 Okay I want to jump-seek here so my top was not in the program but I have to substitute for whatever there was. I want to speak to you about hill forts and how to modeling conflicts between regions and hill forts and how this could affect flows of goods and probably drive urbanity so there's a lot to do so we better start. So hill forts when I refit hill forts I mean bronze age hill forts this is especially in the middle European archaeology long-standing topic and they come in all shapes and sizes and also appear in a very broad time frame so just two examples to show you the how diverse the phenomenon can be. This is the Honeyscheburg near Kronach which has a stone wall fortification which is always doubt to have Mediterranean what you say like for the idols which tries to draw inspiration from the Mediterranean fortifications and on the other side we have the it's near Bogfingen which is also a bronze age hill fort which later becomes a princely seed and the Celtic age and then even a Celtic opiator so we have short lived ones long lived ones and a lot of things but they have stuff in common. To just illustrate the diversity of hill forts a little bit more here are three hill forts which are all dates to the late Bronze Age and I also mapped all the settlements that could be dated more or less to the late Bronze Age and there's always like the problem of dating the open settlements but we see that like the Honeyscheburg is very alone in the very isolated area with no settlement pattern to it while we see for the in book has a very dense settlement pattern next to it so we can argue that hill forts have different functions have different origins and also appear in different settlement landscapes and if we talk about urbanity we can define it in a broad variety of ways and the classical way to do it is with function is through functional definition so we have certain types of buildings with specific functions we have a wall of space we have a degree of planning we have monumentalism which is of attributed to the walls to be monumental and we have traces of an elite and if you go through the papers there are always very narrative so depending on the author this could be a trace of the elite the others say like no we have the vapor burials that's the elite no the wall itself shows there's an elite building it so there's not much of quantification to it so it's more like a checklist archaeology you take your side and you try to fill the checklist and somehow it becomes monumental urban so nowadays we have this sociological definitions and so a vanity is characterized by institutions and activities that aim for a broader hinterland this is a very recent definition there's also another one which is very popular especially in iron age archaeology now these days is a numerical significant aggregation of inhabitants that fulfill the set of functions for the hinterland and I tend towards the first one because I see the numerical significant aggregations a little problematic especially in prehistoric archaeology because how many people really inhabited the hillfort we absolutely don't know because most of them have not been excavated very well or not excavated how you say not much space is excavated often only the wall is dated or the fortification itself is dated but the the inner area has never been touched or we have some geomagnetics that shows a lot of post-holes but we don't know if there was a numerical significant aggregation and then we have a lot of umbrella terms that have been applied like pro pre-urban proto-urban semi-urban they have traces of urbanism so people try to get around the definition and just attribute something to it to say like it's a little bit urban but I will never say it's urban because then I have to give a definition and discuss it so we can close with this urbanism is a murky term and probably we should ditch it but it's always very easy in my career to ditch a term and then to come up with the next umbrella term so we stick to urbanism but what I will try to do is to connect it with urban flow theory which comes from spatial geography or from socio-geography urban flow theory argues that urbanization is a process that starts in space and flows of goods drifting through space towards an area and guts can be raw materials finished product peoples ideas innovations or some authors even say it's just energy that goes through space and these streams these flows of goods can accumulate in a certain area and cause changes in the economic and social space so this is a very important part keep that in mind when we're coming towards the model soon so here's an example this is black rock city it's a contemporary city that's built for one week each year in the black rock desert and it's the site where the burning man festival happens and this city hosts 80 000 people and you can see there is a certain degree of planning there is a street layout we have all these different roads they even have road names you can have an address like my tent is here and there and you can see in the middle there's like these half roundish thing there's the central camp in the middle of it all you can see the man that is burned during the burning man thing and people build a temple so we have all and everything that we need for the checklist you could go and fill the checklist and say this is an urban place and you have monumental architecture you can see down there is the camps that people build that they live in for the week but also we have these flows of goods because 80 000 people come there so they bring stuff there via the alcohol they come to them during the festival via their tents via other stuff so just to keep this in mind an urban space can be very contemporary don't try to connect it to long term standing settlements even in prehistory maybe we have urban places that pop up be not very resilient because they are dependent on these flows of goods and they might just disappear and then collapse again and so i'm very arguing in favor of seeing urbanity also as a contemporary phenomenon phenomenon so flows of goods can accumulate in a certain area and causing changes in economic and social space just brought that up to make it clear again and these change in spaces can lead to the formation of new institutions and institutions regulate conflicts of interest and stabilize the various spaces so the flows of goods still come in stay come into a space and the concentration of institutions will eventually lead to a more dense urbanized area like city or an opida in the central european urban age okay so this was all very very theoretic let's try to show you on this image let's see this is the population in bronze age and they are all connected to macro socioeconomic networks so they need bronze to come in and they will trade off