Status and Role in Early States: A Comparative Analysis

Full text

Status and Role in Early States:
A Comparative Analysis
Paula L. W. Sabloff
Skyler Cragg
SFI WORKING PAPER: 2015-06-018
SFI$Working$Papers$contain$accounts$of$scienti5ic$work$of$the$author(s)$and$do$not$necessarily$represent
the$views$of$the$Santa$Fe$Institute.$$We$accept$papers$intended$for$publication$in$peer@reviewed$journals$or
proceedings$volumes,$but$not$papers$that$have$already$appeared$in$print.$$Except$for$papers$by$our$external
faculty,$papers$must$be$based$on$work$done$at$SFI,$inspired$by$an$invited$visit$to$or$collaboration$at$SFI,$or
funded$by$an$SFI$grant.
©NOTICE:$This$working$paper$is$included$by$permission$of$the$contributing$author(s)$as$a$means$to$ensure
timely$distribution$of$the$scholarly$and$technical$work$on$a$non@commercial$basis.$$$Copyright$and$all$rights
therein$are$maintained$by$the$author(s).$It$is$understood$that$all$persons$copying$this$information$will
adhere$to$the$terms$and$constraints$invoked$by$each$author's$copyright.$These$works$$may$$be$reposted
only$with$the$explicit$permission$of$the$copyright$holder.
www.santafe.edu
SANTA FE INSTITUTE

1"
"
STATUS AND ROLE IN EARLY STATES: A
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Paula L.W. Sabloff (Professor, Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501)
and
Skyler Cragg(Graduate Research Fellow, Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe,
NM 87501)
Chapter in volume tentatively titled Complexity and Society: An
Introduction to Complex Adaptive Systems and Human Society, edited by
Jeremy Sabloff et al., to be submitted to Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ
Status-and-role, or role theory, is an old concept in anthropology that can provide new
insights into the organization of early states. In this chapter, we adapt Linton’s (1936)
original concept of status-and-role to a comparative analysis of nine early states and
contrast them with two non-state traditions in order to study three questions:
• Do early states organize people around similar statuses? If so, do non-states
exhibit different patterns from the early states? Is there a pattern of statuses
that suggests a society is a state?

2"
"
• Do the early states assign the same roles, i.e., the same rights,
responsibilities and behaviors to particular statuses—in this case, rulers,
farmers, and slaves? Are these roles assigned to the same statuses in non-
state societies?
• What do the patterns tell us about early state organization? And does the
application of role theory help us define the early state?
By applying network and other analytical methods from complexity science, we have
found that the application of role theory yields a different, productive way to
understand the unique characteristics of early states. Some of our findings corroborate
those of other archaeologists. For example, we found independent, measurable proof
that pre-conquest Hawai’i fits the criteria of a state, thus supporting Patrick Kirch’s
reclassification of Hawai’i (Kirch 2010). Other findings provide new insights into the
archaeological record: The multiple roles expected of a ruler reveal how decision-
making and legitimacy operate in the early states. The development of social
complexity means the differentiation of property rights and employment for farmers,
serfs, and slaves. The many types of slavery, including indentured servitude, suggest
that perhaps they should not be treated as one social category. And there is a strong
connection between warfare and the marriage alliances of people of high rank.
Before proceeding with the analysis, we modify Ralph Linton’s status-and-role
concept to make it useful for the study of archaeological and complex society data.
REFINING STATUS-AND-ROLE FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL USE

3"
"
The introduction of status and role in the social sciences is often credited to
American anthropologist Ralph Linton, who set forth the concept in his 1936 book,
The Study of Man. Linton did not originate the concept, however. G.H. Mead, G.
Simmel and others started using it in the beginning of the twentieth century (Biddle
1986). Linton’s conceptualization of what was to become role theory has been so
efficacious for structuring research that scholars have continued to use it even as they
modified his ideas (Merton 1957; Goode 1960; Goodenough 1969; Sailer 1978;
Biddle 1986; Lopata 1995; and Blau 1995).
Linton defines status as a position in society (1936: 118-19). It is one level of
abstraction away from actual persons. While individuals may hold certain statuses,
statuses stand independent of individuals. That is, many people may occupy the same
status, and a status may persist longer than the individuals who occupy it at any point
in time. A status is usually expressed as a noun, one that refers to a position in the
political economy (e.g., ruler, farmer, slave, or merchant), family structure (e.g., father
or daughter), or some other domain such as religion (e.g., shaman, priest). Therefore,
status may mean either the sum of all the offices a person occupies or just one of those
offices. The status of ruler may refer to all of his/her positions—from heir of the
previous ruler, intermediary between the people and the gods, or warrior—and it may
mean the top position in a society—ruler of a polity. But what is important is that a
status exists in relation to at least one other status. There cannot be a ruler without
subjects; a man cannot be a father without his child (biological or social); and a farmer

4"
"
in a state may be able to produce crops, but he cannot get them distributed without a
market or redistribution system.
Linton distinguishes two means of obtaining a status—ascribed and achieved.
Ascribed status is assigned at birth without consideration of the individual’s inherent
abilities, often, one’s family position in society. Or it may be automatically assigned
according to some characteristic that a person has no control over (e.g., progressing
from being an infant to a child and then a youth) (Linton 1936: 118–21; Ames 2008).
Achieved status is acquired during one’s lifetime. It is the result of one’s efforts, often
the acquisition of some skill through education or experience.
A status is associated with roles, which Linton defines as a collection of rights
and duties (Ibid), which later scientists expanded to mean behaviors. A farmer (in
some ancient societies) has the right to own land and the duty to pay taxes, and he is
expected to behave in a way that is deemed appropriate to these rights and duties. The
group of roles associated with a status forms a role cluster (Merton 1957; Blau 1995).
It is appropriate and expected of an early-state king to beget an heir, form alliances
through gift and marriage exchange, perform rituals for the gods, etc. These expected
and appropriate behaviors are usually determined by people who are in
complementary positions to the status in question. A ruler’s roles are influenced (but
not necessarily determined) by the gods he reports to, his followers and extended
family, and his subjects (Sailer 1978).

