 Hi everyone, good afternoon. I will present you like an overview about what we've done in a project. A big project, it's already archeological maybe because it ends in 2017, so it's still like a very post presentation. But yeah, I continue working on that besides other stuff. So probably it's a little bit of patchy. I've done several moments more intense work on that, but I wanted to do this kind of overview. I think I believe it's useful. Well, the main goal in this project, at least for our team, was to explain the long-distance patterns in other environments specifically. The idea was, well, we have a lot of different phenomena. You have production constraints, you have ecological constraints, you have also, of course, social norms, the kinship structure, all those little details, all giving us a land use pattern. The other aspect, of course, is how you read the land use pattern archeologically, but for the time sake, of course, we are here just talking about the land use from the theoretical perspective. In archeology, it's quite, at least we are working specifically in Central Asia, but looking towards Eurasia, also maybe Afro-Aridia-Eurasia, so Northern Africa and Mediterranean. The idea is that you have farming populations, could be only groups, could be whole societies, quite monolithic societies, if you want, like very limited, but also you have pastoralists. So pastoralists can be, in that sense, they can be fully integrated in those farming societies, or they can be completely different, just visiting and coexisting in the same area. But the main idea here is that the same place is actually useful for both activities, for both groups or societies, and we can consider other theories about, well, they are completely different, they use different spaces, they have completely different kind of use of the land, so we can just understand them separately, but here I'm working with these hypotheses that they are actually overlapping in their niches. This perspective, of course, we started with several questions, but the main idea that, wow, let's try to understand the relationship between people engaging in those two activities, and if they are competitive or cooperative. Finally, we conclude that this maybe is a bad question, and now a better question or a good question will be through which mechanisms and under which conditions, which you can see my background here in Asian-based modeling and simulation, made actually those stakeholders of both of those activities cooperate or compete, and of course also how those processes reflect on land use and create land use patterns. We created or projected a framework containing several hypothetical mechanisms, some of them are well-documented in enography and historical documents, but of course they are at the theoretical level here. It's quite big and was more like a projection, we didn't actually explore all of them up to now, but I believe at least in my own career and those of my colleagues, I believe that we can do it in the long run, but of course you have other constraints, especially computational constraints on those aspects. But the idea is to create a approach that is theory-building. I know that this maybe when the word modeling sounds more like towards data, but here I probably from my background in social sciences and try to make theory on social things, I tried this approach instead of data-driven approach. The first model that we created is a musical chairs model. It was the core mechanism that we could find that at least interested us. So it's basically the competition between those two activities for land use. We had a limited area, constant pressure, all of those, it's quite generic for any competition, so you have limited resources and someone wanted to use them and another party that also wants to use them. The main results were, which is not surprising, but was interesting enough, is that there is a strong b-modality, so you don't have ties, you have ties, but they are very temporary. And also, because of our design, of course, we have this kind of asymmetric dynamics because that's why musical chairs is the idea that farming stays on the chair and herders must go around the chairs if you want. So, of course, the farming has like a vantage only by being seated, during the whole year, for example. I didn't mention the presentation is online, so here I have always like some references, you can enter it and check it. This, that model is publicated 2014, it's quite long ago, and also the model is available, so if you want to check it. The second model we've done is nice musical chairs model, but the nice here is because we focus on the cooperative, because of the b-modality and the bias to us farming, we wanted to know if there was possible to have scenarios producing the middle ground, we'll be producing actual patterns that are not pure farming or perherting the long run. Here we introduce a lot of mechanisms, maybe I will not explain them here, you have more details in the long version of the presentation that is online, but the main idea here is that you have already groups that are possibly mixed, so you can combine stakeholders of both activities in the same group, group being a social structure, that's it, so it's quite abstract. Perering is a kind of exchange, but exchange in terms of, I increase the productivity of the other guy, so you have farmers, for example, allowing herders to graze on the fields in some periods of the year, so the dung can fertilize the fields, and of course this benefits also the herd, so this kind of exchange we try to reflect here. Group management is the simple idea that a group has a social structure can maybe impose a tendency towards land use, so for example, a group wants to be more, invest more in herd than farm, so they can try to bend individual stakeholders towards this kind of pattern, and then pasture tenure was the direct attack towards the bimodality, so we saw, well, if there is a symmetry between the herders and the farmers, let's try to break the asymmetry, just posting that, well, if herders behave like farmers, so they need to leave, but they just leave a sign in the seat saying, I'm here, a farmer's can still try to take those seats, but the idea is that only by signalling, you can have more like a symmetric, not totally symmetric, but quite symmetric. The results were more or less, without surprises, with some exceptions, but here we saw emerging, a kind of trend that we thought from the beginning, but we are not so sure that the fact that herding in groups, they tend to be more decentralized, so a scenario where you have here on the left hand of the graphs, you have more predominance of herding in a place, so you have more groups, this is like the number of groups and the size of the groups, it's