 from the area. Located on the northeast of the Mediterranean, the Amuk, which is currently in the Hatay province of Turkey, is a very fertile plain, to which three rivers flow into the Karasu, from the north, the Afrin, from the east, and the Orontes from the south, connecting this plain to the north, to the Amuk plain, to the Quake plain in Syria, and to Inner Syria through the Orontes valley. The plain, following the Orontes valley, opens then to the Mediterranean in the southwest. The period presented here concerns mainly three centuries, from the mid-14th to the mid-11th century BC. During this period the region underwent large-scale political changes, from being a Mitenian vassal state, with its own dynasty located at Telacana, Alalach, in the 14th century. It was then conquered by the Hittite Empire, and became in 1320s a province under the control of the vice-royalty of Kharkimish on Euphrates. With a collapse of the Hittite Empire at the end of the 13th century, the area became then independent, and by the 11th century was part of a kingdom called Wallis-Tin, with capital at Tel Thainat, only one kilometer north of the former capital, Alalach. The data set, on which this analysis is based, refers to the results of the four excavation campaigns carried out by the Oriental Institute in Chicago in the 1930s at the site of Chattel-Huyuk, located at the entrance to the Afrin valley on the eastern part of the plain. More than 16,000 taut shirts and over 3,000 small finds were brought to the Oriental Institute, together with all documentation, drawings, photos, and notes of the excavation campaign. I could study this material during a project started in 2007, concluded in 2013. This site is a large mound of approximately 1.2 hectares, that's only the properties with a lower town on its western side, which has never been excavated. Four areas and several trenches were extensively excavated at different depths, revealing a continuous occupation from the 15th century BC to the 5th century BC, followed then by a Hellenistic and Byzantine settlement. A small base trench that you see in red on the map revealed also an occupation dated to the end of the fourth millennium, suggesting a long history of the settlement. The general dating of the excavated layers has been carried out on, first, the base of the local stratigraphy, second, comparison with assemblages from neighboring sites, and third, and only as a terminus posquem, on imports which were found in all levels and all areas. LB2 contexts were reached only in two areas and exposed over several building phases, but while the small extent in area five, which you see here, was really too small to understand the use of space, the stratigraphic evidence of area two provides more information. It presents a large building with storerooms destroyed by fire, followed by a burial area possibly connected with the above pebbled open area with large mud brick silo. Pebble floor are frequently renewed until the open cart is rearranged with new silo, new scattered enumation and two domestic units. This evidence suggests that at least this part of the settlement underwent a kind of change, special change from a large well built structure to scatter the domestic occupation. In terms of pottery assemblages, this LB2 phase shows a very local tradition of single serving drinking and eating bowls made of simple ware, and it is the SW marked in the diagram with no surface treatment, very conservative from the LB1 tradition. In the table set, the only group of painted vessel you see is the PM in the percentages are biconical creators. They represent a further development of the so-called zero-silition painted tradition and are characterized by geometric patterns red or black, carried out with a very thin brush on lip and shoulder parts. The second shape with a surface decoration is again a multiple serving container and these are plates, either plain red or with a red and barnished horizontal bent on the rim, also belonging to a very local tradition dating back to the LB1, 2 in Telacan. The imports in this last phase of the late Bronze Age represent barely 1% of the whole assemblage and show mainly one place of origin, which is Cyprus. Red monochrome bowls with wishbone handle, wet sleep, two milk bowls, red luster spindle bot and one base ring jar are the only imported shapes. They may occur both in funerary and in domestic context. Not one single shirt of Mycenaean pottery was found in this context, although this should be the period of the cultural quenet when the Mycenaean imports to the Levant reached their climates. So is this the result of a specific resistance or of the fact that this post surface was very little or of the fact that Chattahuyoko was only a village? In order to try to answer this question, we may enlarge the picture to the region and to the northern Levant in general. The closest and most connected settlement is the site of Telacana, Ancindalala, located 10 kilometers to the west of Chattahuyoko and excavated in the 1940s by Wolley and since 2005 by a Turkish mission under the directorship of Aslihan Yener. The late Bronze Age site delivered many Mycenaean imports, which have been recently reanalyzed by Özgün El and Kohl. All these imports, which is a minimum individual number of approximately 85 containers, date no later than the late Heladity A2 period. On the one side, they obviously prove a connection to the Mediterranean during the 14th century, probably still through the part of Minetal Beta and the Arontes Valley, I would suggest. But they suggest also an interruption or a strong decrease of these imports at the beginning of the 13th century with the late Heladity B1. Even if recent archaeological excavations have clearly shown that the site of Alalach underwent, just like Chattahuyoko, a process of reduction and partial abandonment during the 13th century, it seems noteworthy that the Amok Plain experiences the absence, or the very little quantity, of late Heladity B3 imports, especially when compared to what happens just south of the Arontes Valley at Ugarit. So Ugarit is considered, just quoting Leonard, the major player in a Geo-Levantain coastal trade in the 14th and in the 13th century. The presence of these imports, it's also tested along the Arontes Valley, not mentioning that you see on the map highlighted in red, not mentioning, obviously, all