5"
"
Just as status is expressed as a noun, so role usually takes the form of a verb, or
action, such as ‘farms,’ ‘inherits,’ or ‘rules.’ There are a few instances when a role
cannot be denoted solely as a verb. This may be a characteristic of English, but we
could not find a verb substitute for the phrase ‘is responsible for.’ The Egyptian king
is responsible for the well-being of his people in their lifetime and after their death.
This basic definition of status-and-role is so much a part of the social science
vocabulary that authors no longer bother to reference the literature. Surely the concept
can be useful to the analysis of early states. The problem, of course, is that statuses
and roles are difficult to extract from the archaeological record. Which statuses
comprise the ruler’s status set? How does the agricultural labor of a farmer who owns
his own land differ from that of a landless serf? Who influences the farmer’s role set?
We cannot answer these questions from excavation alone. However, by combining
archaeological and historical data, we can isolate many statuses and even their role
sets in the early states. This is the path that we have taken in our analysis. Even so, the
historical data focus on the ruler and upper echelon; information on the life of slaves
and even farmers is hard to come by. Therefore there are many blanks in our database.
The second problem is that Linton’s and subsequent scholars’ definition of status
needs to be expanded in order to be useful for the understanding of early states or any
complex society. The most salient omission is social rank. Linton defines social rank
as the relative positioning of people within a family but does not systematically relate
it to politico-economic status (1936: 123, 125, 185). He mentions social rank again,
writing that the upper echelon of a society has “privilege and rank” (Ibid: 125, 166)

6"
"
and that Comanche warriors’ rank is “fluid” (Ibid: 446). But he does not
systematically connect rank with status.
We soon realized that constructing lists of titles, or positions, for a society would
not capture the fact that statuses really are embedded in social ranks in complex
societies. People of the same status may have different ranks within a society. For
example, a land owner may be a ruler, a commoner, or even a temple or shrine. The
roles associated with the status of land owner vary according to the status-holder’s
rank. When a ruler owns land, he assigns the task of farming to others. But when a
commoner owns land, he usually farms it himself.
We also found that Linton’s distinction between ascribed and achieved status is
inadequate for complex societies, and so we have added another category—imposed
status—to help the analysis. We define imposed status as one that is forced upon a
person and is therefore neither ascribed nor achieved. Once a warrior or soldier is
captured and becomes a prisoner of war, he may be forced to become a sacrificial
victim or slave. And a woman who is made to marry has the status of wife imposed on
her.
When we studied the statuses of slave, captive and human sacrifice, we also
realized that performing a role may be fulfilled in two manners. A role may be active,
that is, it is performed under the person’s agency, or initiative. But a role may also be
passive. Here, a person is forced or coerced to undertake a task. This distinction can
often differ greatly depending upon the particular status-rank combination under

7"
"
scrutiny. Indeed, it appears that any role cluster varies in its mix of active and passive
roles depending on the rank of the person in a particular status. And we characterize
the roles associated with statuses from ruler to slave as lining up along a continuum
from mostly active to mostly passive.
METHODOLOGY AND CASES
We have been building a database of different traditions’ statuses and roles, from
captives and slaves to rulers, gods, and spirits. Researchers working with us have
poured through the archaeological and historical literature to construct the database.
Their work, which originally appeared as citations from the literature, was checked by
an expert on each tradition.
Figure 1 is an abbreviated example of the categories used in the original
databases. The information is organized into columns of a tradition’s location and
temporal spread; the names of all the statuses we could find (in English and the
original transliterated language when possible); and the expected roles associated with
each status. To determine rank, we recorded each status’ place in the socio-political
hierarchy and included a ‘Reports to’ column. These turned out to be difficult to
ascertain as an occupational status could be held by people with very different ranks.
Diviners in China might be members of the royal family or commoners. Following a
status’ place in the hierarchy is a column devoted to how an individual might
legitimately attain that status. We reserved the last column for comments, or
information the researcher felt would shed light on the status but which did not fit into

8"
"
one of the preceding columns. Usually these are insights into the context of the status
or roles.
We found that we needed historical reports to flesh out the archaeological
reports, and writing usually did not crystallize until the end of the early state period.
So although we had hoped to capture the initial state period, we had to use the period
in which writing was developed. Furthermore, today’s scholars had to be able to
decipher the written record. For example, while the state formed in Egypt when
Narmer united the Lower and Upper Nile (the Early Dynastic Period, 3150–2686
BCE), we use as our reference point the Old Kingdom (2686–2181 BCE), the period
when the hieroglyphic system was established and could be read by today’s scholars.
And although the Indus Valley has written records, scholars still cannot read them and
so we could not use this tradition in our analysis.
Our selection of tradition encompasses all the primary early states, i.e.,
those that self-organized into more complex organizations without using a model
developed in another state. Because of the need to use texts as well as archaeological
remains, the time periods for these states are usually several generations after the
actual emergence of the states. In the case of Hawai’i, the time period used is the one
reported on by the British. The primary states are:
• China, the Late Shang Dynasty (ca. 1250–1046 BCE), analyzed by Paula L.W.
Sabloff and checked by Adam Daniel Smith.

9"
"
• Egypt, the Old Kingdom (2686–2182 BCE), analyzed by Robert S. Weiner and
checked by Laurel Bestock.
• Hawaiian state (1650–1778 CE), analyzed by Kong Fai Cheong and checked
by Patrick Kirch.
• Lower Mesopotamia, or Sumer (2600–2350 BCE), analyzed by Henry Wright
and checked by Stephen Tinney.
• Maya, the Late Preclassic to Terminal Classic (400 BCE to 900 CE), analyzed
by Kong Fai Cheong and checked by Jeremy Sabloff.
The secondary early states were stimulated by earlier states’ complex social structure.
For example, Mycenaean Greece had contact with pharaonic Egypt and Minoan Crete
(Dickinson 1999). We selected four for our initial study from different geographic
areas based on the suggestions of our advisors. They are:
• Aztec (1350–1520 CE), analyzed by Jeffrey Cohen and checked by Michael E.
Smith.
• Benin (ca. 355 BCE to ca. 1092 CE), analyzed by George J. Haddad and
checked by Sandra Barnes.
• Greece, the Mycenaean period (1300–1200 BCE), analyzed by Skyler Cragg
and checked by Michael Galaty.
• Late Zapotec, (1050–1500 CE), analyzed by Kong Fai Cheong and checked by
Gary Feinman.

