 Thank you for the opportunity. I wanted to start off by looking at the recent satellite image. If you look at it, we can see that outside the settlements themselves, we can see lots of different kinds of use for the landscape, like agricultural areas or forested areas or water bodies or even roads that are part of the cognitive landscape. While these areas are not directly inhabited, they form an important part of the landscape as they give the context of the settlements themselves. It is no wonder that one of the core fundamentals of landscape archaeology is that we have to consider these areas when we try to analyze a settlement. We have to understand these areas if we want to map the patterns of the settlements themselves and when we want to find out the driving factors behind their location and their dispersion. This is especially important if we are trying to extrapolate from this data when we try to create theoretical models of the area that we do not yet know. This is the theme of my PhD research that is ongoing at the moment. My aim is to create a theoretical model of the Kapos river valley in Hungary of the Roman settlement structure of this area. I based this model mostly on currently known sites and published and archival data. One of the key issues with this kind of data, however, is that in most cases they only record where sites are located. It is hard to determine if an area is empty because it was really empty or because it was just not researched yet. This introduced quite a problem for my modeling for the extrapolation process. What I needed was a large-scale controlled fieldwork that I could compare my data to and that could help me out. A big help came from the project you can see on the screen now, which is running at our institute at the moment and of which I am a part of. The aim of this project is to map the changes in the early to middle Neolithic settlement patterns and material culture in southern Transdelubia, which roughly correlates with my area of interest. As part of this project, we are conducting micro-regional level surveys in three key areas of southern Transdelubia, the southern Bellatón region, the Toneis-Sharcas region and the southern Baranya Hills region. For this presentation, I am going to concentrate on the Toneis-Sharcas micro-region, which is located at the confluence of three major waterways near the Danube. From the north, the Sharvis and the Geo rivers and from the southwest, the Vercivi stream as they flow into the Danube in a wide floodplain area, which dominates this micro-region as you can see from the elevation model. This floodplain area is bordered to the north by low-lying Latinos to the south by a high hill, the Orange Mountain, and to the west some lower hills and the valley of the Vercivi stream. We conducted a GPS-ADD extensive field survey in this area to create a complete coverage of this region as much as we can. We adopted a method developed by Gabor Mesterhansi and his colleagues for heritage management projects, but it fit our purposes really well. It is based on a 100 by 100 meter virtual grid of the area where surveyors are walking in 25 meter fixed intervals at fixed GPS coordinates always to the north and to the south. Find material is recorded based on this virtual grid, so we can analyze the find numbers individually from every cell. It is important to mention that every find is collected, not just the neolithic finds, but all the finds, regardless of their age, which means that I can use the data from this survey for my Roman age studies. Also, every possible area is surveyed without any bias, which was not always the case in earlier research. We really aim to create a standardized uniform coverage of the entire landscape, which we can always analyze in a 25 by 100 meter grid as well. As a result of our surveys, we have covered roughly 1,500 hectares of the area, which is around 45% of the total area of the micro region. The parts that were left out were mostly built-out areas or forested areas where we couldn't conduct the field survey, but even in this larger area, we could identify large numbers of different sites and different areas, but also a lot of offsite areas where little or no finds were found, but we know that they have been covered, so we can calculate with that. These kind of offsite areas are even more prominent if we filter for the Roman age finds from the area. We can see lots of empty areas now. In total, we have identified seven distinct clusters of Roman habitation in the area. Three of them are quite intensive and four other sites were of much lower intensity, but they are still present. It is obvious from the data that the intensive sites are all located in the west-central parts of the micro region near the confluence of the Chihuahua and the Chavis rivers, and in the eastern part, we can only see some very low intensity sites or nothing at all. We can correlate this data with elevation models to gain more insight into the settlement distribution in the area, and we can see that all the sites, even the low intensity ones here in the eastern parts, are located on the first, on the low terraces above the regularly flooded areas or the flood plains. Regardless of their intensity, but we can also identify in both areas some areas of activity, some zones of activity around the sites themselves. We can see that because we have data on the empty areas, we can observe that there are some areas which we would consider prior real estate from the comparison with the known sites that are still empty, both in the area of the known sites, but also in the eastern areas. So even though we don't have any large-scale habitation in the eastern areas, we can see that there are areas that could be inhabited. This is further contrasted if we put up the known artifacts from all the other areas. We can see that in the area or in the east where there was virtually no habitation or little habitation in the Roman era, we can see some quite high-level habitation in other areas. In fact, this area was inhabited in every single other era except for the Roman age, which is a very interesting conclusion or very interesting information. We can also see some off-site scatter in the area which could be interpreted as the areas actively used around the sites, but we can see this even away from the sites. So even though there is little habitation in the eastern flood plains, there is still evidence that this area was used just not inhabited as directly as in the west-central areas. Now that we know this data, we can clearly see the disparity in the location of sites and in the settlement patterns towards the east. Now we can start thinking about the driving factors. What is causing this disparity? One way to think of it are the environmental factors. The obvious one being the elevation in an area as we have discussed earlier. Also possible would be a difference in soil quality or change in the climate and the water levels. We are still working on deducing this information as we get better soil maps of the area. The difference in climate is possible, but considering that there was habitation in every single other era, it is highly unlikely that this climate change will only affect the Roman era sites. What we can also look at are social factors and in this case what comes up is the proximity to the border. Approximately to the Ripa Panmunica, the border of the Roman Empire which runs along the Danube in the area. If we put the probable route of the industrial on our map and the long watchtowers along the border, we can see some level of correlation between the habitation in this eastern part and that there is no habitation east of this limousole area which is quite an interesting conclusion and something that we should look further into. The way we are planning to move forward with this and the way I intend to put these conclusions into my model is by looking at the other micro regions that we are still researching and which are still not completed to see if these patterns persist. If there is a difference between the flood plains and the higher terraces, these micro regions also have these kinds of environments and they are much further inland from the border so we could see even some social aspects. But I'm also looking at some targeted micro regions along the social factors like the effect of a major road on the settlement patterns as I do in northern Baranya County near Szažd where a major trade route is running through a valley with a flood plain and by deducing the settlement patterns I could understand more about the driving forces and by understanding more and by quantifying these driving forces these could be put into the settlement pattern models that I'm trying to build of the Kapoš river valley. Thank you very much.