between. And since I told you that quite a lot of them are burned, so you need about 760 hectares of forest to burn them. And we know that because we made an experiment. We built two houses, and we burned one of them. And at this point, I would like to remind you that this is where in the forest step. We are not in Northern Europe. We are not in where there is loads of wood. You go and do whatever you want. Food, sorry, wood is very, very scarce there. So think about that before, you know. That's something which nobody talks about, and I'll talk about later why. So this is the first image, the second image, oh, sorry. And here I want to turn the question of the session the other way around. According to which definition of a village, this is a village. How? Having in mind that the critical mass of that kind of settlement, about 80%, 80 to 20%, is about, I'll give it a go. I'll go and say it's one hectare. They're not one hectare, but let's say they are one hectare. So one hectare village, and 238 hectare village. How is 300, oh, 3,000 delegates of EAA, the same as the 30 delegates of EAA? Just tell me, how? How do we function together? How do we organize logistics? How we go, how is it the same thing? Because that's what we're told to believe. And also I would like to ask, how is that neolithic? How is this a small holding in which we go, we are a small garden, and then we go to our daily business of 238 hectares. How is that happening? And how is that possible? The second image is that, is the Poland Diagram, which I appreciate you can't see, but I'm prepared to share it, if you want to come and see it in more detail. So I'll summarize it for you. Yesterday I hosted a session about the crisis in archaeological theory, and then Tim Taylor finished the slide and said, we have to stop saying, we have no evidence for, we have to start saying, we have evidence that there is no, so that's why I took that, and what I'm saying now, so we have evidence that there is no for a massive deforestation, rather than more subtle way I've tried to put it yesterday. So we have low demolition, and we have no micro charcoal, no micro charcoal, evidence for massifying, don't forget, almost two thirds of these things were burnt, and we have no evidence for massifies. And the reason I want to put these two images next to each other is because I've been giving a serial, I'm not more than me, but the other co-authors, we have been giving that talk or variants of that talk along the side many times, and we have different reactions from positive, like how that is possible, something is wrong, or let's figure it out. And on the basis of these positive things, we sort of went back to the drawing board and tried to see what may have happened, for example, whether there is a hiatus, the sedimentation of hiatus, something that may explain that. And we are trying to remodel that, and obviously there is nothing of the kind. So other reactions were, well, why don't you move the occupation somewhere along the line where it will suit you best, but not with these terms, but in that kind of sentence. And the most radical of all, I can just forget about it. Just forget about it. And this is why, why forget about it? Because there is an assumption. There is a great assumption that these sites are built at once, lasted to 50 to 80 years, burned at once, and therefore, there should be this massive occupation. Well, there is obvious contradiction between two images that I showed you. And I suggest we don't make assumptions, but we do something else. So we stop with the assumptions and we do alternatives. So there are two other talks about this site on this conference, and you haven't seen it where have you been? Because now I'm going to tell you yet a third one. So the other two are just in the pipeline for publishing, so you haven't missed it. You will see. And the alternative I have to take, Manuel, who has been very persistent and was sort of trying to push me in the direction to think about different kind of social organization, which is he's a co-editor of a volume, and that the full version of that will contain a volume that Manuel is co-editing, and he pushed me in the direction of thinking of bottom-up kind of organization, which is we all say, oh, without planning. How does that go? Right. Let's see. So the alternative I took is to look at, I know that there's a huge debate, well, huge. There is a debate on segmentary society and oncology. I'm not going to talk about those. What I'm inspired here is by Councilor Dupont, who was his anthropologist, who is a very good article about the failure of the colonial authorities when they're going to sub-Saharan Africa and expecting exactly what he's coming with his colonial path. One man in charge, and I'll go to see that other man in charge, and everything will be sorted, only to find out that there is no such thing, and there are these invisible ties across the landscape, and there is this massively resistant society, which actually functions in a different way, which the colonial power cannot cope with that. So I'm taking that as an inspiration of my model, and the second thing that I'm taking for the inspiration of my model, this is an archaeological one. This is in central Mexico, and there is a lot of evidence that exactly at the moment of the conquistador, so there is a lot of written evidence for this. And basically, what we try these oncologists to do is try to see how the society function, and can we actually infer how they function on the basis of spatial, because that's what we see, we see some spatial patterns, and we can try to link the two and try to make