10"
"
For comparison with the state traditions above, we used two non-states. These were
chosen because the Institute had several experts in the area and therefore could guide
our research:
• Tewa, pre-conquest (1300–1600 CE), analyzed by Jack Jackson and checked
by John Ware.
• Hopi, the ethnographic present from the first half of the twentieth century,
analyzed by Jack Jackson and checked by Abigail Holman.
Although we continue to add more cases to the database, we limit this chapter to the
above, which we know have been checked by experts. Once they signed off on the
databases, we constructed one big spreadsheet of the 11 societies, statuses (rows) and
roles (columns), reducing each cell to a 1 (present), 0 (not present) or blank (missing
information). In addition to the information from the database, we added information
deduced from logic. For example, we assumed that a ruler did not normally become a
human sacrifice or perform corvée labor in his/her own polity. We assumed that since
royalty do not pay taxes, the king and his wives do not either. Be that as it may, we
were very careful. If the literature did not mention slaves, we left the cell blank. If an
author reported that there is no evidence of slaves, we placed a 0 in the appropriate
cell.
We then created three types of graphs in NetDraw (Borgatti 2002). The first uses
statuses as the nodes; the second uses roles as the nodes. In the third type of graph, the

11"
"
societies are the nodes. In all three types of graphs, the edges represent co-occurrence
between pairs of nodes.
We performed a Johnson’s hierarchical cluster analysis to find the core attributes of
each network. Generated from a symmetric (square) matrix, Johnson’s hierarchical
cluster groups the pairs of attributes that share some characteristic. Here, the shared
feature is the relative frequency of the pairs’ co-occurrences, which are derived from
the weighted average and may be represented as a dendrogram.
We also ran categorical core-periphery analyses in order to have an independent
check on the results of the cluster analyses. The former “estimates the degree of . . .
closeness to the core of each” node. Both tests were generated in UCINet (Borgatti,
Everett, and Freeman 2002; Hanneman and Riddle n.d.; see also Brughmans 2013).
STATUSES IN EARLY STATES
We gleaned from the literature 52 possible statuses for early states (see Figure 2 for a
list of all possible statuses and their definitions). They range from the gods and ruler
to captives and slaves. We first wanted to know which statuses form a ‘core’ in the
early states. We generated a Johnson’s hierarchical cluster analysis on the nine (five
primary and four secondary) states and found 22 statuses that all the early states share.
As the core-periphery test included 11 more, or statuses that almost all share, we chose
the larger number as the core (Figure 3).

12"
"
When we ran the tests on the primary and secondary states separately, we saw
that three statuses appear in the primary but not the secondary states. These are the
provincial governor, scribe, and servant. Four statuses appear in the secondary but not
the primary states: commoner leader (e.g., clan leader or ward leader), council
member, merchant, and state priest. Some of these differences must be due to
insufficient data or different usages of terms by the researcher authors. However, it is
interesting that the merchant status appears in the secondary-state literature but not the
first (as far as we could determine).
Core Statuses of Early States by Domain and Social Rank
Certain features stand out when we look at the core statuses by societal domain (major
categories or institutions of behavior) and social rank (Table 1). The first domain
refers to socio-political (SP) statuses. Humans in the early states exhibit eight core
statuses of the highest (human) rank in this domain. Rankings range from a 1 for the
gods, spirits, and ancestors to a 2 for humans of the upper echelon, a 3 for people who
are neither nobility nor slaves (referred to in the literature and here as commoners),
and a 4 for slaves and captives. In the socio-political domain, the highest (human)
rankings are a mixture of social ranks and administrative positions.
Four more statuses in the socio-political domain draw members from the second
or third rank. Retainers to the king or other royals and women who are secondary
wives or concubines form the social part of the domain. Government officials come
from either rank. Their duties and geographic control vary with their rank. By focusing

13"
"
on officials of different rank, we are made aware that certain positions, or offices,
must be occupied by members of the upper echelon while others are not. This is
generally true for military statuses as well.
Below these ranks are commoners (rank 3). They are sometimes called free-born
men in the literature (Bradbury 1973: 60 on Benin, for example) or members of the
free class in Lower Mesopotamia (Gelb 1965: 241). They may serve as low-level
officials or bureaucrats.
The lowest rank (4) in the socio-political hierarchy is assigned to slaves and
captives who act as servants, laborers (skilled and unskilled), and sometimes
supervisors of laborers. Slaves may have been captives or criminals, as in the case of
the Aztec (M. E. Smith 2003: 137). Just as their status is imposed, so their lives are
controlled by someone else, usually by someone from the second rank. They work but
do not earn (Trigger 2003: 157–60).
Non-states have neither the top nor the bottom ranks found in the socio-political
domain of early states. Instead, all people are considered to have similar rank, and any
gradation among them is not hereditary. Actually, non-states have the concept of ‘the
people,’ which is frequently the name they call their group (e.g., the Navajo call
themselves Diné). In contrast, those living in the early states see themselves as part of
a stratum within a larger society as well as members of the society itself.
The economic domain (E) covers the agrarian and industrial sectors. In the
former, the highest ranked status is that of fief holder, that is, a royal or noble who

