 So hello to everyone, welcome back from the break. I put the term children in between brackets because it's a generic term that, in case of archaeological analysis, must be clearly defined and lost. Generally, we have two angles from which we can do this topic, the biological one and the social one. Personally, I think that any archaeological approach that would focus on only one of these two is incomplete. I think that any archaeological approach of the subject should start from the materials and the context and then be directed towards those social interpretations. In other words, we should start from the bones and their discovery context. This presentation is only the beginning in approaching this topic, the first step, which meant the systematization of the data available at the present time, followed by an anthropological reassessment of the astrological material and the formulation of the first interpretations. We will focus here on the individuals between ages, between birth and 14 years of age at the time of death, using age 14 as a limit out of reasons pertaining to the biological sphere, since the social age limit is something that should result from analysis. More than 10 years ago, I tried to get an overview image concerning the degree of representation of children inolithic and copper age cemeteries and settlements from Romania. In spite of numerous faults that now I find to that particular approach, I could notice a pattern, namely that in the case of several large groups of graves, the percentage of children was lower than in the others, between 5% and 10%. And in the other cases, as you can see, they are around 30%. This characteristic overlaps with a certain period, more precisely with the late Neolithic, and with a particular phenomenon, which is the emergence of large cemeteries as burial grounds outside the settlement area, and the particular position of the position, which is stretched on the back. Before that and after that, we have the classical Neolithic position of burial, which is crouched on a site. Whether there is a connection between the low percentage and the emergence of large burial ground and the position of the position, this is something that we can keep on discussing about. From the cases with diminished representation of children, I chose to give a closer look to the situation encountered in the Hamadiya cemetery at Chernavoda. I will not go into details, discriminating the mentioned cemetery on the screen. There are several general data to which I add for comparison that the only other Hamadiya cemetery excavated properly and published monographically so far is the Duranklak one, the one from Duranklak in Bulgaria. And because I mentioned Duranklak site, here is a degree of representation for children, in this case, for the period of interest. Period of interest is mainly the phases one to three for the Hamadiya culture. It can be noticed that the two percentages, one for the phases one to three of the Hamadiya culture and one for Hamadiya phase four environment culture are in concordance with the general image that I will set in this graph for the part north of the den. As I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, a process of re-analysis of the Hamadiya cemetery from Chernavoda is on course, process which is slowed down mainly by two factors, the dispersion of materials between several institutions. And you have here the institutions which have either bones or pottery or film notes or whatever. Sometimes one type of material divided in between three institutions and the lack of financing. The reassessment of the anthropological analyses increased slightly the number of children. And here I mean infants one and two, from what was previously published, 29 out of 556 individuals. This was a number given by the first anthropological analysis done in the 50s. And now we look at what was left of the collection, which is a large part of it anyway. And using that we got to the number of 37 individuals instead of 29. But they remained into the low percentage of representation. Going further, we tried to see what type of context gave us the children bones. The result was quite surprising. Out of 37 individuals, only eight were found in graves. The rest of them were discovered in the archaeological level and in what we call complexes. I was told that the term complex is not a very English proper term. But feature to me sounds quite general. Gravel is a feature also. So complexes is something else. And for a better understanding of this context of discovery, I will say a few words about each of them. I will start with the archaeological layer. What do I mean by that? A large quantity of materials was recovered from the cemetery from what we call the archaeological layer. I mean, they were found outside features, such as graves or complexes. Most of these materials are represented by pottery fragments and by these articulated human and animal bones, particularly everything, like in a settlement. I assume you would explain the settlement, but not we don't have a habitation structure. So it's not about that. And there is no consistent trace of a later habitation that could explain this amount of homangia, the neolithic material dispersed among the features. So we have a large number of individuals coming from this type of context. Another type that provided context, as I said, is that of complexes. In the Chernobyl cemetery, they are illustrated by more or less coherent agglomeration of materials and were identified and defined as such by the archaeologists that did the excavation in the 50s. Most probably based on direct field observations that transcend the drawings or the photos that were preserved in the archives. There is no mention of pit contours for these features, but this observation is valid for graves also. So in case of graves, they also said that they could not identify the pits of the grave because the soil had the same texture, the same color. So this is not an argument to dismiss idea of complex. On the slide, there are two examples of such complexes. The upper left part is illustrated by this here, by the skull complex, an intentional coil in the position of human remains. And I'll make a more detailed presentation of this one next door after noon break. And here in the lower right part is illustrated complex one, a less structured feature, agglomeration of materials, which at best resemble a garbage pit. And on the screen there are the drawings of two of the graves that provided those theological remains of children. An attempt to correlate the age group with the context of discovery showed us that there is a strong correlation between smaller children, which means infants one, and complexes. The two newborns, because we have two of those also, identified in the sample were also found here in complexes. I also try to see which is the spatial distribution of these remains. And for this, I will mention briefly the internal structure of the burial ground, which is composed of two nuclei of graves with slightly different characteristics, named upper and lower. This is upper cemetery and this is lower cemetery. And beside these, there were also identified two ravines named by the excavators, which are based on the