Susa II

Inhabitants. Estimates using Seshat standard 50-200 persons per hectare. Date estimates are based on dates for this polity sheet as the reference gave no timeframe other than the words "initial" and "middle."
Middle Uruk. Estimated population at Susa: 5,000. ^[1] applying this estimate to Middle Uruk in this period.
At start of Susa II urban area of Susa had declined to 5 ha site but overall Susiana had more settleents and had three other sites of comparable size to Susa. ^[2]
During middle of Susa II period the site was c25 ha. ^[3]
Susa: "... from the late sixth millennium B.C. onward its northern part had been settled by farming and livestock-raising peoples. More than one thousand years after the appearance of those first permanent villages Susa was founded, in the north-west corner of the [Khuzistan] plain on the anks of a small stream called the Shaur. The site was occupied more or less continually from about 4000 B.C. until the 13th century A.D., when it was abandoned after the Mongol conquest." ^[4]
"Sometime during the fourth millennium, in the urban center of Uruk (for which the archaeological period is named), southern Mesopotamia acquired a specifically Sumerian historical identity. ... Susa, in its earliest period (Susa I) attached to the world of the Iranian plateau, was now (in Susa II) integrated into the early Sumerian civilization of Mesopotamia, which it interpreted with originality." ^[5]

[1]: (Johnson 1987, 120) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[2]: (Potts 2016, 55) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

[3]: (Potts 2016, 56) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

[4]: (Musee du Louvre 1992) Musee du Louvre. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

[5]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Inhabitants. Estimates using Seshat standard 50-200 persons per hectare. Date estimates are based on dates for this polity sheet as the reference gave no timeframe other than the words "initial" and "middle."
Middle Uruk. Estimated population at Susa: 5,000. ^[1] applying this estimate to Middle Uruk in this period.
At start of Susa II urban area of Susa had declined to 5 ha site but overall Susiana had more settleents and had three other sites of comparable size to Susa. ^[2]
During middle of Susa II period the site was c25 ha. ^[3]
Susa: "... from the late sixth millennium B.C. onward its northern part had been settled by farming and livestock-raising peoples. More than one thousand years after the appearance of those first permanent villages Susa was founded, in the north-west corner of the [Khuzistan] plain on the anks of a small stream called the Shaur. The site was occupied more or less continually from about 4000 B.C. until the 13th century A.D., when it was abandoned after the Mongol conquest." ^[4]
"Sometime during the fourth millennium, in the urban center of Uruk (for which the archaeological period is named), southern Mesopotamia acquired a specifically Sumerian historical identity. ... Susa, in its earliest period (Susa I) attached to the world of the Iranian plateau, was now (in Susa II) integrated into the early Sumerian civilization of Mesopotamia, which it interpreted with originality." ^[5]

[1]: (Johnson 1987, 120) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[2]: (Potts 2016, 55) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

[3]: (Potts 2016, 56) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

[4]: (Musee du Louvre 1992) Musee du Louvre. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

[5]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

People. Population estimate for Late Uruk period (c3200-3100 BCE) based on 4.6 persons per km2 estimate and estimated polity area of 1500 km of Renfrew’s (1975) Early State Module, which provides some support for 20km estimated communication distance in Middle Uruk from central place to administrative boundary. ^[1]
Population of the Susiana ^[2] not sure why the figures are so specific, probably modelled data. using "administered population" for lowest figure of the range.
Early Uruk: 19,036. The "administered population" was 9,806.
Middle Uruk: 25,338. The "administered population" was 21,382.
"Total (center and rural) population densities, in persons per square kilometer, for the Susiana between Terminal A ad Late Uruk are as follows:" ^[3] I’ve converted the terminology into dates using the table on page 17 of the book.
2.6 persons per km2 3800 BCE
8.4 3700-3600 BCE
11.2 3500-3300 BCE
4.6 3200-3100 BCE
Early-Middle Uruk population increase occurred over about 300 years. ^[4] so transition would be c3500 BCE
"A period of depopulation, characterized by political competition between Susa in the west and Chogha Mish in the east led to the rather enigmatic Late Uruk polity in which Chogha Mish was independent of Susa." ^[5] - note more recent reference possibly contradicts this "depopulation".

[1]: (Johnson 1987, 115) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[2]: (Johnson 1987, 131) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[3]: (Johnson 1987, 122) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[4]: (Johnson 1987, 120) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[5]: (Sumner 1988) Sumner, William. 1988. Frank Hole, (ed.) - 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran, Settlement and Society From Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest. Paleorient. Volume 14. Number 1. pp.177-179.

People. Population estimate for Late Uruk period (c3200-3100 BCE) based on 4.6 persons per km2 estimate and estimated polity area of 1500 km of Renfrew’s (1975) Early State Module, which provides some support for 20km estimated communication distance in Middle Uruk from central place to administrative boundary. ^[1]
Population of the Susiana ^[2] not sure why the figures are so specific, probably modelled data. using "administered population" for lowest figure of the range.
Early Uruk: 19,036. The "administered population" was 9,806.
Middle Uruk: 25,338. The "administered population" was 21,382.
"Total (center and rural) population densities, in persons per square kilometer, for the Susiana between Terminal A ad Late Uruk are as follows:" ^[3] I’ve converted the terminology into dates using the table on page 17 of the book.
2.6 persons per km2 3800 BCE
8.4 3700-3600 BCE
11.2 3500-3300 BCE
4.6 3200-3100 BCE
Early-Middle Uruk population increase occurred over about 300 years. ^[4] so transition would be c3500 BCE
"A period of depopulation, characterized by political competition between Susa in the west and Chogha Mish in the east led to the rather enigmatic Late Uruk polity in which Chogha Mish was independent of Susa." ^[5] - note more recent reference possibly contradicts this "depopulation".

[1]: (Johnson 1987, 115) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[2]: (Johnson 1987, 131) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[3]: (Johnson 1987, 122) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[4]: (Johnson 1987, 120) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[5]: (Sumner 1988) Sumner, William. 1988. Frank Hole, (ed.) - 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran, Settlement and Society From Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest. Paleorient. Volume 14. Number 1. pp.177-179.

People. Population estimate for Late Uruk period (c3200-3100 BCE) based on 4.6 persons per km2 estimate and estimated polity area of 1500 km of Renfrew’s (1975) Early State Module, which provides some support for 20km estimated communication distance in Middle Uruk from central place to administrative boundary. ^[1]
Population of the Susiana ^[2] not sure why the figures are so specific, probably modelled data. using "administered population" for lowest figure of the range.
Early Uruk: 19,036. The "administered population" was 9,806.
Middle Uruk: 25,338. The "administered population" was 21,382.
"Total (center and rural) population densities, in persons per square kilometer, for the Susiana between Terminal A ad Late Uruk are as follows:" ^[3] I’ve converted the terminology into dates using the table on page 17 of the book.
2.6 persons per km2 3800 BCE
8.4 3700-3600 BCE
11.2 3500-3300 BCE
4.6 3200-3100 BCE
Early-Middle Uruk population increase occurred over about 300 years. ^[4] so transition would be c3500 BCE
"A period of depopulation, characterized by political competition between Susa in the west and Chogha Mish in the east led to the rather enigmatic Late Uruk polity in which Chogha Mish was independent of Susa." ^[5] - note more recent reference possibly contradicts this "depopulation".

[1]: (Johnson 1987, 115) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[2]: (Johnson 1987, 131) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[3]: (Johnson 1987, 122) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[4]: (Johnson 1987, 120) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[5]: (Sumner 1988) Sumner, William. 1988. Frank Hole, (ed.) - 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran, Settlement and Society From Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest. Paleorient. Volume 14. Number 1. pp.177-179.