14"
"
receives income from estates. An exception is Egypt, where the ruler ‘owns’ all arable
land. Royal and noble followers administer the estates and receive income from them
but do not own them in the legal sense (Blanton and Fargher 2008: 147; Baines and
Yoffee 1998: 229). The next rank (rank 3) consists of farmers, herders and shepherds.
They are usually commoners. Serfs’ civil status varies between commoner and lower
status (ranks 3 and 4). Slaves (rank 4) also farm.
The ranks of those engaged in farming illustrate a critical difference between
states and non-states, namely, property relations to the land. In the early states, rulers,
fief holders, and sometimes temples or shrines own swaths of arable land; farmers
own some land; and serfs and slaves own no land but work for an overlord. In the non-
states, farmers all have the same ownership relation to the land. They either own the
land outright or have usufruct rights to some of the land owned by their settlement or
extended kin group (McAnany 1995: 92–96). Indirect evidence suggests that these
practices were established in Pueblo societies during the first millennium CE (Kohler
1992).
All the early states institutionalize different kinds of property rights—from royal
ownership to fief-holds, corporate (kin or settlement group) land-holding, and small
plots. Thus the real import of agriculture for state formation is not dietary change or
sedentarism but the diversification in types of productive property linked with the right
to hereditary property, or land. This transition preceded state formation (see Johnson
and Earle 1987: 201–02; Flannery and Marcus 2012: 206–07, 256–57).

15"
"
In the industrial sector, we see a parallel process of diversification of craft
production by rank. Sometimes even royals make fine crafts such as Mayan
polychrome vases (Houston and Inomata 2010: 263) or act as Shang Chinese diviners
(Feng 2013: 93, 108; Trigger 2003: 505; A. D. Smith 2010; A. D. Smith 2011).
However, we do not have evidence of royals or nobles engaged in unskilled labor.
This is left for commoners and slaves.
Denizens of states may also work for different types of employers. In Lower
Mesopotamia, craftsmen may work for themselves, selling their own wares, or for a
private person such as a royal, a noble, or a kinsman. They may also work directly for
the state. In Mycenaean Greece, skilled workers may work for a temple or the state (A.
Westenholz 2002: 30; Gelb 1965: 242). In Egypt, they work in teams administered by
controllers and various overseers (Baines and Yoffee 1998: 230; Trigger 2003: 369).
In Shang China, makers of bronze vessels work for royal or noble patrons, usually in
workshops (A. D. Smith 2010; Campbell n.d.; Campbell, Li, He, and Jing 2011).
Because non-states do not have a central government, workers cannot report to
as many types of employers as workers in states do. In other words, differentiation of
possible employers seems to be another key feature of state societies. A status-and-role
analysis of a population helps illuminate this fact.
In the religious domain (R), states have a hierarchy of deities, from a chief god
to lesser gods, gods of particular settlements, nature spirits, and sometimes ancestor
spirits (found in Shang China, Classic Maya, pre-conquest Zapotec and Hawai’i, and

16"
"
Benin). This ranked set of deities reflects and perhaps legitimizes the sociopolitical
hierarchy. Just as there are at least three levels of society (ruler and nobility,
commoner, and slave), so there are at least three possible levels of gods.
Humans working in the religious domain also belong to several ranks. The
Aztec, Zapotec, and Hawai’i have a state priest (a priest over the entire state),
specialized priests, and regular priests. The Aztec also have head priests for different
temples and shrines.
Standing between the socio-political and religious domains is the status, ‘servant
of the gods.’ The term refers to someone who is responsible for performing certain
rituals to honor the gods or bringing sacrifices and offerings to the gods’ statues. Often
the ruler has this status. It gives him/her a direct (and often monopolistic) connection
to the gods. The one who satisfies the gods’ needs has the ability to please, appease,
interpret, and ask favors of them.
We think of the rankings in every domain as a progression from no decision-
making power (slave) to complete freedom (chief god) and from poverty (serfs and
slaves) to wealth (ruler and royalty). We do not see these continua in the Tewa and
Hopi columns of Table 2. And although they appear to share almost half the statuses
with the states, we must keep in mind that the categories were developed for state-
level societies; the non-states data were fitted into categories that might not make
sense for them. For example, a Hopi may have the title of military commander, but by
the period of research, Hopi no longer practiced warfare.

17"
"
High-ranking Women and War
Within the states’ sociopolitical domain is a cluster of core statuses reserved for high-
ranking women other than a queen ruler. These are the ruler’s female kin, the queen
consort/mother, and royal/noble women. Their marital statuses are initially ascribed or
imposed rather than achieved. They are core statuses probably because they have great
importance for the ruler, for they provide him with long-term alliances. Unlike a
bronze vessel or piece of jewelry, high-born women whom the ruler marries to a
(potential) ally or women who marry into the ruler’s entourage maintain contact with
their kin for years, passing messages and advocating for their kin or spouse. The
literature provides some examples of alliance building through the exchange of
women (Schele and Freidel 1990: 59; J. G. Westenholz 1990; Freidel and Schele
1997; Keightley 1999: 33, 43; Freidel and Guenter 2003; Allen and Arkush 2006: 4;
Connell and Silverstein 2006: 400, 402; LeBlanc 2003, 2006: 406; Turchin, Currie,
Turner, and Gavrilets 2013, among others). Most telling is Simon Martin’s (2008)
description of the Dallas Altar, which depicts three high-class Mayan women from the
Snake kingdom (Calakmul) who marry into the smaller settlement of La Corona. As
the three come from different generations, they cement the ties between the two
settlements.
The scholars who have written on the impact of warfare on early state formation
(see also Stanish and Levine 2011) mostly mention alliance-building only in passing.
The prevalence of long-term alliance-building as seen in the centrality of high-rank
women’s statuses suggests that it must be seen as a concomitant process to warfare.