structure of the depositions in that area, pit one and pit two. And this is a collapsed area toward the Danube, where they also did some excavation. They also collected a lot of materials that fell down from the cemetery area, but they excavated some in situ features in the collapsed part also. The osteological remains of children seem to be distributed as follows. The remains discovered in the archaeological layer were mainly recorded in the northern part of the burial ground, more precisely in the area of the ritual pits. And in the collapsed area, the VHM studies. The ones discovered in complexes concentrate almost exclusively in the area of the ritual pits. Well, the ones discovered in graves were recorded in the upper and lower cemeteries and in the collapsed area in one case. We also wanted to see if the smaller children were given a preferential location, but it doesn't necessarily look like that, so they seem like a current bunch. An issue which I avoid you to bring up so far is a degree of completeness. Those are the newborns, so the same group. The degree of completeness of skeletons of children. I apologize for the improper drawings, but the reassessment was just finished and we did not find a better sketch and the child sketch to work on it quickly. The idea is the following. Fragments of long bones were the most frequently recorded, usually just that, sometimes rarely accompanied by fragments of the skull and extremely rarely by fragments of the pelvis recorded. There is only one individual which seems a little better represented, which is this one here. This situation would not be surprising given the fragility of the children bones if each individual would be represented by more of these remains, no matter how fragmented. But in most cases, we have individuals represented by only one bone fragment and you can see here like we got this case or this case. If we consider the context of this discovery on the screen, I illustrated the findings from the complexes, which mean these articulated bones plus something else, other materials. The scenes, they might make sense, but they are not so easy to explain when we look at the situation of child bones found in graves. As we can see, the situation is similar to one of the complexes with one exception, this one here. This raises the question about the possible secondary manipulation of child hysterical remains even in the case of graves. The answer is definitely yes for the bones discovered in complexes, but it becomes maybe in this case and we have to look more carefully for this. Anyway, I wouldn't call in these cases, I wouldn't call it, for example, a double grave because children were associated with the doubt bones. They were not just that piece of bone of child. And because I mentioned the post-mortem manipulation of bones, I want to mention a more particular situation involving child bones. Complex O, what is written with black is the data from the field notes, while the info in white with the skeleton diagrams are the result of the current reassessment of bones. The field note also mentioned the hypothesis that the child body was dismembered peri-mortem since one arm was still in anatomical connection when excavation occurred. Unfortunately, the bones were not all preserved. As you can see here, there are no hand bones for the child. And the old anthropological analysis does not mention them either, so they must have been lost somewhere between excavation and the first anthropological analysis. In any case, this situation speaks clearly about secondary manipulation, about ritual involving possible dismemberment of bodies shortly after death. Rituals that involve individuals of all ages and both sexes and definitely did not exclude children. This slide lays the ground for another issue which is that of the association of various elements in pictures including child bones. In complexes, the children remains were associated with bones coming from two to 10 individuals of both sexes and various ages and deaths. It is interesting that about half of these complexes contain remains from a man, a woman, and a child which might raise a question of intentional selection of individuals, so the nuclear family may be. In the case of graves, the image looks a little bit different namely the children remains were found almost exclusively in women's graves, sometimes together with some isolated male bones. When I talked about the subject of this presentation at an incipient stage of research, I was asked about grave goods associated with children compared with graves associated with adult individuals. As I hope it became clear so far, in none of the cases that children was a focus with maybe the exception of complex soul and grave 32 which was that more complete individual. It is thus impossible to approach the issue of association between children bones and artifacts or animal bones because we cannot say whether these elements were placed there for the child or for the adult individual. And since we approach the issue comparison between the treatment of children and treatment of other individuals, we can say that out of 15 individuals with an age between 14 and 18, what we would call now today adolescent, only one might have been part of a grave excavated in the collapsed area. This is a situation for the next day group. Unconfirmed because the bones were not preserved and seven were found in complexes located in the area of the ritual pit and other seven cases in the archeological layer were located in the collapsed area. The overview highlights a more restricted type of context doubled by a more contained area specific for that of the adolescent. That's the infant one and two children and this is the next age group, 14 to 17, to 18. They were also found mostly as isolated bones so the same situation as for the younger children, mostly known bones with one exception of a more complete skeleton. The ordering of all the information from the field nodes, drawings, and the first anthropological analysis correlates with the anthropological reassessment of sub-adult bones. Led to the following general observations. Children are underrepresented, that's a fact, and it's a characteristic of the period and of the area. They were not the focus, they were represented almost exclusively by isolated, deserterated bones. Small children seem to have a strong connection with complexes as context of the position and they mostly concentrate in the northern half of the burial ground where the ritual pits are located. They are always in the company of those from adult individuals. Neither the smaller children or the next age group, the 14 to 18, were found alone by themselves. And we have that trio that we have to follow a little bit further, the man, woman, child that was recorded and the zero 14 age group seem to be slightly less restricted than the 14 age group in terms of area of discovery and context of discovery. And in the end, I would like to end that the situation presented here was not recorded at rank black, which is always our main go-to point, or to the other cemetery mentioned at the beginning which have this low representation of children. Remaining so far, both quite unique and difficult to explain. Thank you for your attention.