People. Population estimate for Late Uruk period (c3200-3100 BCE) based on 4.6 persons per km2 estimate and estimated polity area of 1500 km of Renfrew’s (1975) Early State Module, which provides some support for 20km estimated communication distance in Middle Uruk from central place to administrative boundary. ^[1]
Population of the Susiana ^[2] not sure why the figures are so specific, probably modelled data. using "administered population" for lowest figure of the range.
Early Uruk: 19,036. The "administered population" was 9,806.
Middle Uruk: 25,338. The "administered population" was 21,382.
"Total (center and rural) population densities, in persons per square kilometer, for the Susiana between Terminal A ad Late Uruk are as follows:" ^[3] I’ve converted the terminology into dates using the table on page 17 of the book.
2.6 persons per km2 3800 BCE
8.4 3700-3600 BCE
11.2 3500-3300 BCE
4.6 3200-3100 BCE
Early-Middle Uruk population increase occurred over about 300 years. ^[4] so transition would be c3500 BCE
"A period of depopulation, characterized by political competition between Susa in the west and Chogha Mish in the east led to the rather enigmatic Late Uruk polity in which Chogha Mish was independent of Susa." ^[5] - note more recent reference possibly contradicts this "depopulation".

[1]: (Johnson 1987, 115) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[2]: (Johnson 1987, 131) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[3]: (Johnson 1987, 122) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[4]: (Johnson 1987, 120) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[5]: (Sumner 1988) Sumner, William. 1988. Frank Hole, (ed.) - 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran, Settlement and Society From Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest. Paleorient. Volume 14. Number 1. pp.177-179.

People. Population estimate for Late Uruk period (c3200-3100 BCE) based on 4.6 persons per km2 estimate and estimated polity area of 1500 km of Renfrew’s (1975) Early State Module, which provides some support for 20km estimated communication distance in Middle Uruk from central place to administrative boundary. ^[1]
Population of the Susiana ^[2] not sure why the figures are so specific, probably modelled data. using "administered population" for lowest figure of the range.
Early Uruk: 19,036. The "administered population" was 9,806.
Middle Uruk: 25,338. The "administered population" was 21,382.
"Total (center and rural) population densities, in persons per square kilometer, for the Susiana between Terminal A ad Late Uruk are as follows:" ^[3] I’ve converted the terminology into dates using the table on page 17 of the book.
2.6 persons per km2 3800 BCE
8.4 3700-3600 BCE
11.2 3500-3300 BCE
4.6 3200-3100 BCE
Early-Middle Uruk population increase occurred over about 300 years. ^[4] so transition would be c3500 BCE
"A period of depopulation, characterized by political competition between Susa in the west and Chogha Mish in the east led to the rather enigmatic Late Uruk polity in which Chogha Mish was independent of Susa." ^[5] - note more recent reference possibly contradicts this "depopulation".

[1]: (Johnson 1987, 115) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[2]: (Johnson 1987, 131) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[3]: (Johnson 1987, 122) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[4]: (Johnson 1987, 120) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[5]: (Sumner 1988) Sumner, William. 1988. Frank Hole, (ed.) - 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran, Settlement and Society From Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest. Paleorient. Volume 14. Number 1. pp.177-179.

levels.
Early Uruk = 3
"The almost 95 hectares of settlment are partitioned into a three-level settlement size hierarchy of villages, small centers, and a single large center.
1. Large center
2. Small center3. Village
Uruk period = 4
"was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." ^[1]
During the Late Chalcolithic (3900-3500 BCE): "The decline of Chogha Mish occurred as Susa, located to the west, had grown in prominence as a regional center. During this time Susa had grown in size to over 20 ha. The decline in the size of Chagha Mish also corresponds to the time at which the number of sites were decreasing in number throughout the Zagros and southwestern lowlands (Hole 1987a: 42). The size of the site and the nature of its architecture and material remains indicate that Chogha Mish was an important regional administrative center. However, the precise nature of the administrative activities carried out there remains unclear (see Hole 1987a: 40-41). The excavators have suggested that the monumental architectural precinct may have had both an industrial and religious focus (Kantor 1976: 26). Although likely, this has not yet been fully demonstrated in the literature. It is interesting to note, however, that the majority of the published objects which appear to have functioned as tokens all cluster around a single Middle Susiana structure (Delougaz and Kantor 1996: table 27 and plate 269). A small number of sealings were also recovered from this context (De1ougaz and Kantor 1996: 256-257)." ^[2]
1. Capital: Susa? 20 ha.
2. Regional administrative center: Chogha Mish?3. Village
At start of Susa II urban area of Susa had declined to 5 ha site but overall Susiana had more settleents and had three other sites of comparable size to Susa. ^[3]

[1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[2]: (Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 180-181)

[3]: (Potts 2016, 55) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

levels.
Early Uruk = 3
"The almost 95 hectares of settlment are partitioned into a three-level settlement size hierarchy of villages, small centers, and a single large center.
1. Large center
2. Small center3. Village
Uruk period = 4
"was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." ^[1]
During the Late Chalcolithic (3900-3500 BCE): "The decline of Chogha Mish occurred as Susa, located to the west, had grown in prominence as a regional center. During this time Susa had grown in size to over 20 ha. The decline in the size of Chagha Mish also corresponds to the time at which the number of sites were decreasing in number throughout the Zagros and southwestern lowlands (Hole 1987a: 42). The size of the site and the nature of its architecture and material remains indicate that Chogha Mish was an important regional administrative center. However, the precise nature of the administrative activities carried out there remains unclear (see Hole 1987a: 40-41). The excavators have suggested that the monumental architectural precinct may have had both an industrial and religious focus (Kantor 1976: 26). Although likely, this has not yet been fully demonstrated in the literature. It is interesting to note, however, that the majority of the published objects which appear to have functioned as tokens all cluster around a single Middle Susiana structure (Delougaz and Kantor 1996: table 27 and plate 269). A small number of sealings were also recovered from this context (De1ougaz and Kantor 1996: 256-257)." ^[2]
1. Capital: Susa? 20 ha.
2. Regional administrative center: Chogha Mish?3. Village
At start of Susa II urban area of Susa had declined to 5 ha site but overall Susiana had more settleents and had three other sites of comparable size to Susa. ^[3]

[1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[2]: (Peasnall in Peregrine and Ember 2002, 180-181)

[3]: (Potts 2016, 55) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

levels.
1. Priest-King
2. Other priests appointed by the king?3. Did large temples contain a priestly hierarchy?
"The temple was the physical, administrative and symbolic centre of the city. Its sheer size, as well as its facade and furnishings separated it from any other building in the settlement. ... acted as the place in which the community comunicated with a deity, as well as the place in which the ruling class presented itself to the rest of the population." ^[1]
"The priesthood took care of daily and private cultic activities, as well as public festivals. It managed that relation with the divine that provided the ideological justification for the unequal stratification of society. The urban community was already used to justifying events outside human control through its belief in divine entitites, and to propitiate them through human acts such as offerings and sacrifices. Consequently, these ideas were applied by the socio-economic organisation of the State and its centralised political structure." ^[2]
"Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor." ^[3]

[1]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[2]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[3]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press.

levels.
Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE "monopoly of defence forces to protect internal cohesion. The wealth and technical knowledge accumulated in cities had to be defended against foreign attacks, both from other city-states and other enemies (for instance, nomadic tribes). This defence system then turned into an offensive tactic. ... Instrumental for these kinds of activities was the creation of an army, which was divided into two groups. One group was made of full-time workers, specialised in military activities (although this remains purely hypothetical for the Uruk period). In case of war, an army was assembled through military conscription, and was supported by mandatory provisions of military supplies." ^[1]
Liverani notes that in Uruk phase "Urban Revolution therefore led to the formation of the Early State, not just in its decisional function, which already existed in pre-urban communities, but in the fullest sense of the term. The latter is to be understood as an organisation that solidly controls and defends a given territory (and its many communities) and manages the exploitation of resources to ensure and develop the survival of its population." ^[2]