18"
"
Rulers and the elite need trustworthy allies in order to wage war against a mightier
foe—or assure victory over any foe. Sometimes warfare is a last-resort effort that
occurs only when long-term alliances break down. Therefore we urge archaeologists
to treat long-term alliance and warfare as two sides to the same coin.
Using women to actualize long-term alliances depends on polygyny, the ability
of a ruler to form and maintain several political ties at one time. While we do not yet
know how far down the social ladder polygyny is practiced in many of the states we
studied, we do know that it was practiced by the ruler (king) in all nine of the early
states.
Typical Early States
Once we determined the core statuses, we used the information to learn if there is a
typical early state, one that stands as an example for research or public interest. We
devised a prototype from the vector of average percentage of statuses along three
dimensions—domains, ranks, and domains and ranks combined— and then measured
the Euclidean distance of the different societies from the vector. Table 3 shows that
the typical society varies depending on the dimension selected. There is little
variability between the states in the domains of external relations and the economy.
That is, there is little variability in the number of statuses found in these domains.
However, the sociopolitical and religious domains exhibit sufficient variability to
make China and the Aztec closest to the prototype. Lower Mespotamia, Hawai’I, and
Benin have the same number of statuses as China and the Aztec for the sociopolitical

19"
"
domain, but their scores for the religious domain are not at all near the prototype.
Needless to say, the two non-states vary greatly from the states as well as the
prototype.
Regarding societal ranks, the states differ in the number and kinds of statuses of
deities (and supernatural phenomena). Egypt deviates the most from the others as well
as the prototype. Considering the highest rank for humans—from the ruler to the
nobles—there is a greater degree of shared statuses than there is for the religious
hierarchy. All the states have slaves and captives, and so there is little variability
among states in this rank. When the four ranks are averaged the Maya are closest to
the prototype, followed by Hawai’i and Benin. Again, the non-states do not share the
hierarchy of people that the states do, and so the non-states’ scores are much lower
than the states’.
Combining the domains and rankings, Lower Mesopotamia is closest to the
prototype, with the Maya following close behind. In other words, Lower Mesopotamia
has the lowest proportion of deviations from the prototype of all the states.
The table highlights other patterns. First, Hawai’i’s place in all three parts of the
table suggests that it has many of the characteristics of a state and therefore should be
considered one. Second, at the bottom are the Hopi and Tewa. Their relatively greater
distance from the prototype gives added weight to their classification as non-states,
which the archaeological and ethnohistoric data bear out. Third, Egypt appears just
above the Tewa and Hopi in the ranks-only and combined sections. We postulate that

20"
"
its position is the result of an ideology of regal divinity, that is, the Egyptian king was
the son of the god Horus and therefore divine himself. The other traditions (with the
exception of the last years of the Hawaiian state) legitimize the ruler by the principle
of divine right, not divinity. Egypt’s regal divinity ideology resulted in a slightly
different socio-political structure from the other early states.
We also wanted to know which societies shared the most statuses. We were able
to compare the relative number of matched (0 to 0, or 1 to 1) and mismatched (0 to 1)
statuses between the societies, eliminating missing values and therefore giving a more
accurate picture of what is shared. Figure 4, based on the original 52 possible statuses
(see Figure 2), illustrates the co-occurrence of statuses in pairs of societies. For
example, it shows that in the first column, Egypt and the Maya have the most matches
(83 percent) and therefore the fewest (17 percent) mismatches. In the second data
column, Lower Mesopotamia shares 81 percent of matches with Greece and the Aztec,
but the latter two only share 69 percent with each other. These pairings suggest there
is little difference in the number and kinds of statuses between state organization in
the Old and New World or between primary and secondary states.
The non-states share few statuses with the early states. While the Tewa and Hopi
share 79 percent matches with each other, the Tewa—the least hierarchical society in
this sample—share only 35 percent of statuses with Greece, the Tewa’s next highest
percentage of shared statuses. Greece is the least hierarchical of the early states, as far
as we know. The Hopi, in turn, share only 40 percent of statuses with Lower
Mesopotamia. Kohler (2013) suggests that the Tewa and Hopi, who belong to

21"
"
different language groups but the same cultural tradition, may share sociocultural
patterns because of migration (frequent interchange of populations and ideas) and
adaptation to a similar environment rather than level of political organization.
ROLES IN THE EARLY STATES
We present an analysis of the roles for a ruler, farmer, and slave, using our modified
definition of Linton’s concept. These statuses were selected because they represent
different ranks in the social structure. Rulers are always of the nobility, and farmers
are generally from the commoner stratum, i.e., neither noble nor slave. Slaves, on the
other hand, have varying rank depending on their skills, their status before
enslavement, and the status/rank of their owner.
The Ruler
The ruler, the person with the highest rank in a polity, performs more roles than any
other status found in an early state—33 out of a possible 66. His roles also extend
through all four domains of the study, as seen in the fourth column of the Figure 5.
Thirty are core roles as they are shared by at least six of the states in our sample
according to Johnson’s hierarchical clustering analysis and the core-periphery test.
While Figure 5 is meant to represent both male and female rulers, certain roles
probably apply only to a king. We assume that queen rulers, who appear in the
literature on Egypt and the Maya, do not practice polygamy, although kings in all
early states practice polygyny. (One hears of harems but not stables of husbands.) In

22"
"
order to form many long-term alliances, the queen ruler has to depend on kin or wait
for her children to be of marriageable age. Still, both kings and queen rulers use
patronage to tie their royal subjects and conquered territories to them.
The socio-political domain of rulers has 14 roles. Of these, only two may be
interpreted as having a passive component. ‘Inherits’ may appear to be passive, but a
ruler often has to compete against others to inherit his position. ‘Predicts’ (row 31) is
ambiguous as it is not always clear whether the gods are predicting and the ruler is
interpreting or the ruler is doing the predicting. Therefore we marked ‘predicts’ as
both active and passive.
The roles that have both socio-political and economic dimensions (rows 15 to
19) are all active, as is row 20, which combines socio-political and religious functions.
The five external-relations roles are by and large active, for the ruler makes alliances
and wages war. Row 26 has a passive component, and that is when the ruler is
captured in war. Being captured is definitely passive, although it comes from being an
active fighter.
In the religious domain, rows 27 to 30, the ruler may be considered passive only
when he is seen to be serving the gods or ancestors.
Looking at the ruler’s roles in Figure 5, we gain insight into his/her position in
the socio-political order. Basically, we see a person who controls power in several
ways. By monopolizing access to the chief god or royal ancestors, the ruler gains
legitimacy and one means of controlling the decision-making process. Success in war

