 Thank you very much, and so now we are moving on the western part of the Balkans, less Montana, so to say. So in recent years, the Mediterranean dimension of the setting of phenomenon has gained renewed attention. It is now recognized to be a complex phenomenon of long-range intertuned interactions and compasses several Mediterranean regions from the western Balkans to the Peloponnes, Peninsular Italy, Eastern Sicily, Malta, and the Olean Island during the second half of the third millennium BC. Archaeological evidence, though, mainly consists of the distribution of setting a typography across these areas. This new attention perhaps arrays more awareness about setting features, and indeed there has been a burst of setting discoveries in the Mediterranean regions and compassed by this phenomenon. In particular we have new discovery in England, Southern Italy, the Peloponnes, and even in Albania, as Tobie and Maya will show us later. At present it is widely accepted that the core area of setting are its central northern dimension, particularly the Dalmatiansk and Zagora. That is, this is the area in which has yielded the richest evidence of setting asides. So it is assumed that the culture was this ceramic production for the setting apotry flourished there from the third millennium BC till the early second millennium BC. Yet, as we will see, the spread of setting features outside Dalmatia took multiple paths in different forms. It is highly likely that not all the regions yielding setting a feature were actually directly reached by setting groups via movements or via exchange. So the ceramic model possibly spread through multiple contexts. But data on the setting a culture is in its core area Dalmatia remains scanty. It is merely known for its burial context setting consisting in enumation and or incineration under stone tumult. At present, open air settlements are virtually unknown. More data come from caves but those days are merely old excavation and not always published as Professor Govedari reminded us. So we lack any data about the settlement patterns, economic strategies and social organization. We know that setting a culture probably spanned from the third millennium BC to the early century of the second millennium BC but a chronological breakdown as yet to be the refined. And I think that my comment is going to speak about this chronological breakdown possible. So pottery still remain the main evidence for setting up but pottery per se does not correspond to culture nor is suffice to define socioeconomic groups. So anyway, the archaeological research on the western boycott dimension of setting up has gained new inputs in the last few years. The seminal work of Professor Govedari as how the seeds for the development of new patterns of research. He has rightly warned us against the construction of hypotheses about setting up and movements toward the inland western Balkans purely on typological affinities in pottery production and stressed the importance of interdisciplinary studies and advancing archaeological practices with the adoption of models actually based on empirical data. Stasso-Fortenbier most recent works have provided a detailed overview on setting up and address overseas mobility across the Adriatic via Palagrucia and raw material procurement. In 2015 Elena Thomas has launched the SEVAS project systematic archaeological surveys in the Setina river valley in order to reveal the settlement partner of the Setina culture and to examine special relationships between different clusters of tumult and possible settlements. With the Enandris project, Maya and I are aiming at exploring the cultural, social and economical dynamics underlying the Setina phenomenon by adopting an interdiscipline approach. In particular we are carrying out 14th edadies, archaeological analysis on pottery from Dalmatia and the other areas to explore provenance but also technology and manufacturing traditions and then stable is auto analysis on human remains to address pilot diet and subsistence economy and the issues of short range and long range mobility. Maya Moroves carrying out a project focusing on the application of agent-based modeling to explain movements. So these less projects are closely interconnected and benefit from the collaboration of Stasso-Fortenbier, others Collins and local institutions but the international collaboration and interdisciplinarity constitute the strongest point for advancing knowledge on the Setina culture and the archaeological perspective. Now can we actually define a core area of the Setina culture? Can we pinpoint defining cultural features and attempt to recognize borders? And what role did the natural boundaries such as mountain and sea play in connecting or disconnecting? How can we explore patterns of interaction and mobility? So we don't have clear answer now but we take this conference as a welcome opportunity to critical discuss data and new research agenda. So if we try to figure out possible border for the Setina culture it seems that high mountains may define these borders. So the very bit massive define some market of Borcker toward the north while the higher mountain chain of the Dynaric Alps probably define the eastern border while the south massive of mountaineer mountains may have constituted an element of topographic ecological discontinuity. But not a definite cultural boundary. To the south a clear border seems to be marked by less-coded areas out of Scudder. This mountain's case does the limit the core area but when in fact permeable boundaries. The exotic sea to the west is traditionally across that area. Despite sorry despite the posity of data what can be said about the Setina groups in Dalmatia? The Dalmatian scazzagora of river valleys interspersed by the plastic ridges, Mediterranean climatic condition and Mediterranean taxa. We can assume that Setina communities are the low demographic