[1]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[2]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

levels.
Early Uruk
"Given the lack of evidence for resident administration at settlements smaller than centers, the foregoing analysis would indicate the operation of a two-level administrative hierarchy within a three-level settlement system." ^[1] - central government line gives us more than 2 levels. also, if there were assistant scribes at regional centers these would count as a third level.
Middle Uruk (perhaps from c3500 BCE) ^[2]
"was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." ^[1]
1. King ^[3]
King was the head of the palace which was "managed like a large organisation." ^[3] - note that "In the Uruk phase, the palace as the exclusive residence of the king did not yet exist." ^[3]
King also high-priest "the human administrator of the city on behalf of the god, the latter being the ideological head of the city." ^[3]
2. Chief accountants at the temple3. Scribes
3. Teachers at scribal schools
3. Specialized workers e.g. Shepherds or postal service worker
Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "Bureaucracy, managed by the scribes and hierarchically subdivided, took care of the economic administration of the city-state. It managed and recorded the movement of surplus from the villages to the city. It also determined the redistribution of resources to its workers, and managed the State’s land. Finally, the bureaucracy sent orders to specialised workmen, planned and constructed key infrastructures (such as canals, temples, or walls), and engaged in long-distance trade." ^[4]
Uruk phase "Urban Revolution": "Early state formation therefore featured both the rise of a ruling class, making decisions and benefiting from a privilaged position, and the development of a political and religious ideology. The latter was able to ensure stability and cohesion in this pyramid of inequality." ^[4]
"Alongside the traditional animal representations a new repertory of scenes was elaborated on the seals, inspired by the daily activities of a population that was apparently proud of its new status. Thus there appears a ’priest-king,’ possibly representative of a type of monarchy that is known from later Sumerian literature." ^[5]
"Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor. A new system of recording and accounting needed to be devised. The accountants at the temple adapted a long-used system of accounting with clay tokens by impressing stylized outlines of tokens to denote numbers, with pictograms and other symbols to denote the objects that were being counted. A number of different numeration and metrological systems were used depending on the objects counted." ^[6]
"the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." ^[7]
Lower Mesopotamia at this time - city-states as inscriptions suggests unity from time of Ur III (Shu-Sin): "the celebratory tone was not directed against Mesopotamian cities or other urbanised centres (such as the ones in Elam and Syria) anymore. The inscriptions rather focused on those turbulent ’barbarian’ groups from the steppes and mountains, considered to be uncivilised and inhuman." ^[8]
Before Ur III there were no provinces just tributary city-states: "The economy of earlier empires was predominantly based on commercial activities and political relations with states that were controlled by the centre and were dependent on it. However, the empires themselves did not directly control these resources. The direct management of resources was an innovation of the kings of Ur, who applied in throughout the centre of the empire, which was itself no longer divided into several tributary city-states, but into provinces governed by functionaries (the ensi) appointed by the kings of Ur." ^[9]
Writing developed "as a response to the administrative needs (commodities, quantities, people, operations successfully accomplished or to accomplish) of the urban societies of the time." ^[10]
"With these new instruments, administration became the most specialised work within the great organisations. The functionary became a ’scribe’, who after a highly specialised training was able to write, calculate and perform various administrative tasks. Trainees in workshops learned the secrets of their craft within the first years of apprenticeship. On the contrary, scribes had to train in bona fide schools, where teachers taught their students to master a repertoire of hundreds of signs. This training was reserved to the members of the cultural and political elite of the State." ^[10]

[1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[2]: (Johnson 1987, 115) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[3]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[4]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[5]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

[6]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press.

[7]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html

[8]: (Leverani 2014, 159) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[9]: (Leverani 2014, 161) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[10]: (Leverani 2014, 76) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

levels.
Early Uruk
"Given the lack of evidence for resident administration at settlements smaller than centers, the foregoing analysis would indicate the operation of a two-level administrative hierarchy within a three-level settlement system." ^[1] - central government line gives us more than 2 levels. also, if there were assistant scribes at regional centers these would count as a third level.
Middle Uruk (perhaps from c3500 BCE) ^[2]
"was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." ^[1]
1. King ^[3]
King was the head of the palace which was "managed like a large organisation." ^[3] - note that "In the Uruk phase, the palace as the exclusive residence of the king did not yet exist." ^[3]
King also high-priest "the human administrator of the city on behalf of the god, the latter being the ideological head of the city." ^[3]
2. Chief accountants at the temple3. Scribes
3. Teachers at scribal schools
3. Specialized workers e.g. Shepherds or postal service worker
Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "Bureaucracy, managed by the scribes and hierarchically subdivided, took care of the economic administration of the city-state. It managed and recorded the movement of surplus from the villages to the city. It also determined the redistribution of resources to its workers, and managed the State’s land. Finally, the bureaucracy sent orders to specialised workmen, planned and constructed key infrastructures (such as canals, temples, or walls), and engaged in long-distance trade." ^[4]
Uruk phase "Urban Revolution": "Early state formation therefore featured both the rise of a ruling class, making decisions and benefiting from a privilaged position, and the development of a political and religious ideology. The latter was able to ensure stability and cohesion in this pyramid of inequality." ^[4]
"Alongside the traditional animal representations a new repertory of scenes was elaborated on the seals, inspired by the daily activities of a population that was apparently proud of its new status. Thus there appears a ’priest-king,’ possibly representative of a type of monarchy that is known from later Sumerian literature." ^[5]
"Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor. A new system of recording and accounting needed to be devised. The accountants at the temple adapted a long-used system of accounting with clay tokens by impressing stylized outlines of tokens to denote numbers, with pictograms and other symbols to denote the objects that were being counted. A number of different numeration and metrological systems were used depending on the objects counted." ^[6]
"the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." ^[7]
Lower Mesopotamia at this time - city-states as inscriptions suggests unity from time of Ur III (Shu-Sin): "the celebratory tone was not directed against Mesopotamian cities or other urbanised centres (such as the ones in Elam and Syria) anymore. The inscriptions rather focused on those turbulent ’barbarian’ groups from the steppes and mountains, considered to be uncivilised and inhuman." ^[8]
Before Ur III there were no provinces just tributary city-states: "The economy of earlier empires was predominantly based on commercial activities and political relations with states that were controlled by the centre and were dependent on it. However, the empires themselves did not directly control these resources. The direct management of resources was an innovation of the kings of Ur, who applied in throughout the centre of the empire, which was itself no longer divided into several tributary city-states, but into provinces governed by functionaries (the ensi) appointed by the kings of Ur." ^[9]
Writing developed "as a response to the administrative needs (commodities, quantities, people, operations successfully accomplished or to accomplish) of the urban societies of the time." ^[10]
"With these new instruments, administration became the most specialised work within the great organisations. The functionary became a ’scribe’, who after a highly specialised training was able to write, calculate and perform various administrative tasks. Trainees in workshops learned the secrets of their craft within the first years of apprenticeship. On the contrary, scribes had to train in bona fide schools, where teachers taught their students to master a repertoire of hundreds of signs. This training was reserved to the members of the cultural and political elite of the State." ^[10]

[1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[2]: (Johnson 1987, 115) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[3]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[4]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[5]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

[6]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press.

[7]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html

[8]: (Leverani 2014, 159) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[9]: (Leverani 2014, 161) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[10]: (Leverani 2014, 76) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