23"
"
or protecting the populace from famine, drought, and other pestilences increases the
ruler’s prestige and right to rule.
The ruler maintains power over the populace by coercion when he has control of
the troops, especially if he maintains his own standing army (Aztec [M. E. Smith
2003: 154]; possibly Shang China [D. Keightley 1983: 548, 555]). By controlling
trade and access to natural or imported resources (which most did), the ruler regulates
the distribution of goods and resources, thereby controlling everyone’s access to
wealth accumulation.
The ruler uses different types of control over royals and nobles. He binds them to
his will not only through coercion (we assume) but also through patronage (which
makes them obligated to him) and marriage alliances.
A ruler’s life is not all control and conspicuous consumption, however. With
position comes the responsibility to actually protect the populace from risk—
starvation or slavery imposed by a conquering ruler—and the nobility from destroying
each other or replacing the ruler. So on the one hand, in the words of Mel Brooks, “It’s
good to be the king!” But on the other, it is a rather risky position. What if the king
cannot deliver on his promises? What if he is captured by a foreign power? The
literature provides many examples of kings being deposed, or worse.
Before leaving our discussion of rulers, we show which societies interpret the
status of ruler in a similar way, i.e., share the most roles for a ruler. For this analysis,
we reintroduce the Tewa and Hopi as foils for the early states. Figure 6 is a

24"
"
dendrogram produced from a Johnson’s hierarchical cluster analysis and checked by
the UCINet core-periphery test. It shows that Egypt and Lower Mesopotamia, Benin
and the Maya share the most roles for a ruler. Next, Hawai’i joins the Maya and
Benin, and this triad joins Egypt and Lower Mesopotamia. China joins the large
cluster, and the other societies add on to it. The exceptions are the Hopi and Tewa,
which do not have rulers and therefore appear separate from the other societies.
Perhaps the similarity between Egypt and Lower Mesopotamia relates to
geographic proximity and intercommunication, but other primary states such as the
Maya and China were not connected. Yet they exhibit the same role pattern. Therefore
we can say that the status and roles of ruler are independent inventions, perhaps
necessary for the development of complex society or even the result of the human
mind solving similar problems in different parts of the world.
Primary and secondary states exhibit similar role patterns even though the
primary states cluster at the top of the graph. This means that whether developing or
adapting a state model makes little difference in the roles played by the leader.
Figure 6 also shows that Hawai’i remains in the middle of the state societies,
suggesting once again that it is a state with the same basic organization of leadership
as the other early states.
All in all, this analysis of the ruler’s roles does not present an earth-shattering
new perspective on early states. However, it does corroborate the findings of
archaeologists, for example, Peregrine (2012) and Adam T. Smith (2003: 108–09).

25"
"
Farmers, Herders, and Serfs
We decided the best way to analyze tillers of the soil was to compare farmers and
herders with serfs as the two groups engage in the same work but have different
statuses, or legal standing. We define farmers as people who have the right to farm a
segment of land either through ownership or membership in a settlement or kin group,
i.e., usufruct rights. Herders (and Hawaiian pond fishermen) may own part or all of the
animals they raise. One may think of farmers and herders as small business owners
usually farming on borrowed or leased land or raising their own or borrowed
livestock. They are commoners in the socio-political hierarchy.
Serfs, on the other hand, till the soil or raise animals owned by an overlord; they
are employees. In the literature, researchers see serfs as commoners (Aztec [Berdan et
al. 1996: 3; M.E. Smith 2003: 154], Benin [Bradbury 1973: 151–57], Maya [Houston
and Inomata 2010: 218], Late Zapotec [Whitecotton 1977: 149], Egypt [Baines and
Yoffee 1998: 229], and China [Trigger 2003: 157]).
Figure 7 represents networks of roles played by farmers/herders and serfs. As in
the section on rulers, we included every role that appears in at least one society in the
sample. The nodes in the graphs are the roles and the edges link nodes that co-occur in
a particular society. The thicker the edges and the closer the nodes, the more societies
include the co-occurring nodes in their database.
Of the nine possible roles for farmers and herders, three fall into the socio-
political domain. All of the roles in this domain are passive. They are: ‘is ruled’ by a

26"
"
state government, ‘is coerced’ by the power of an army or police, and ‘is controlled’
by individuals. This means that when performing their roles, farmers and herders have
little or no decision-making authority. These roles form part of the cluster of core
farmer/herder roles in Figure 7a.
Two roles, ‘corvée’ and ‘serves,’ span the socio-political and economic domains.
They are partly socio-political because people perform the roles as part of their social
status. But because the duties associated with the roles are pure labor, they may be
considered economic as well. ‘Corvée’ means the labor a farmer/herder owes the state
or an overlord each year. ‘Serves’ refers to directly serving a superior. While
farmers/herders serve the gods and/or ancestors like anyone in their society, there is no
evidence that they perform labor for an overlord while fulfilling their agricultural
duties. Of course, while they are performing corvée labor, many serve overlords
directly.
The remaining roles fit within the economic domain. Only ‘gains wealth’ is
active. It is represented by a triangle in the graph. Although we found no direct
evidence of farmers who accumulate wealth, we reasoned that since farmers can
become debtors, they probably can gain wealth as well. This is the case among the
Maya (ibid: 229). Still, this role is situated far away from the other nodes and has
weaker co-occurrence ties than any other node in the graph.
‘Farms’ may be seen as active or passive. It means to actively make decisions—
either where and when to plant, water, or fertilize different plant species or how to