the imports in the South and Levant. So if the late Heladity B1 production was still part of the Mycenaean Coine and trade, and the major moment of spread of Mycenaean pottery, why at Alalach imports stopped at the end of the 14th century and why at Chattahuyoko there are none. Making a thesis from an absence, so it's Nilo, is very difficult. However, we may give a look on the Mycenaean imports in the Hittite Empire. While in western Anatolia, which was not part of the Hittite Empire, there are plenty of imports, Anatolia, and especially Silesia, which was directly connected to the Mediterranean, experienced the same paucity of Mycenaean imports. So quoting a King Kozal, although there are not enough data to prove it, the reason might be not related just to geography, rather be geopolitical, in other words, related to the Hittite policy. As a matter of fact, if we consider that the Hittite conquest of the Amukh was definitely established by 1320s, so at the end of the 14th century, the possible drop of imports, at least in Alalach, could be related to this change in the political situation. However, resistance might be a too strong word to define it, because it would imply that the local community, being strongly influenced by the Hittite presence, intentionally refused Mycenaean imports. This seems not to be the case because the impact of Hittite pottery production in the Amukh and the LB Amukh remain limited to very specific functional categories. By contrast, for example, the North Levantine tradition of visually emphasize the crater as the main element of the table set and the possible symbol for social distinction, as it has been amply discussed by still, among many others, it is well rooted in Chattel assemblage, even without the Mycenaean imports, because we have just local painted craters. Therefore, I would prefer to hypothesize a decrease in connectedness between the Amukh and Ugarit. Ugarit had a different political relationship to the Hittite Empire, and when it obtained as a reward for its loyalty, several territories in the northern Orontes Valley, the relationship to the Amukh plain was probably heavily compromised. This is particularly interesting when comparing with the evidence of the Iron Age one at Chattel. Iron Age one level were found in three areas, all revealing domestic architecture, in particular in area two, where it's possible to see the passage from LB2 to Iron One, as low process of densification of the settlement is visible. The blue is the Iron One walls without clear breaks. New houses are added, old ones rebuilt, storage facilities and large open areas give the pace to a denser settlement. The visual impact of the pottery assemblage by contrast changes. The earliest assemblages from all three areas shows that locally produced painted pottery, which is PM in the graph, strongly increases in number, variety and production. Creators developed by keeping a local painted tradition of cross, hatch and triangles that you see on your left, and also by introducing new motives such as the wavy line between bands, this is bottom left, or figurative patterns ranging from very Mycenaean as the bird and the panel to a composition of bird and fish on a row to very geometrized caprids on the top. And also with the introduction, as you see, of a different shape, not only biconical creators, but also antheroid creators. But the main change takes place in the single portion walls. Here, not only patterns are strongly bond to the late Heladic 3C middle events, the repertoire, but also new Mycenaean shape are introduced, such as the bell shaped ball, the shallow angular ball or a much smaller number, the feeding bottle. These foreign shapes coexist and intermix with local variation of the local S-shaped balls that you see on your left, conical plates and shallow balls which become also painted. Everything which concerned the table set becomes eclectic, hybrid and mixed between local and the Chien, but only the table set. And here you have an example of a very mixed pot stand. In fact, none of the local habits seems to be affected by this strong influence. Food preparation, storage, transport, space organization, fire installation, they all keep local traits. In contrast, for example, what Yazool Landau has emphasized for the Southern Levant. However, there is no doubt that knowledge transmission on a JN shapes and patterns took place on the site through people and not through objects. Imports are also very low and the painted vessel are all locally made. The retrieval of a pottery kiln clearly shows that the painted bell shaped balls and feeding bottles were produced together with local jars and plates. And here you have two wasters as an example. However, why a local community with its own tradition that you see in the LB may want to embrace the visual impact, but only the visual impact of a foreign table set, even if small groups of migrants were living among them, the answer to this question may be searched in a general political situation. Probably already during the mid 13th century, the region underwent economic crisis, which caused ruralization, dropping production and political instability. So the local community was weak, both in in terms of both political and community identity. By the mid 12th century, the town was not only regaining a better economic condition, but had already started a new process, building a new identity. The way people cooked, stored, lived, remained deeply rooted in the local tradition. Power was communicated with the Luvian writing in the southeastern Anatolian iconography, in other words, the Hittite legacy. But the country was called with a term, Wallisthene, which seems to be strongly related to a term used to define one of the so-called sea people. And the visible perception of the table set was at least new, having a gene and local elements already mixed and hybridized. If this last element is related, quoting Muhlenbrug to a legendary or positively valued Aegean world, or, as I may suggest, to the social role of a specific group of people during the period of identity formation, this remains still to be proved. But if resistance was, for the late Bronze Age, a too strong definition, acceptance is, for the Iron Age, even not correct. The gene table set was received, transformed, and employed to build the material identity of a new community. Thank you very much.