 Thank you all for coming. Well, my paper, as you can see, I had the same issues that Mattia just referred to. The more you think about public spaces, the less you can really catch what it is when you are thinking about Iron Age Europe. So as you could see, I quite a little bit avoided the notion of public space directly on the title to refer to spacetime and interaction. I will speak about Western Iron Age Europe. We won't be in synthesis about everything that is to be found in such wide space, obviously, rather a proposal, a proposal of some ideas that come from my own experience. So when I will find examples along mainly the idea of Peninsula and what is now the territory of France, except for the Atlantic area, which is quite a specific one and for which I like direct experience. The time span would be between 800 BC and 450 BC, more or less, around both dates, which is a time characterized by some specificities from an archaeological point of view. Few agglomeration are extensively explored for this period, especially if you focus on such a wide territory. And we have very strong differences in those dynamics of research. And recently, for example, the northern part of the territory I would live for the West Ashtad region, as the knowledge we had about it, about the morphology of the agglomeration was totally renewed, which means that obviously we are still on a moving ground. Well, the question of public space is, Mathieu, will you address them? What is public space? This is obviously something, a notion, strongly leading to our own experience. I think one good definition would be that it is everything owned, accessible to, and or managed by the communities as a whole, or by its representatives. Here, for example, I think we can say that we are in a public space because it's owned by the communities and by it, but not everyone. So it's a very fluid notion. As for public spaces in the archaeological record, I think we can identify them in some reasons, in context, and for Ancheta, for example, Roman Forum, the Aitinian acropolis, Aitinian aggro would provide a good example of public spaces, very well identified within the urban fabric. Why are they so easy to identify? Because they are separated from the rest of the city. The ideas are really strongly, the extension is strongly limited. It is also because it's some institutions of rules and laws only apply to such spaces and are controlled and enforced by magistrates, especially devoted to the regulation of such spaces. So if we can see them so clearly, because they are part of the materiality of political, economical, religious, or whatever you want, institutions, but formal institutions, strong institutions that survive from one generation to another and that are generally enforced by written or law or by a strong tradition. Now, the archaeological record, not as fully on the material or scientific work, but in the archaeological record, I think we can say that this feature appeared in Greece and in Italy during the late archaic period, late 7th, 6th century BC, in a sense with the modernization of the acropolis with agoras that take its shape or in Smyrna, where as agoras spray a scrap and be seated, one can notice whether Megara and Lea found it if I don't make a mistake on the 1st half of the 7th century. There is a brilliant empty space where the agora will be further. Spoiler alert, such features are in my opinion undone. Our most absent from earlier European urbanism. We do not have such bounded spaces, which are obviously, and which we can infer from the morphology, that say were cubicly owned and managed by the world community. Moreover, the few clues we had about what happened inside the cubic sphere during the late Bronze Age, for example, the few clues we had, the big roads that were visibly constituted through successive repositions, so presumably seasonal gathering and seasonal offering. These laid roads seem to have been abandoned. However, early Iron Age communities had to rely on communicative decision-making processes. They trained, they had probably also conflict regulation processes. So they had community life that has to take place in some place. Retro-rope, flounder, etc. The issue is to identify where did it happen. And we will see that this issue is deeply linked with another one, is the issue of its temporary time sequence of such actions. Well, first question I would like to ask is where people can engage with each other, because it's the first step on every public life or community life we have to look for. And I will use the example of the excavation I am currently making in southern France, in my view, near Bézier in the Occitanie region. Region, excuse me. Now, what spaces can begin as a community, allowing it social interaction or belonging or being managed by the community? Basically, from 800 onward, the one part, which is presumably built by the world belonging to the world community. And as Mathieu said, it gives also time and space for interaction, building the time and space group. So we have streets and open spaces all over the place, that allow also for communication, for informal or more formal social interaction. And we have some things that appeared with the appearance of the rampart. We have gates that will here and ears that will obviously concentrate human circulation and therefore enhance the possibility for human interaction in these sectors. But we have also a lot of, when we are dealing with buildings, with build structure, they are all, we cannot interpret them as houses. Only domestic buildings. So we can assume, I think, that the domestic