levels.
Early Uruk
"Given the lack of evidence for resident administration at settlements smaller than centers, the foregoing analysis would indicate the operation of a two-level administrative hierarchy within a three-level settlement system." ^[1] - central government line gives us more than 2 levels. also, if there were assistant scribes at regional centers these would count as a third level.
Middle Uruk (perhaps from c3500 BCE) ^[2]
"was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." ^[1]
1. King ^[3]
King was the head of the palace which was "managed like a large organisation." ^[3] - note that "In the Uruk phase, the palace as the exclusive residence of the king did not yet exist." ^[3]
King also high-priest "the human administrator of the city on behalf of the god, the latter being the ideological head of the city." ^[3]
2. Chief accountants at the temple3. Scribes
3. Teachers at scribal schools
3. Specialized workers e.g. Shepherds or postal service worker
Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "Bureaucracy, managed by the scribes and hierarchically subdivided, took care of the economic administration of the city-state. It managed and recorded the movement of surplus from the villages to the city. It also determined the redistribution of resources to its workers, and managed the State’s land. Finally, the bureaucracy sent orders to specialised workmen, planned and constructed key infrastructures (such as canals, temples, or walls), and engaged in long-distance trade." ^[4]
Uruk phase "Urban Revolution": "Early state formation therefore featured both the rise of a ruling class, making decisions and benefiting from a privilaged position, and the development of a political and religious ideology. The latter was able to ensure stability and cohesion in this pyramid of inequality." ^[4]
"Alongside the traditional animal representations a new repertory of scenes was elaborated on the seals, inspired by the daily activities of a population that was apparently proud of its new status. Thus there appears a ’priest-king,’ possibly representative of a type of monarchy that is known from later Sumerian literature." ^[5]
"Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor. A new system of recording and accounting needed to be devised. The accountants at the temple adapted a long-used system of accounting with clay tokens by impressing stylized outlines of tokens to denote numbers, with pictograms and other symbols to denote the objects that were being counted. A number of different numeration and metrological systems were used depending on the objects counted." ^[6]
"the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." ^[7]
Lower Mesopotamia at this time - city-states as inscriptions suggests unity from time of Ur III (Shu-Sin): "the celebratory tone was not directed against Mesopotamian cities or other urbanised centres (such as the ones in Elam and Syria) anymore. The inscriptions rather focused on those turbulent ’barbarian’ groups from the steppes and mountains, considered to be uncivilised and inhuman." ^[8]
Before Ur III there were no provinces just tributary city-states: "The economy of earlier empires was predominantly based on commercial activities and political relations with states that were controlled by the centre and were dependent on it. However, the empires themselves did not directly control these resources. The direct management of resources was an innovation of the kings of Ur, who applied in throughout the centre of the empire, which was itself no longer divided into several tributary city-states, but into provinces governed by functionaries (the ensi) appointed by the kings of Ur." ^[9]
Writing developed "as a response to the administrative needs (commodities, quantities, people, operations successfully accomplished or to accomplish) of the urban societies of the time." ^[10]
"With these new instruments, administration became the most specialised work within the great organisations. The functionary became a ’scribe’, who after a highly specialised training was able to write, calculate and perform various administrative tasks. Trainees in workshops learned the secrets of their craft within the first years of apprenticeship. On the contrary, scribes had to train in bona fide schools, where teachers taught their students to master a repertoire of hundreds of signs. This training was reserved to the members of the cultural and political elite of the State." ^[10]

[1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[2]: (Johnson 1987, 115) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[3]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[4]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[5]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

[6]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press.

[7]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html

[8]: (Leverani 2014, 159) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[9]: (Leverani 2014, 161) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[10]: (Leverani 2014, 76) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

levels.
Early Uruk
"Given the lack of evidence for resident administration at settlements smaller than centers, the foregoing analysis would indicate the operation of a two-level administrative hierarchy within a three-level settlement system." ^[1] - central government line gives us more than 2 levels. also, if there were assistant scribes at regional centers these would count as a third level.
Middle Uruk (perhaps from c3500 BCE) ^[2]
"was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." ^[1]
1. King ^[3]
King was the head of the palace which was "managed like a large organisation." ^[3] - note that "In the Uruk phase, the palace as the exclusive residence of the king did not yet exist." ^[3]
King also high-priest "the human administrator of the city on behalf of the god, the latter being the ideological head of the city." ^[3]
2. Chief accountants at the temple3. Scribes
3. Teachers at scribal schools
3. Specialized workers e.g. Shepherds or postal service worker
Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "Bureaucracy, managed by the scribes and hierarchically subdivided, took care of the economic administration of the city-state. It managed and recorded the movement of surplus from the villages to the city. It also determined the redistribution of resources to its workers, and managed the State’s land. Finally, the bureaucracy sent orders to specialised workmen, planned and constructed key infrastructures (such as canals, temples, or walls), and engaged in long-distance trade." ^[4]
Uruk phase "Urban Revolution": "Early state formation therefore featured both the rise of a ruling class, making decisions and benefiting from a privilaged position, and the development of a political and religious ideology. The latter was able to ensure stability and cohesion in this pyramid of inequality." ^[4]
"Alongside the traditional animal representations a new repertory of scenes was elaborated on the seals, inspired by the daily activities of a population that was apparently proud of its new status. Thus there appears a ’priest-king,’ possibly representative of a type of monarchy that is known from later Sumerian literature." ^[5]
"Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor. A new system of recording and accounting needed to be devised. The accountants at the temple adapted a long-used system of accounting with clay tokens by impressing stylized outlines of tokens to denote numbers, with pictograms and other symbols to denote the objects that were being counted. A number of different numeration and metrological systems were used depending on the objects counted." ^[6]
"the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." ^[7]
Lower Mesopotamia at this time - city-states as inscriptions suggests unity from time of Ur III (Shu-Sin): "the celebratory tone was not directed against Mesopotamian cities or other urbanised centres (such as the ones in Elam and Syria) anymore. The inscriptions rather focused on those turbulent ’barbarian’ groups from the steppes and mountains, considered to be uncivilised and inhuman." ^[8]
Before Ur III there were no provinces just tributary city-states: "The economy of earlier empires was predominantly based on commercial activities and political relations with states that were controlled by the centre and were dependent on it. However, the empires themselves did not directly control these resources. The direct management of resources was an innovation of the kings of Ur, who applied in throughout the centre of the empire, which was itself no longer divided into several tributary city-states, but into provinces governed by functionaries (the ensi) appointed by the kings of Ur." ^[9]
Writing developed "as a response to the administrative needs (commodities, quantities, people, operations successfully accomplished or to accomplish) of the urban societies of the time." ^[10]
"With these new instruments, administration became the most specialised work within the great organisations. The functionary became a ’scribe’, who after a highly specialised training was able to write, calculate and perform various administrative tasks. Trainees in workshops learned the secrets of their craft within the first years of apprenticeship. On the contrary, scribes had to train in bona fide schools, where teachers taught their students to master a repertoire of hundreds of signs. This training was reserved to the members of the cultural and political elite of the State." ^[10]

[1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[2]: (Johnson 1987, 115) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[3]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[4]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[5]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

[6]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press.

[7]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html

[8]: (Leverani 2014, 159) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[9]: (Leverani 2014, 161) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[10]: (Leverani 2014, 76) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

levels.
Early Uruk
"Given the lack of evidence for resident administration at settlements smaller than centers, the foregoing analysis would indicate the operation of a two-level administrative hierarchy within a three-level settlement system." ^[1] - central government line gives us more than 2 levels. also, if there were assistant scribes at regional centers these would count as a third level.
Middle Uruk (perhaps from c3500 BCE) ^[2]
"was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." ^[1]
1. King ^[3]
King was the head of the palace which was "managed like a large organisation." ^[3] - note that "In the Uruk phase, the palace as the exclusive residence of the king did not yet exist." ^[3]
King also high-priest "the human administrator of the city on behalf of the god, the latter being the ideological head of the city." ^[3]
2. Chief accountants at the temple3. Scribes
3. Teachers at scribal schools
3. Specialized workers e.g. Shepherds or postal service worker
Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "Bureaucracy, managed by the scribes and hierarchically subdivided, took care of the economic administration of the city-state. It managed and recorded the movement of surplus from the villages to the city. It also determined the redistribution of resources to its workers, and managed the State’s land. Finally, the bureaucracy sent orders to specialised workmen, planned and constructed key infrastructures (such as canals, temples, or walls), and engaged in long-distance trade." ^[4]
Uruk phase "Urban Revolution": "Early state formation therefore featured both the rise of a ruling class, making decisions and benefiting from a privilaged position, and the development of a political and religious ideology. The latter was able to ensure stability and cohesion in this pyramid of inequality." ^[4]
"Alongside the traditional animal representations a new repertory of scenes was elaborated on the seals, inspired by the daily activities of a population that was apparently proud of its new status. Thus there appears a ’priest-king,’ possibly representative of a type of monarchy that is known from later Sumerian literature." ^[5]
"Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor. A new system of recording and accounting needed to be devised. The accountants at the temple adapted a long-used system of accounting with clay tokens by impressing stylized outlines of tokens to denote numbers, with pictograms and other symbols to denote the objects that were being counted. A number of different numeration and metrological systems were used depending on the objects counted." ^[6]
"the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." ^[7]
Lower Mesopotamia at this time - city-states as inscriptions suggests unity from time of Ur III (Shu-Sin): "the celebratory tone was not directed against Mesopotamian cities or other urbanised centres (such as the ones in Elam and Syria) anymore. The inscriptions rather focused on those turbulent ’barbarian’ groups from the steppes and mountains, considered to be uncivilised and inhuman." ^[8]
Before Ur III there were no provinces just tributary city-states: "The economy of earlier empires was predominantly based on commercial activities and political relations with states that were controlled by the centre and were dependent on it. However, the empires themselves did not directly control these resources. The direct management of resources was an innovation of the kings of Ur, who applied in throughout the centre of the empire, which was itself no longer divided into several tributary city-states, but into provinces governed by functionaries (the ensi) appointed by the kings of Ur." ^[9]
Writing developed "as a response to the administrative needs (commodities, quantities, people, operations successfully accomplished or to accomplish) of the urban societies of the time." ^[10]
"With these new instruments, administration became the most specialised work within the great organisations. The functionary became a ’scribe’, who after a highly specialised training was able to write, calculate and perform various administrative tasks. Trainees in workshops learned the secrets of their craft within the first years of apprenticeship. On the contrary, scribes had to train in bona fide schools, where teachers taught their students to master a repertoire of hundreds of signs. This training was reserved to the members of the cultural and political elite of the State." ^[10]