sense of what actually is going on. So the translation of this alphabetical, which is the story from why Aztec, if you speak Aztec, Aztec, and I can't understand you well, so it's translated as a town or a king. So they don't make, they really don't, there is no difference between the two, and the, really, okay, I have to go quickly. And then what really is good about this is that the key is that the society, the function of the alphabetical that is segmentary and cellular, which is to say that each of these alphabetical has eight segments, and as you can see here, the center of these and the alphabeticals are these squares. And if you populate that, the important point here to see is that it functions in that way, it goes, it rotates. And the rotating suggests the tribut, the rotation, the pattern in which every of each cells has to be to the, it's going to be actually that which is here. And if you put the archaeological sites around, you can get, that's the point that he's made, he made totally wrong decisions, totally wrong implications, because this is one thing, basically. But if you see it like that, what you can eat or as it goes, that's what we do, is that there is an open core in which these things are native to that one, actually that belongs to that one. So there is no specific identity which is formed here. The other thing that will come out of that, because there is this different density, you will say, oh, there is a high density, this is countryside and this is central, there is no such thing, it just, it was fine just now. And then you will say that there is three, three way carrot, well there is no three way carrot because this is the same thing. Okay, so, right, so this is what is the current theory, I have no time to tell you about that, so that's why I'm going to tell you so. So what are the reasons that people can actually get together? These are the positive differences what people get together, not the negative reasons which I'll put forward, I see the difference that there are people coming in, I suggest that this is why people get together and what they get together, that's what they do. They do these things, about 400 houses and that's how they start to be in that phase. And according to distributed governance and what is that, okay? So I suggest that only 400 houses will occupy problems in the whole thing and this is about what is the amount of population. I suggest that seven to 10 houses will burn every year and then also that every year, one of them, similar to what I was saying about the rotation model was actually irresponsible for the running of the place and what was the place doing? What were they exactly? What people call urban function. So that's what it is and one of these plans was responsible for doing that. And how are they eating and what they were eating? Well, they were having this in a small time, her husband's theory and her culture. But crucially, and that's where it comes from the second phase of society and what Kurt was saying. A big portion of what they were consuming actually is coming from their distributed social group across the landscape. Do we have them? I can tell you, but yes, we do. If you go on one of the other talks, you would hear that the social catchment area, not to the rest of the social catchment area of our site is about 100 kilometers. Do we have sites in these 100 kilometers that will actually be able to fit and help this cause? Yes, we do. There are caveats to that, but I have no time to tell you. What are the caveats? Is it the one, this is the last one. No, this is the, right. Okay, so if you ask us to put what we think is urban and we make a list of it, I can bet you by the end of the day, we'll never agree that what I'm presenting about the last person is presenting is the same thing. You'll say no, and why is that? Because we use this criteria. But we have to, where it's very popular, everybody's using it, but they keep forgetting that he said also that you have to make that this is highly contextual thing. This is not an absolute thing, it's contextual thing and that's why we have to think about it. And I'll give you an example. I was born in this place, which is one million people and it's a city. It's the capital of Bulgaria. I live in that place, 15,000 people have it. And it's also a city because it has a cathedral. These two have two different criteria of why there is a city. And nobody seems to have a problem with that. But when we go to the prehistory, we have a great problem to use different criteria. Why? So what I suggest, we have to do a relational approach. We have to look at the evidence in a different way, not absolutely, because you will go nowhere. These two places will never be seen if you look to your absolute categories. And therefore, in a belief girl, should we make sense only when you look at it in a local context, which really stands out. It was very, very, very different rather than in absolute things. It will never compare to the nearest and I don't really invite you to compare it to the nearest because it's not the same thing. So that's the conclusion. So I suggest that we should not do assumptions and we should not dismiss evidence just because they don't fit what we want to hear. Sorry. Then I suggest that the model that comes with this, I didn't have time to talk about materialized hierarchy. But this is, now we are okay with it. These two images at the show at the beginning are okay. And urban is not a fixed category. And we have to think, it's a highly contextual thing. Thank you very much. I think I did it on time. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you.