sphere is also an important sphere for social interaction. Domestic architecture, in my view, reflects social complexity. We have buildings of very different size and structure. And we have one here, one compound that smashes everything around by its surface. It's mass, I would say. You cannot hear a small picture comparing the size of this central compound with another house that was excavated nearby. We assume that it is some kind of elite compound. And if it is, we can interpret some space by the morphology of its round, also by its relation with the outer spaces, as a reception area. This is a kind of feature that used to appear in an elite domestic building also out of the Mediterranean. Put here an example from the Scandinavia. The scale of the two planets is the same. As you can see, the reception spaces are quite similar size. So interaction occurred, I think, in different contexts. These different contexts are related to different spaces. At the level of a community, at the level of a site, two spheres, what are we called spheres of interaction? We are not going to talk about cubic space, because one cannot say that the inner part of a private house is a cubic space. It's a space for social interaction, but not a cubic space. So we can isolate two spheres of interaction, one that I will call communitarian, with gates, with open spaces. So one part will be described as some place for interaction. So I won't use this term to describe it. And we have another sphere of interaction embedded in the elites. Both seem to be quite characteristic to all Western early Irish communities. And I will try to go quickly through it. I think it's something Manuel knows very well. So we have very much other instances of elite houses and palaces of places of social interaction. I could give a picture of the most spectacular, which is a more or less one palace. It has an aristocratic dome of leaves with a proposal of full construction here. So the plan of the house of my view is more or less the same size. It's not that different, but it's not that similar neither, because it will or less fit in this part of the big palace. The communitarian also identified holes throughout Ireland and Europe. Because even in the case of what was deemed that was most called before principally sites, what we know that now there are something much more like urban settlements. We have evidence for places for social engagement with craft work, part of the city devoted to artisanal activities with streets, with circulation places, et cetera. So these two spheres of interactions in theory exist anywhere. And when looking at them, you cannot tell what is inside an agglomeration. We can find them also in the countryside like this to the example of what can be deemed as elite residencies in cultural rhino or in L.C. Lars. And we, it's not only for L.C. Lars that we do not have to look outside of the agglomeration. It's also in the post-valuable product by Mathias for communitarian interaction because of the work of the Fitzgerald and work, for example, or collaborative works like a mountain building or road making provide also a very strong space for interaction. And you can see, for example, one single, one seasonal collaborative work that we give many opportunities for social interaction, the harvesting of zeros. We do not have even to look at interaction closely in what we have because of the world of the living. We can go as far as to propose that micro-polices as open spaces related with also the community or to the elites or even to the groups that we place for interaction during the funeral and obviously after. So in conclusion, I think that we can have the idea rather clear that the relation of community life with spaces is a fluid one. They want that barely marks the urbanism. The elite and the community are two spheres, excuse me, to one in French, two spheres, or two spheres that appear clearly in the archaeological record. But other, it's only the two extremities of why influence of possibility. Other corporate groups have probably also played a role into the construction of the community life and into the decision-making processes. Intensity of polarization between elite and community life side was very different from one region to another and from one time to another. So it's impossible to provide synthesis, encompassing all the different situations. Interacting on each one of these contexts, elite, or community, or even corporate, I suppose it's not only to belong to one group or another. I suppose this also possesses convention, language, community language, social convention, et cetera. The most important of this convention, I should have put it plural, is in my opinion temporality. When can you meet people? Because if you want to meet people, you don't need only to have a space. You also need to have a time, a time for interaction. The people have to meet. So they do not only need a place for that, but also have to agree on a specific time. Seasonal collaborative work, market, free-to-resist integration provided a cyclical time sequence for interaction and mutual engagement while their personal agreement on meeting time was probably more limited socially, limited to the elite in their personal networks. Community life, since then, to that point, had a fluid relation with space. My guess is that this feeling comes from the fact that it didn't have a so much fluid relation with time. The relation with time was much stronger. People knew exactly when and where social interaction was possible, but it was possible in many different places. Thank you so much for your attention.