[1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[2]: (Johnson 1987, 115) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[3]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[4]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[5]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

[6]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press.

[7]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html

[8]: (Leverani 2014, 159) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[9]: (Leverani 2014, 161) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[10]: (Leverani 2014, 76) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

levels.
Early Uruk
"Given the lack of evidence for resident administration at settlements smaller than centers, the foregoing analysis would indicate the operation of a two-level administrative hierarchy within a three-level settlement system." ^[1] - central government line gives us more than 2 levels. also, if there were assistant scribes at regional centers these would count as a third level.
Middle Uruk (perhaps from c3500 BCE) ^[2]
"was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." ^[1]
1. King ^[3]
King was the head of the palace which was "managed like a large organisation." ^[3] - note that "In the Uruk phase, the palace as the exclusive residence of the king did not yet exist." ^[3]
King also high-priest "the human administrator of the city on behalf of the god, the latter being the ideological head of the city." ^[3]
2. Chief accountants at the temple3. Scribes
3. Teachers at scribal schools
3. Specialized workers e.g. Shepherds or postal service worker
Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "Bureaucracy, managed by the scribes and hierarchically subdivided, took care of the economic administration of the city-state. It managed and recorded the movement of surplus from the villages to the city. It also determined the redistribution of resources to its workers, and managed the State’s land. Finally, the bureaucracy sent orders to specialised workmen, planned and constructed key infrastructures (such as canals, temples, or walls), and engaged in long-distance trade." ^[4]
Uruk phase "Urban Revolution": "Early state formation therefore featured both the rise of a ruling class, making decisions and benefiting from a privilaged position, and the development of a political and religious ideology. The latter was able to ensure stability and cohesion in this pyramid of inequality." ^[4]
"Alongside the traditional animal representations a new repertory of scenes was elaborated on the seals, inspired by the daily activities of a population that was apparently proud of its new status. Thus there appears a ’priest-king,’ possibly representative of a type of monarchy that is known from later Sumerian literature." ^[5]
"Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor. A new system of recording and accounting needed to be devised. The accountants at the temple adapted a long-used system of accounting with clay tokens by impressing stylized outlines of tokens to denote numbers, with pictograms and other symbols to denote the objects that were being counted. A number of different numeration and metrological systems were used depending on the objects counted." ^[6]
"the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." ^[7]
Lower Mesopotamia at this time - city-states as inscriptions suggests unity from time of Ur III (Shu-Sin): "the celebratory tone was not directed against Mesopotamian cities or other urbanised centres (such as the ones in Elam and Syria) anymore. The inscriptions rather focused on those turbulent ’barbarian’ groups from the steppes and mountains, considered to be uncivilised and inhuman." ^[8]
Before Ur III there were no provinces just tributary city-states: "The economy of earlier empires was predominantly based on commercial activities and political relations with states that were controlled by the centre and were dependent on it. However, the empires themselves did not directly control these resources. The direct management of resources was an innovation of the kings of Ur, who applied in throughout the centre of the empire, which was itself no longer divided into several tributary city-states, but into provinces governed by functionaries (the ensi) appointed by the kings of Ur." ^[9]
Writing developed "as a response to the administrative needs (commodities, quantities, people, operations successfully accomplished or to accomplish) of the urban societies of the time." ^[10]
"With these new instruments, administration became the most specialised work within the great organisations. The functionary became a ’scribe’, who after a highly specialised training was able to write, calculate and perform various administrative tasks. Trainees in workshops learned the secrets of their craft within the first years of apprenticeship. On the contrary, scribes had to train in bona fide schools, where teachers taught their students to master a repertoire of hundreds of signs. This training was reserved to the members of the cultural and political elite of the State." ^[10]

[1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[2]: (Johnson 1987, 115) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[3]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[4]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[5]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

[6]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press.

[7]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html

[8]: (Leverani 2014, 159) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[9]: (Leverani 2014, 161) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[10]: (Leverani 2014, 76) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

levels.
Early Uruk
"Given the lack of evidence for resident administration at settlements smaller than centers, the foregoing analysis would indicate the operation of a two-level administrative hierarchy within a three-level settlement system." ^[1] - central government line gives us more than 2 levels. also, if there were assistant scribes at regional centers these would count as a third level.
Middle Uruk (perhaps from c3500 BCE) ^[2]
"was one of economic and political reorganization. By Middle Uruk (ca. 3500 B.C.), the Susiana settlement system consisted of a four-tier settlement size hierarchy with direct evidence of resident administrative activity at its top and bottom levels. The presence of administrative function at the intervening levels of hierarchy, and of an overall four-level administrative organization seemed likely. In combination with evidence for the centralization of craft production as part of an administered local exchange system, these features suggested the operation of a Middle Uruk state." ^[1]
1. King ^[3]
King was the head of the palace which was "managed like a large organisation." ^[3] - note that "In the Uruk phase, the palace as the exclusive residence of the king did not yet exist." ^[3]
King also high-priest "the human administrator of the city on behalf of the god, the latter being the ideological head of the city." ^[3]
2. Chief accountants at the temple3. Scribes
3. Teachers at scribal schools
3. Specialized workers e.g. Shepherds or postal service worker
Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "Bureaucracy, managed by the scribes and hierarchically subdivided, took care of the economic administration of the city-state. It managed and recorded the movement of surplus from the villages to the city. It also determined the redistribution of resources to its workers, and managed the State’s land. Finally, the bureaucracy sent orders to specialised workmen, planned and constructed key infrastructures (such as canals, temples, or walls), and engaged in long-distance trade." ^[4]
Uruk phase "Urban Revolution": "Early state formation therefore featured both the rise of a ruling class, making decisions and benefiting from a privilaged position, and the development of a political and religious ideology. The latter was able to ensure stability and cohesion in this pyramid of inequality." ^[4]
"Alongside the traditional animal representations a new repertory of scenes was elaborated on the seals, inspired by the daily activities of a population that was apparently proud of its new status. Thus there appears a ’priest-king,’ possibly representative of a type of monarchy that is known from later Sumerian literature." ^[5]
"Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor. A new system of recording and accounting needed to be devised. The accountants at the temple adapted a long-used system of accounting with clay tokens by impressing stylized outlines of tokens to denote numbers, with pictograms and other symbols to denote the objects that were being counted. A number of different numeration and metrological systems were used depending on the objects counted." ^[6]
"the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." ^[7]
Lower Mesopotamia at this time - city-states as inscriptions suggests unity from time of Ur III (Shu-Sin): "the celebratory tone was not directed against Mesopotamian cities or other urbanised centres (such as the ones in Elam and Syria) anymore. The inscriptions rather focused on those turbulent ’barbarian’ groups from the steppes and mountains, considered to be uncivilised and inhuman." ^[8]
Before Ur III there were no provinces just tributary city-states: "The economy of earlier empires was predominantly based on commercial activities and political relations with states that were controlled by the centre and were dependent on it. However, the empires themselves did not directly control these resources. The direct management of resources was an innovation of the kings of Ur, who applied in throughout the centre of the empire, which was itself no longer divided into several tributary city-states, but into provinces governed by functionaries (the ensi) appointed by the kings of Ur." ^[9]
Writing developed "as a response to the administrative needs (commodities, quantities, people, operations successfully accomplished or to accomplish) of the urban societies of the time." ^[10]
"With these new instruments, administration became the most specialised work within the great organisations. The functionary became a ’scribe’, who after a highly specialised training was able to write, calculate and perform various administrative tasks. Trainees in workshops learned the secrets of their craft within the first years of apprenticeship. On the contrary, scribes had to train in bona fide schools, where teachers taught their students to master a repertoire of hundreds of signs. This training was reserved to the members of the cultural and political elite of the State." ^[10]

[1]: (Johnson 1987, 108) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[2]: (Johnson 1987, 115) Johnson, Gregory A. in Hole, Frank ed. 1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

[3]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[4]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[5]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

[6]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press.