27"
"
feed animals (moving them around to different pastures or growing fodder). But
farmers and herders inherit their status and have little choice as to whether or not to
practice their parents’ occupation. ‘Owns land/property’ is also a mixture of active and
passive decision-making, for most farmers do not ‘own’ land—they cannot buy and
sell it. Rather, they have usufruct rights as members of a kin group or settlement.
Taking up their usufruct rights may be a choice for some, but most have little mobility
as their property rights are tied to their membership in a clan or lineage. The Maya
seem to be an exception (Houston and Inomata 2010: 243–44).
‘Pays taxes’ is the only economic role that is purely passive as farmers and
herders do not have the right to decide whether or not and how much to pay.
In contrast to the ruler who has 28 possible active roles, 2 roles with active and
passive components, and 2 passive roles, farmers and herders have only 1 active role,
2 active roles with passive components, and 6 completely passive roles.
When we compare farmers and herders with serfs, we see that the latter do not
play all the roles that the first two do. Unlike farmers and herders, serfs lack
ownership or usufruct rights to the land they cultivate. Therefore, they neither ‘own
land’ nor have the opportunity to ‘gain wealth.’ Furthermore, they do not perform
‘corvée’ labor as they are full-time servants. These three roles are off to the side of
Figure 7b, for no early-state serf engages in them. The other five roles are all passive,
for serfs have no choice but to farm or serve their overlords.

28"
"
Aside from the logical conclusion that serfs neither own land nor perform corvée
labor, we have little information on whether or not serfs pay taxes to the state, except
for the Late Zapotec, who do not (Whitecotton 1977: 150–51). But it makes little
sense to expect serfs to pay taxes when they are farming someone else’s land and have
to give all but subsistence fare to their overlord. Serfs play only passive roles. This is
interesting because it distinguishes them from farmers/herders. It also differentiates
serfs from slaves, who sometimes have active role options (see below).
Comparison by Early State and Non-state
When we compare the states and non-states by farmer/herder roles, we find that the
states cluster in the upper left corner of the graph (Figure 8a). That is because the nine
states share not only the economic roles but also the socio-political roles found in
Figure 7. Hawai’i sits a little below the others. The Tewa and Hopi share with the
early states the roles of ‘farms’ and ‘gains wealth.’ But they do not perform the roles
‘is controlled,’ ‘is ruled,’ performs ‘corvée’ labor, or ‘pays taxes’ in the farmer/herder
graph.
Figure 8b is the graph for serfs. Here, Greece, China, Benin, and Hawai’i join
the Tewa and Hopi, for we have no evidence that any of these societies have serfs.
Looking at the data on Mycenaean Greece (or at least Pylos), the Linear B tablets
record no mention of serfs. Rather, people ‘lease’ small parcels of land from the
‘damos’ (community), private landowners, temples, or the palace (Uchitel 2005: 474–

29"
"
75). Shang China may have day laborers farming the king’s land, but there is no report
of serfs per se (Trigger 2003: 326).
Slaves and Indentured Slaves
The definition of ‘slave’ during the early states period is problematic, for some authors
conflate slaves and indentured slaves (Pennock 2008: 19; Soustelle 1961: 74; Aguilar-
Moreno 2007: 75). While slaves are the property of another and do the work assigned
them with little autonomy, indentured slaves are (usually) commoners who sell
themselves (or are sold by family members) in order to pay off debts or taxes. During
their indenture, they have little or no freedom. But in several societies, they are
allowed to work off the debt and regain their freedom. In this section, we distinguish
indentured slaves from slaves only in how people obtain their status or are freed from
it. The economic roles are the same, for one could argue that an indentured slave is
basically performing slave labor during his/her term of servitude.
Slave roles appear in Figure 9. The degree to which they are active or passive
seems in part to be determined by their position in the hierarchy, which can differ
depending on who owns the slave. For example, slaves of the nobility in Benin can
take active roles in being war commanders or other top military officials. Slaves may
also have certain skills prior to their enslavement that allow them to occupy certain
statuses. Those who know a craft—how to build a boat, chariot, or bronze vessel—
may have higher rank than slaves who work in construction or agriculture. In

30"
"
addition, some people of high status who become enslaved may retain some aspects of
that status while their roles change.
In the early states, slave status is imposed on people rather than chosen. All nine
early states enslave captives in war or raids. Egypt, Hawai’i, and the Aztec punish
people for crimes or indebtedness by making them slaves. The Aztecs [M. E. Smith
2003: 137; Aguilar-Moreno 2007: 75] and the Maya [Houston and Inomata 2010: 47])
sell family members or themselves into slavery in order to pay a debt. Lower
Mesopotamia, the Late Zapotec, the Aztec, and Benin buy and sell (trade) slaves.
The ability to buy their freedom is the only truly active role open to slaves.
Trigger (Trigger 2003: 159) reports that Aztec indentured slaves can buy their
freedom, but this is the only case we could find in the literature.
Three slave roles vacillate between active and passive. ‘Administers,’
‘supervises,’ and ‘receives authority’ mean that a slave can direct the work of others,
whether he or she operates at the level of the bureaucracy or the work gang. Benin
slaves could hold top military positions, commanding armies, until the eighteenth
century (Osadolor 2001: 9). Although the status-holder may hold significant power
and command respect, s/he still has to answer to someone above (see, for example,
Adams 2010:§4.3 on Lower Mesopotamia). Thus the role is both active and passive.
Two sociopolitical roles are passive. ‘Is controlled’ and ‘is coerced’ refer to the
fact that a slave’s life is totally controlled by his/her overlord. The slave roles in the
economic domain are largely passive also. These are ‘serves’ a master;