entity and a certain mobility of the territory so that archaeological traces of settlement are very difficult to be detected. The systematic surveys in the Setina valley have been demonstrating that small highs like in the Setina river were settled during the late prehistory and possibly also during the Setina period. Yet the lower river valley also is prone to sediment accumulation which makes prehistoric sites very difficult to be found. Erosion however may be a key factor of the scanty preservation of sediment traces in the carcic plateau that characterized the lower slope of the valley. At present no Setina pottery has been found at Heelfort. On the other hand coastal sites in Dalmatia, Ascanti and marine transgression may have submerged them but nori dense as yet came from underwater research. The tumuli on the other hand were mainly built on high plateau and rich slopes thus marking a different kind of environmental zone from their agriculturally suitable valleys. This possible that tumuli have of course a social function as a gathering place but maybe they could have been also had the function of territorial marks. And so we can we can think about a short range mobility across diverse eco zones that will be marked by the lower valley and possibly settlement in the lower valley and the tumuli on the ridge. So let's now examine the situation of the so-called peripheries. On the one hand Setina pottery has a wide distribution both in the western Balkans and in the neighboring regions with a certain degree of stylistic and technological variability. Such a foreign bar has specifically worked on the stylistic variability of Setina pottery across the various areas defining degrees of closeness to the inspiring models. Yet apart from Dalmatia the distribution of Setina pottery does not perfectly overlap with that of Tsuneri tumuli or at least the two are not always associated. In Istia, Setina type pottery is scarcely known as the art. It has been found at Heelfort settlements such as Moncodonia and caves and at the last one burial tumulus at Barbariga has yielded Setina type shirts. In the Trieste and Slovenian cars Setina pottery's she will come from caves apart from a couple of settlements but tumuli in these areas appear to come into use later on. In the area to the east Bosnia and Herzegomina and to the south Montenegro and North Albania burial mounds are widely widespread and this funerary practice has a longer and well-rooted tradition. Setina pottery is often found in tumuli beside these caves. Sometimes all these tumuli were used in these periods such as Velikagruda and possibly Stoic tumuli 6. Yet Setina type shirts frequently occur at sites that will become ill for in the settlements in the Middle Bronze Age such as Barbara in Western Zagoria or Gaitan in Northern Albania. In Eastern Italy although most of the Setina type pottery has been found as trade finds none of them come from tumuli. The only funerary finds are from Hypergia or Rock Actunes which are traditional types of funerary sites in late Copper Age, Early Bronze Age Ether. So some differences are detectable across the core area and the peripheries. For instance in the core area specific cultural traits appear to be the use of tumuli. Yet outside Almesha this seems to vary possibly in relation to local traditional local traditional funerary consequence. As regards the settlement pattern a point to be understood is whether the appearance of Setina pottery to be ill for only outside Almesha depends on a research bias or whether this actually reflects different settlement choices related to local social economic patterns. So it is highly possible that the spread of Setina type pottery in the adjacent Perifela areas is to be related in most cases to the movement of small group of people rather than to the exchange of goods. The factors that drove those groups to move remain to be understood but this can be read in the framework of wider phenomena of mobility in the thermal and UBC Europe. In any case reason to move toward each region may have differed. For instance presence in the Gargano area may be linked to a well-established tradition or raw material procurement. So which areas they choose to settle in? It will seem that in Adriatic Italy they choose environment similar to that they came from. Instead to settle in the Cossan lie they ventured into the inland ridge in Istria they found a similar artistic environment and possibly they saw the same in the Trieste and Slovenian areas. On the other hand in the Peloponnese this group appeared to have embraced the locally well-established coastal settlement pattern. Setina type pottery in fact has been found particularly at coastal also coastal settlement. Maran has proposed that the interconnection between the Almesha and the Peloponnese were mostly seaborn in nature and that the main purpose was exchange. Evidence of exchange however as can be. Moreover new evidence from central Albania suggest that movements also cross the southern Balkans. Epirus may represent a key region to detect possible inland routes. So the group that move would have maintained their identity archeologically reflected in the use of their traditional setina pottery. At the same time they probably adapted and integrated in the foreign communities. The social cultural scenarios they encountered in the various areas highly differed. For instance communities of the earlier Ladi 2 and 3 Peloponnese had already taken a path towards social complexity that in other areas has yet to be established. So to conclude, mountain landscape has indeed a certain role for the setina group especially the low mountain landscape and in the formation of economic identity. But this setina phenomenon deserves a more contextual approach and general explanation failed to grasp cultural variability and the complexity of cross-culture encounters. Thank you very much.