[7]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html

[8]: (Leverani 2014, 159) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[9]: (Leverani 2014, 161) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[10]: (Leverani 2014, 76) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

Possibility of this in Uruk phase: "hypothetical." Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE "monopoly of defence forces to protect internal cohesion. The wealth and technical knowledge accumulated in cities had to be defended against foreign attacks, both from other city-states and other enemies (for instance, nomadic tribes). This defence system then turned into an offensive tactic. ... Instrumental for these kinds of activities was the creation of an army, which was divided into two groups. One group was made of full-time workers, specialised in military activities (although this remains purely hypothetical for the Uruk period). In case of war, an army was assembled through military conscription, and was supported by mandatory provisions of military supplies." ^[1]

[1]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

Possibility of this in Uruk phase: "hypothetical." Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE "monopoly of defence forces to protect internal cohesion. The wealth and technical knowledge accumulated in cities had to be defended against foreign attacks, both from other city-states and other enemies (for instance, nomadic tribes). This defence system then turned into an offensive tactic. ... Instrumental for these kinds of activities was the creation of an army, which was divided into two groups. One group was made of full-time workers, specialised in military activities (although this remains purely hypothetical for the Uruk period). In case of war, an army was assembled through military conscription, and was supported by mandatory provisions of military supplies." ^[1]

[1]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

"Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises" ^[1] Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "The ruling class had to work on an operational and ideological front, leading to the formation of a bureaucracy and a priesthood." ^[2]

[1]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press.

[2]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE "monopoly of defence forces to protect internal cohesion. The wealth and technical knowledge accumulated in cities had to be defended against foreign attacks, both from other city-states and other enemies (for instance, nomadic tribes). This defence system then turned into an offensive tactic. ... Instrumental for these kinds of activities was the creation of an army, which was divided into two groups. One group was made of full-time workers, specialised in military activities (although this remains purely hypothetical for the Uruk period). In case of war, an army was assembled through military conscription, and was supported by mandatory provisions of military supplies." ^[1]

[1]: (Leverani 2014, 80) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

Sources do not provide explicit and clear descriptions of "government buildings" in Susa or its environs.Temple complex based government. "Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor." ^[1] "the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." ^[2]

[1]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press.

[2]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html

Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "The ruling class had to work on an operational and ideological front, leading to the formation of a bureaucracy and a priesthood. Bureaucracy, managed by the scribes and hierarchically subdivided, took care of the economic administration of the city-state." ^[1]

[1]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

"the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." ^[1]

[1]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html

Temple complex based government. "Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor." ^[1]
A "legal system" was present. Were there specialist judges or were judges priests? "the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." ^[2]

[1]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press.

[2]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html

Temple complex based government. "Temple complexes, such as the temple of the goddess Inanna at Eana in Uruk (3200 BC), were large-scale enterprises, dealing in considerable quantities of goods and labor." ^[1]
A "legal system" was present. Were there specialist courts or was this among the activities of the temple complexes? "the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." ^[2]

[1]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press.

[2]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html

"the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." ^[1]

[1]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html

"At Uruk and other southern city-states, each institution controlled its own fields, produced foodstuffs, and kept them in associated storage areas (Sterba 1976). Tribute or taxes came into the central stores as well." ^[1]

[1]: (Sterba, R.L., 1976. The organization and management of the temple corporations in ancient Mesopotamia. Academy of Management Review, 1(3), pp.16-26. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/H35I8WZA/item-list)

"the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC... was an advanced civilisation ... administration, and even a postal service." ^[1] -- postal service may imply an interest in the formal maintenance of at least some routes. Uruk phase c3800-3000 BCE: "bureaucracy sent orders to specialised workmen, planned and constructed key infrastructures (such as canals, temples, or walls), and engaged in long-distance trade." ^[2] -- key infrastructures likely to have included some roads along which trade was carried.

[1]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html

[2]: (Leverani 2014, 79) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

Certainly in neighbouring Mesopotamia c2000-1500 BCE: "It was an important task for the rulers of Mesopotamia to dig canals and to maintain them, because canals were not only necessary for irrigation but also useful for the transport of goods and armies. The rulers or high government officials must have ordered Babylonian mathematicians to calculate the number of workers and days necessary for the building of a canal, and to calculate the total expenses of wages of the workers." ^[1]

[1]: Muroi in J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html

Sumerian in neighbouring Mesopotamia: "Until Sargon, records from Akkad had been written in Sumerian." ^[1] "Sometime during the fourth millennium, in the urban center of Uruk (for which the archaeological period is named), southern Mesopotamia acquired a specifically Sumerian historical identity. With the introduction of a system of writing, a gradual development from an earlier accounting system, a radical change occurred in the social organization and in the very foundations of thought." ^[2] "documents" ^[2] "But toward the end of the fourth millennium, when the brilliant civilization of the Uruk period had collapsed in Mesopotamia and at Susa, the population of Fars broke with the prehistoric past and achieved in their turn a kind of historical consciousness, establishing a large center which perhaps had already acquired its name, Anshan (modern Tal-i Malyan). The creativity of this first period of Elamite historical identity is apparent in the development at Susa and Anshan of a form of writing and an art that we call Proto-Elamite." ^[2]

[1]: (Middleton 2015) Middleton, John. 2015. World Monarchies and Dynasties. Routledge.

[2]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

"Sometime during the fourth millennium, in the urban center of Uruk (for which the archaeological period is named), southern Mesopotamia acquired a specifically Sumerian historical identity. With the introduction of a system of writing, a gradual development from an earlier accounting system, a radical change occurred in the social organization and in the very foundations of thought." ^[1] "A decisive step forward came about with the substitution of a system of tokens with a graphic code, made of the imprint of that same token on clay. This constitutes the origins of writing, a system providing much more flexibility and scope for development. In a short period of time, many signs were created and written with a reed stylus, rather than with the tokens. ... as it developed, the process led to the development of pictograms, namely signs representing in a simplified form of the object meant. Therefore, tablets inscribed with numerals and authenticated with seal impressions were substituted by tablets bearing both numeral signs (imprinted on clay) and pictograms (written with a stylus). Seal impressions soon became superfluous for administrative records, though they remained crucial for important legal tablets, letters and so on. The information provided by the seal could now be expressed through pictograms." ^[2]

[1]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

[2]: (Leverani 2014, 76) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

"From about 8000 BC, a system of recording involving small clay tokens was prevalent in the Near and Middle East. Tokens were small geometric objects, usually in the shape of cylinders, cones, and spheres." ^[1] "From about 3000 BC, among the Sumerians, tokens for different goods began appearing as impressions on clay tablets, represented by different symbols and multiple quantities represented by repetition. Thus three units of grain were denoted by three "grain marks," five jars of oil by five "oil marks," and so on." ^[2]

[1]: (Joseph 2011, 134) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press.

[2]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press.