more or less the same idea that you have if a territory is predominantly herding, you have several groups, and if it's predominantly farming, only a few groups remain, so the main idea that the farming expansion is facilitated, and maybe facilitates centralization, so there's a feedback there, but the main ideas that you can have both at the same time is more probable than the opposite. And also the fact that, well, you confirm that restricted access is a good approach for herders, if you put yourself in the perspective of herders, to break the asymmetry, so we have here a change from the bias to the complete middle ground, so we have here almost the same chance of having herding or farming winning a competitive situation. The last model, which is still unpublished, so I'm not explaining much, but it's just, so you have the idea towards where this is going. We here introduce the spatial logistics, the other models doesn't really have spatial relationships because we're more interested in the proportions, and also we introduce instead of group dynamics, alliance dynamics. So group dynamics is, you can imagine it's like a clan, you cannot actually negotiate your affiliates to a clan, but here alliance is the more political one, so you can really negotiate and join an alliance. And then pass to Turner, we do a reinterpretation with more detail, just because it was so important, less results. Well, I'll go just through, this is a main idea of the distance, how distance affect the relationships in this model. You have centers of each group, so you have this kind of relations between group centers and every patch, every part of the territory of the group. Oh, so, and you have different behaviors. So the chair metaphor here is that the centers of farmers doesn't move and centers of herders do move every year, so they adapt to the new territory they have. Here we have, this is like an overview, I'm not explaining everything, but how alliance works in this model is quite complicated, but it's not the most computational costly aspect of this model. It's actually a very trivial thing, which is the most delaying of the simulations, for example. But the main idea here is that you have, well, it's quite intuitive, I think. You have a hierarchical structure, you have some kind of tribute that circulates upwards, and then you have some kind of influence that circulates downwards. And the important thing is that alliance allows you to protect these smaller units, so you can understand the smaller units if they are preserved or if they are assimilated towards a bigger alliance, which connects directly to groups, for example. So you have these kind of different scenarios. And here is the reinterpretation of the pasture tenure, instead of having just assigned and absolutely saying, this is mine, we have kind of more archeological approach in saying the center of our herding group leaves something or modify the landscape in some way that communicates ownership or at least kind of property related to this land, which is more diffused because you also apply this kind of distance effect. So the longest, the territory, the more marks you need to have to preserve them. Okay, the main results is surprise, alliance doesn't make much difference, which is a kind of disappointed because alliance was a kind of, when you're modeling, you are respecting a lot of complexity emerging from that, but in terms of land use, it doesn't really affect it. It does affect other stuff. So, but which also is interesting is that the fact that you feel have land tenure like absolute, you can have the result that we have in the other model, a very different result from the not having any kind of property. But here, since it's much more diffuse, you have, I don't know if you can notice, you have like 500 simulation runs different. So it is important, but it's not so important than the last model. So the main idea is that it still is quite by model and the middle is more or less populated but it's less probable than the streams. So here's just a representation. The topography is very important from the center of the centers and we could control that with a parameter that constrain the position of farming centers because are the ones fixed. So the more constrained there are those centers, the easier are for herding. So if farming is just in one very small area, herders can distribute more easily because they can move and then they just surround the farming area. But if you have very diffuse, very less losing constraints on farming centers, they will like populate all the area and herders will be like smash between the areas of farming. You can, you have some images. Also, here's this main idea that we confirmed from the other model that less interreligion tends to be herding territories. So we have, here you have more alliance or more groups present than farming kind of localities. So here just overview for you see some simulations. In those cases you can see the how the fact that they can move actually is not advantage in terms of in the long run in the competitive aspect because they are just cornering from the expansion of all the farming centers. And also which is interesting that there's almost non extinction of centers of herders. So even though they can compete a lot, they will not eat themselves, the territory of the others. While farming centers, if you do concentrate them, you got that the audience crosses here are extinct centers, farming centers. So they just lose all the territory to another, normally another farming center, which is I believe quite interesting aspect of the special relationships. So in general here is a very long journey, a lot of modeling at the end a little bit disappointed about the alliance aspect. But the alliance aspect did allow me to see that the decentralization aspect of a herding society, if you want, it has a very robust base in several aspects, not only one, because the second model, for example, doesn't have a space. So it's just the fact that they are moving and leaving their territory and then coming back and needed to compete with people that are in the territory all the year round makes this happen. So less group, pastoralists, now more groups, pastoralists, less groups, centralization, normally one single group survive in most simulations with all farming. So this is quite, I think, a result that's quite robust. And well, also that the fact, I saw that reflecting several publications and pastoralists is the fact that pastoralists do need to behave like private property that pastures are from them and not anyone else. So they can have communal grazing areas, but the fact that that grazing area is from one group or at least one alliance, not for everyone, it's not open access. And that's it, sorry about the time.