• Limited area
• Constant pressure
• competitive and non-competitive periods
• Competitive situations resolved asymmetrically

→ Strong bimodality
→ Bias favouring farming

Publications ⇓

• Group dynamics
• Pairing
• Group management
• Pasture tenure

Publications ⇓

• Land use competition
  + open access =
  bias towards farming
• Group competition =
  larger groups
• Pairing has the smaller effect
• Management add to diversity, assuming group target is arbitrary
• Restrictive access greatly cancels the asymmetry caused by herding mobility

Single-class groups
farming groups or herding groups

• Spatial logistics
• Alliance dynamics
• Pasture tenure

• Spatial logistics:
  
  • Distance as a factor
  • Farming and herding group centres

• Alliance dynamics:
  
  • Emerging hierarchical structures
  • Production and tribute
  • Governance influence
  • Affinity and Alliance formation
• Pasture tenure → Territorial marks

• Bias towards farming is even clearer, presumably because of spatial relations
• Territorial marking (signal) has a milder effect compared to 'restrictive access' (social norm)
• Social complexity, as defined in the model (alliance dynamics), has virtually no effect on the diversity of land use patterns.

• Distibution of farming centres
  increased probability of big oasis if farming centres position is not constrained
• Marginalisation of herding groups:
  Herding Centre mobility cause them to be 'pushed' more easily

• Farming predominance linked to centralisation
• ... while herding predominance is associated with more and
  more autonomous groups/alliances

$$Autonomy index = {{numAutonomousEntities * numGroups} \over maxNumGroups^2}$$

$$Land use centralization index =$$
$${bigAutonomousEntityTerritory \over {(countAutonomousEntities * meanAutonomousEntityTerritory)}}$$