"The accountants at the temple adapted a long-used system of accounting with clay tokens by impressing stylized outlines of tokens to denote numbers, with pictograms and other symbols to denote the objects that were being counted. A number of different numeration and metrological systems were used depending on the objects counted." ^[1]

[1]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press.

Mathematics. "A number of different numeration and metrological systems were used depending on the objects counted." ^[1]

[1]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press.

Lake Uruk phase (second half fourth millennium BCE) administrative tablets show royal inscriptions, prayers and divinatory texts. ^[1]

[1]: (Leverani 2014, 78) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

"everything points to the direct influence of Mesopotamian accounting procedures on Susa in Late Susa II times." ^[1] "documents". ^[2] literature relating to accounting in the temple complexes, such as metrological systems. "A number of different numeration and metrological systems were used depending on the objects counted." ^[3] Lake Uruk phase (second half fourth millennium BCE) administrative tablets show land management records. ^[4]

[1]: (Potts 2016, 66) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

[2]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

[3]: (Joseph 2011, 135) Joseph, George Gheverghese. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (Third Edition). Princeton University Press.

[4]: (Leverani 2014, 78) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

"Precise stratigraphic excavations conducted in recent decades have allowed us to trace developments at Susa in the Uruk phase, notably of an accounting system that preceded the slightly later appearance of writing." ^[1] "documents" ^[1] Lake Uruk phase (second half fourth millennium BCE) administrative tablets show: lists divided into categories such as professions, birds, vases, plants.. ^[2] "everything points to the direct influence of Mesopotamian accounting procedures on Susa in Late Susa II times." ^[3]

[1]: (Amiet, Chevalier and Carter 1992, 4) Amiet, Pierre. Chevalier, Nicole. Carter, Elizabeth. in Harper, Prudence O. Aruz, Joan. Tallon, Francoise. eds. 1992. The Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

[2]: (Leverani 2014, 78) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[3]: (Potts 2016, 66) Potts, D T. 2016. The Archaeology of Elam Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

"The great organisations of the first phase of urbanisation rose to prominence without writing. The latter developed relatively quickly as a response to these institutions’ needs." ^[1] Liverani says the so-called "urban revolution" of the Uruk phase was from 3800-3000 BCE. ^[2]

[1]: (Leverani 2014, 73) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[2]: (Leverani 2014, 69-70) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

"There were two main units of value in Mesopotamia: barley and silver (and sometimes copper). Barley was readily available, of low value, and thus often present in exchanges. On the contrary, silver was a precious and rare metal, but also non-perishable (since it could not be consumed), allowing its accumulation." ^[1]

[1]: (Leverani 2014, 71) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

"At Uruk and other southern city-states, each institution controlled its own fields, produced foodstuffs, and kept them in associated storage areas (Sterba 1976). Tribute or taxes came into the central stores as well." ^[1] "There were two main units of value in Mesopotamia: barley and silver (and sometimes copper). Barley was readily available, of low value, and thus often present in exchanges. On the contrary, silver was a precious and rare metal, but also non-perishable (since it could not be consumed), allowing its accumulation. These were two very different materials, to be used as units on different occasions with different goods, and thus complementing each other." ^[2]

[1]: (Sterba, R.A. 1974. The Organization and Management of the Temple Corporations in Ancient Mesopotamia. Academy of Management ReviewVol. 1, No. 3. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/H35I8WZA/item-list)

[2]: (Liverani 2014, 71) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

"the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." ^[1] -- presumably postal stations would have been necessary for an ancient postal service.

[1]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html

"the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." ^[1] -- could this postal service be used by individuals outside the temple complex?

[1]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html

"the Sumerian civilisation which flourished before 3500 BC. This was an advanced civilisation building cities and supporting the people with irrigation systems, a legal system, administration, and even a postal service. Writing developed and counting was based on a sexagesimal system, that is to say base 60." ^[1]

[1]: J J O’Connor, J J. Robertson, E F. December 2000. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Babylonian_mathematics.html

‘early Neolithic settlements have proven difficult to document even in intensively surveyed regions.’ There is only evidence for mudbrick architecture ^[1]

[1]: Lloyd R. Weeks, ‘The Development and Expansion of a Neolithic Way of Life’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 56

Technology not yet available

Technology not yet available

Base camps with fortified walls are present, defending against animal or human attackers ^[1]

[1]: (Leverani 2014, 39-42) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

Technology not yet available

‘early Neolithic settlements have proven difficult to document even in intensively surveyed regions.’ There is only evidence for mudbrick architecture ^[1]

[1]: Lloyd R. Weeks, ‘The Development and Expansion of a Neolithic Way of Life’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 56

‘early Neolithic settlements have proven difficult to document even in intensively surveyed regions.’ There is only evidence for mudbrick architecture ^[1]

[1]: Lloyd R. Weeks, ‘The Development and Expansion of a Neolithic Way of Life’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 56

‘early Neolithic settlements have proven difficult to document even in intensively surveyed regions.’ There is only evidence for mudbrick architecture ^[1]

[1]: Lloyd R. Weeks, ‘The Development and Expansion of a Neolithic Way of Life’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 56

‘early Neolithic settlements have proven difficult to document even in intensively surveyed regions.’ There is only evidence for mudbrick architecture ^[1]

[1]: Lloyd R. Weeks, ‘The Development and Expansion of a Neolithic Way of Life’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 56

Technology not yet available

Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later

Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later

copper based tools and weapons appeared in the 5th millenium BC ^[1]

[1]: Abbas Moghaddam, ‘The Later Village (Chalcolithic) Period in Khuzestan’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 124

Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later

Base camps with fortified walls are present, defending against animal or human attackers. ^[1] In Anatolia siege warfare was mentioned in Old Hittite records. ^[2] Presumably at this time the catapult was not used? In India, according to Jain texts, Ajatashatru, a 5th century BCE king of Magadha in North India, used a catapult "capable of hurling huge pieces of stone". ^[3] Marsden (1969) said archaeological records exist before the 4th century BCE. ^[4] The Achaemenids (c400 BCE?) are assumed to have had the catapult because the Macedonians did. ^[5] Pollard and Berry (2012) say torsion catapults first came into widespread use in the Hellenistic period 4th - 1st centuries BCE. ^[6] The Syracuse Greek Dionysios I invented a form of crossbow called the gastraphetes in 399 BCE which encouraged the development of large tension-powered weapons. ^[7] There is no direct evidence for catapults for this time/location. The aforementioned evidence we currently have covering the wider ancient world suggests they were probably not used at this time, perhaps because effective machines had not been invented yet.

[1]: (Leverani 2014, 39-42) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[2]: Siegelova I. and H. Tsumoto (2011) Metals and Metallurgy in Hittite Anatolia, pp. 278 [In:] H. Genz and D. P. Mielke (ed.) Insights Into Hittite History And Archaeology, Colloquia Antiqua 2, Leuven, Paris, Walpole MA: PEETERS, pp. 275-300

[3]: (Singh 2008, 272) Upinder Singh. 2008. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Pearson Longman. Delhi.

[4]: (Marsden 1969, 5, 16, 66.) Marsden, E. W. 1969. Greek and Roman Artillery: The Historical Development. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

[5]: (Dandamaev 1989, 314) Dandamaev, M A. 1989. A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire. Brill.

[6]: (Pollard and Berry 2012, 45) Pollard, N, Berry, J (2012) The Complete Roman Legions, Thames and Hudson, London Rives, J (2006) Religion in the Roman Empire, Wiley

[7]: (Keyser and Irby-Massie 2006, 260) Paul T Keyser. Georgia Irby-Massie. Science, Medicine, And Technology. Glenn R Bugh. ed. 2006. The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

The counter-weight trebuchet was first used by the Byzantines in 1165 CE.

"Round and ovoid sling pellets have been dug up in early Sumer and Turkestan. Ovoid sling pellets have been unearthed at the neolithic sites on the Iranian tableland. In later times, the sling was used in Palestine and Syria. It was introduced in Egypt at a still later date." ^[1] According to a military historian (a polity specialist needs to check this data): 4000 BCE in the Middle East and southeastern Europe: "sling, dagger, mace, and bow are common weapons". ^[2]

[1]: (Singh 1997, 90) Sarva Daman Singh. 1997. Ancient Indian Warfare: With Special Reference to the Vedic Period. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Delhi.