like the agricultural surplus to get bronze and make new tools so the population will be divided into two groups the bound to place people this being the farmers that cannot leave their land that's not easily move and the other ones might be the metal workers that could possibly go to another area and do their trade and the bound to place people being mostly producers while the mobile people being mostly distributors and in the classical mobile by taylor he gives them act it was like flexible and conservative i would be careful with these but the mobile is being a little bit more flexible and so the mobile people thinking more global they try to stay connected to the networks while the bound to place people are acting more local because they cannot change they're interested in safe borders safe space a good hinterland where they can live in so these are drifting forces society is drifting in two directions and they need a superior institution to regulate the conflicts and rule them and i would argue that hillforts being the expressions of these superior institutions so i will try to prove in the model that hillforts can stabilize regions and therefore might play a key role within the urbanization of space as they will allow flows of goods to traverse more safely to the space that they actually safeguard and to model this i use the prisoners dilemma and are you all familiar with game theory and the prisoners dilemma we can make okay so i will go through it very shortly like in the classical prisoners dilemma we have two people that rob a bank together and both of them getting caught and they were put in separate cells and they have a variety of option both of them could confess so both of them will get like a five-year sentence but one of them could remain silent while one confesses and that means that the one who stays silent is getting a 20-year sentence so and then you have the various both varieties player a stay silent player b stay silent and then last but not least you have both of them remain silent so they both just will get one year term of prison because it could not be determined who actually holds the weapon during the the bankrupt week and we can also put this in more general terms like cooperate and defect so whenever we have an interaction between humans you will act to a payout matrix and the payout matrix depends on if you will cooperate or defect so if both players cooperate they will both get like a payout of four if i'm cooperating and no if i'm this is right one if my if i'm cooperating and i'd be defected by my opponent so i will get nothing because he just takes everything and i go bankrupt and the other way around if i defect my opponent um who's cooperating then i will take the game from him and have a higher payout so and there's a variety of strategies this could be applied because we play this game over and over again and so they're more cooperative and more aggressive strategies and this is just a rundown of different strategies you see the always cooperating strategy means i'm always cooperating no matter what happened in the round before you can defect me over and over again while on the bully strategy that you see down there i will more or less always be defecting on you no matter if you're cooperating or not um we can give them numbers the different strategies so the very cooperative strategies have very low numbers always cooperating as a one bully strategy was 11 so you see you're just a round up of the various strategies this could come and in our model each pair each patch chooses a strategy every round it calculates the gain and it checks for the most um successful strategy within its neighbors and then adapts to it so um these are some screenshots from the net logo model and you see the um so-called tit for test strategy number five is very prominent here if we can remember for a long time if i don't allow my agents my patches to remember the strategy played before it's a much more colorful one but this is not like humans interact we know what happened to us like last year last months last week so this is not a very um vital um thing to see so if hillfords have their own payout matrix they lose less through defection this is like the main thing i put in the model so here we see the payout matrix for the hillford we just skip that to be a little bit faster and you can see now the patches could build a hillford and um they do it the way that they calculate the threat level so they analyze what strategies the patches surrounding them choose and might answer to this um if they have enough gain enough gain from the other rounds to build up a hillford and what actually happens is we have two outcomes of the model we either have these hillford landscapes where we have hillford next to hillford because one patch decides to build a hillford the next one evaluates the um evaluates threat level and builds a hillford and builds a hillford so in this outcome of the model every patch that could afford it builds a hillford within two or three rounds and we have another outcome that often happens we have a very dispersed set of these hillfords so um i have not yet um checked if this is an artifact of the code or if this is like two outcomes of the model but if you look at the archaeological record we have more or less this more dispersed hillford landscapes so number one must be wrong somehow um but what we can also see is that the hillford um changes the strategies applied by its neighbors to more cooperative strategies i cannot defect on a hillford patch that often so these landscapes tend to be um more friendly more cooperative towards each other and towards the neighbors than the um the patch is not affected by hillfords so hillford forced the neighbors to tend towards more cooperative strategies and this leads to the following outcome if i'm modeling the flow of goods by a simple a plus pathfinding algorithm to space these flows will traverse next to hillfords more often hillfords themselves playing the bully strategy all the time once they have the game they just start to hit on the neighbors over and over again well hey well the neighbors always cooperate you will hardly ever see people play tit for tat with a hillford like i indicated on the on the upper right corner so um flows of goods traverse to spaces near hillfords far more often because um in our model the traders going on with their goods with their metal wants to go through patches that are cooperative because you will not trade with the bully and um as flows tend to traverse the hillfords more often hillfords could be considered an institution to stabilize regions and therefore play a key role within the urbanization of space so conflicts can lead in an outcome once they resolve through an institution to urbanism thanks for your attention