[2]: (Gabriel 2007, xii) Richard A Gabriel. 2007. Soldiers’ Lives Through History: The Ancient World. Greenwood Press. Westport.

According to a military historian (a polity specialist needs to check this data): "The bow was probably between 6,000 and 10,000 years old by the dawn of the Bronze Age". ^[1]

[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 27-28) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.

Bone harpoons found since the Paleolithic, but it is unclear if used for warfare or hunting. There is no reason to believe that other humans couldn’t be the target for these. ^[1] According to a military historian (a polity specialist ought to be able to elaborate on this claim): "Unlike other areas of the world where the spear developed into a thrown weapon, in the Middle East it remained primarily a stabbing weapon." ^[2]

[1]: (Leverani 2014, 36) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[2]: (Gabriel and Metz 1991, 59) Richard A Gabriel. Karen S Metz. 1991. The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies. Greenwood Press. Westport.

Not invented at this time.

Not invented at this time.

Not present at this time: "the hand-held crossbow was invented by the Chinese, in the fifth century BC, and probably came into the Roman world in the first century AD, where it was used for hunting." ^[1] The crossbow also developed after the Syracuse Greek Dionysios I invented a form of crossbow called the gastraphetes in 399 BCE. ^[2]

[1]: (Nicholson 2004, 99) Helen Nicholson. 2004. Medieval Warfare: Theory and Practice of War in Europe, 300-1500. PalgraveMacmillan. Basingstoke.

[2]: (Keyser and Irby-Massie 2006, 260) Paul T Keyser. Georgia Irby-Massie. Science, Medicine, And Technology. Glenn R Bugh. ed. 2006. The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Recurved bows are depicted in seals, showing arrows being fired at humans in warfare. ^[1] According to a military historian (a polity specialist needs to check this data): "The first evidence of the composite bow appears on the victory stele of Naram Sin (2254-2218 B.C.E.)". ^[2] "Composite bows are known from both Mesopotamia and the Great Steppe from the III millennium BCE. The Scythian bow was different from the Mesopotamian one primarily in its overall dimensions - it was smaller so that it could be used from the horseback. At the same time, self bows were also in use, but because of their large size they were not suitable for use by horse riders." ^[3]

[1]: (Leverani 2014, 75) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[2]: (Gabriel 2002, 28) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.

[3]: Sergey A Nefedov, RAN Institute of History and Archaeology, Yekaterinburg, Russia. Personal Communication to Peter Turchin. January 2018.

Not mentioned in evidence and extremely unlikely being a weapon of the Americas

According to a military historian (a polity specialist needs to check this data): mace was the dominant weapon of war between 4000-2500 BCE before the helmet was invented. ^[1] According to a military historian (a polity specialist needs to check this data): 4000 BCE in the Middle East and southeastern Europe: "sling, dagger, mace, and bow are common weapons". ^[2]

[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 24) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.

[2]: (Gabriel 2007, xii) Richard A Gabriel. 2007. Soldiers’ Lives Through History: The Ancient World. Greenwood Press. Westport.

Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later

According to a military historian (a polity specialist ought to be able to elaborate on this claim): "Unlike other areas of the world where the spear developed into a thrown weapon, in the Middle East it remained primarily a stabbing weapon." ^[1]

[1]: (Gabriel and Metz 1991, 59) Richard A Gabriel. Karen S Metz. 1991. The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies. Greenwood Press. Westport.

Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later

"The limited repertoire available from Mir Khair and Kalleh Nisar includes tanged knives or daggers; blade axes etc." ^[1] Bone needles/knives were present by 7200 BC, but no hard evidence for use in warfare. ^[2] Stone blades had been in production in Iraq/Iran since the Paleolithic: ’The Baradostian lithic industry is dominated by blade production. Characteristic tools include slender points, backed blades and bladelets, twisted bladelets with various kinds of light retouch, end scrapers, discoidal scrapers, side scrapers, and burins.’ ^[3] Obsidian blades have also been found for this period ^[4] Knife blades became longer during this time but this was for butchery rather than warfare. ^[5] According to a military historian (a polity specialist needs to check this data): 4000 BCE in the Middle East and southeastern Europe: "sling, dagger, mace, and bow are common weapons". ^[6]

[1]: (Potts 2013: 208) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/B96UPKB4.

[2]: (Alizadeh 2003, 82)

[3]: Nicholas J. Conard, Elham Ghasidian, and Saman Heydari-Guran, ’The Paleolithic of Iran’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, pp. 38-39

[4]: Lloyd R. Weeks, ‘The Development and Expansion of a Neolithic Way of Life’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 57

[5]: (Leverani 2014, 41) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[6]: (Gabriel 2007, xii) Richard A Gabriel. 2007. Soldiers’ Lives Through History: The Ancient World. Greenwood Press. Westport.

‘circulation of characteristic Late Chalcolithic double axes’ and these axes were used as weapons. ^[1]

[1]: Barbara Helwing, ‘The Chalcolithic of Northern Iran’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 87

Technology not yet available

Not used for military purposes until much later

Evidence for use as Pack Animals appears by around 7000 BC onward ^[1] The donkey was probably domesticated from the African wild ass ’in more than one place’ but for the Nubian subspecies 5500-4500 BCE in the Sudan. ^[2]

[1]: (Leverani 2014, 41) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

[2]: (Mitchell 2018, 39) Peter Mitchell 2018. The Donkey in Human History: An Archaeological Perspective. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Dogs were used to defend villages against attacking humans/animals ^[1]

[1]: (Leverani 2014, 41-44) Liverani, Mario. Tabatabai, Soraia trans. 2014. The Ancient Near East. History, society and economy. Routledge. London.

Not used for military purposes until much later

Technology not found in archaeological evidence until much later

Not mentioned in the archaeological evidence

Technology not yet available. According to a military historian (a polity specialist needs to check this data): "The first recorded instance of body armor is found on the Stele of Vultures in ancient Sumer, which shows Eannatum’s soldiers wearing leather cloaks on which are sewn spined metal disks. The disks do not appear to be arranged in any order, and we do not know if the disks were made of copper or bronze. By 2100 BCE the victory stele of Naram Sin appears to show plate armor, and it is likely that plate armor had been in wide use for a few hundred years. Plate armor was constructed of thin bronze plates sewn to a leather shirt or jerkin." ^[1]

[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 21) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.

Technology not yet available

According to a military historian (a polity specialist needs to check this data): the earliest reference, for Greece c1600 BCE: "Early Mycenaean and Minoan charioteers wore an arrangement of bronze armor that almost fully enclosed the soldier, the famous Dendra panoply." ^[1]

[1]: (Gabriel 2007, 78) Richard A Gabriel. 2007. Soldiers’ Lives Through History: The Ancient World. Greenwood Press. Westport.

There is evidence for loincloths being used, but it would hardly count as armor and there is no evidence for warfare at this time:‘The early periods at Tepe Sialk (I-IV) were a time of important technological innovation. A carved bone knife handle representing a man wearing a cap and a loincloth found in a Sialk I context is one of the earliest known anthropomorphic representations from Iran’ ^[1]

[1]: Ali Mousavi, ’The History of Archaeological Research in Iran: A Brief Survey’, In Daniel T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 2013, p. 7

Technology not yet available. According to a military historian (a polity specialist needs to check this data): Lamellar armour introduced by the Assyrians (9th century BCE?): "a shirt constructed of laminated layers of leather sewn or glued together. To the outer surface of this coat were attached fitted iron plates, each plate joined to the next at the edge with no overlap and held in place by stitching or gluing." ^[1]

[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 21) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.

According to a military historian (a polity specialist needs to check this data): earliest helmet 2500 BCE in Sumer was a "a cap of hammered copper" fitted onto a leather cap. ^[1]

[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 22) Richard A Gabriel. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Praeger. Westport.

sources do not mention this technology in the region until much later

Technology not yet available

Technology not yet available

Not mentioned in the archaeological evidence

Technology not yet available