31"
"
‘builds/maintains’ buildings and infrastructure; works in the house (‘WorksHouse’);
‘farms;’ and ‘creates’ pottery, woven cloth, etc. It need not be said that ‘is sacrificed’
is definitely not the choice of the slave (with some exceptions, we would expect). Still,
only four of the eight states use slaves as sacrifice: China, Hawai’i, Late Zapotec, and
the Aztec. Old Kingdom Egypt and Early Dynasty Lower Mesopotamia no longer
sacrifice humans, and so they do not sacrifice slaves. Neither does Greece.
The only active economic role, ‘owns land/property,’ seems to be limited to
Mycenaean Greece, where slaves can own land (Deger-Jalkotzy 1972: 147), and the
Aztec, where slaves can own property, including livestock (M. E. Smith 2003: 137,
151–52; Hassig 1992: 137).
The early states1 form a hierarchy of similarity clusters, reflecting the
complexity of the slave status and the conflation of indentured slave with slave. Figure
10 exhibits a triangular core of Lower Mesopotamia, Benin, and the Aztec. These
three share two roles that few of the others do, namely ‘owns property’ and is
‘bought/sold.’ Greece, then Egypt, Late Zapotec and China surround this core, and
Hawai’i links on last.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
1"Because"the"Tewa"and"Hopi"do"not"have"slaves,"they"are"not included in this part of
the analysis.
"

32"
"
The network reflects what we know of slave (and indentured slave) statuses and
roles now, but it does not reflect the different societal structures, for we know that
Greece and China are structurally different from Lower Mesopotamia and Egypt.
What the graph seems to reflect is the states’ philosophy of humanity. All of the states
with slaves seem to see captives in war or raids as fair game—the old ‘us vs. them’
idea. But as far as we know, only Lower Mesopotamia, the Aztec, Benin and the Late
Zapotec trade slaves like chattel, and only the Aztec, Benin, and Hawai’i enslave
debtors or criminals. Although the Aztec use slaves as human sacrifice, they also
allow indentured slaves to buy their freedom.
CONCLUSION
We have undertaken this exercise in the hope that a status-and-role comparison of
early states would yield new insights into their nature. We have not been disappointed.
By applying network analysis to a modified definition of Ralph Linton’s status-and-
role taxonomy, we have been able to corroborate some archaeological insights/theories
and discover some new ones as well.
In order to make Linton’s ideas applicable to early complex society, we need to
investigate status in relation to rank—always. That is, instead of viewing the statuses
in any society as a list, we add a second column for rankings with the understanding
that some statuses (such as father or weaver) can be held by people in more than one
rank. Linton’s classification can be made even more useful if we add imposed and
derived to his classification of achieved and ascribed statuses (1936: 118–21). With

33"
"
these new categories, we capture how status is attained for almost the entire society
because captives, slaves, and women who are married off do not willingly seek their
status.
By extracting the statuses and roles from the historical and archaeological
literature and by applying statistical and network analysis to the data, we gain a
method that helps us visualize the similarities and differences among the early states
as well as some non-states. While this is not the first comparative methodology
proposed (see, for example, Peregrine, this volume; chapters in M. E. Smith 2012; and
Blanton and Fargher 2008 for some other approaches), it is a simple way to conduct
multi-state comparison that allows us to break away from older taxonomic thinking.
The methodology has another advantage, for it yields measurable differences
among states and between states and non-states. Through measurement, we can judge
which societies belong among the states. For example, we see that pre-conquest
Hawai’i institutionalized most of the same statuses and roles as other early states and
therefore should be considered one. This supports the findings of the leading
archaeologist of the Hawaiian past, Patrick Kirch (2010).
Beyond methodology, we discovered that searching for the roles attached to
different statuses could yield insight into decision making. Roles appear to be active,
passive, or some combination of the two. By this we mean that a person in a particular
status has the ability/power to decide whether or not and how to play particular roles.
Active roles allow the player to choose whether or not to perform them and, if so, how

34"
"
to do so. The higher a person’s rank, the more decision-making ability s/he has. A
ruler has the most roles to play and most of these roles are active. The exceptions are
the few roles he plays vis-à-vis the gods. But these passive roles add to the ruler’s
legitimacy and give him control of decision-making for the polity. A role such as
farming may shift from partly active to totally passive depending on a person’s status
and rank. Farmers have some active roles but serfs do not.
Other social scientists have used this active-passive dichotomy to analyze how
people behave in certain circumstances (e.g., Richardson 1985: 163–79; Adler, Kless,
and Adler 1992), or they associate action or dominance with men and passivity or
subordination with women (Linton 1936: 99–105, 116–18; Ghvamshahidi 1995). The
active/passive dimension of roles extends all the way through a society’s status
hierarchy. It allows us to add the critical dimension of power in an analysis, and it
adds a valuable tool for cross-cultural comparison.
We found that one of the key differences between non-states and early states is
an expanding differentiation of legal and economic possibilities. First and foremost,
types of rights to arable land and pasture expand. In non-states, rights are usually
determined by one’s membership in a kin group. Writing about the Tsembaga Maring
of New Guinea, Johnson and Earle (2000: 187–88) note that the owners of arable land
are the clans: “. . . the clan defines ownership rights and restricts access to land. Clan
members may exchange land with each other . . . .” But in a state, the ruler, the royal
family, nobles, and temples may own some of the land while kin groups own the rest.
In Egypt and Lower Mesopotamia, the ruler theoretically owns all the land and

35"
"
everyone works for him (Blanton and Fargher 2008: 147; Henry Wright, personal
communication, March 2014; Trigger 2003: 334), for example, the Inca (Johnson and
Earle 2000: 323–24) and the Aztec (Berdan 1996: 3; M. E. Smith 2008: 154).
We also found diversification in employers. Whereas people would work for
their families and kin groups in non-states, people in states would work for anyone
from a kin group to the state, a temple, or an overlord.
In the socio-political realm, we noticed the strong connection between warfare
and long-term alliances that are anchored by the exchange of women. We propose that
warfare cannot be considered the only process in moving societies from chiefdoms to
states. Rather, it is always accompanied by long-term alliances. Indeed, the extensive
practice of forming alliances through marriage suggests that long-term alliances are
simply the other side of the warfare coin. Long-term alliances both forestall war and
increase a state’s chance of success in war. We therefore urge archaeologists to
analyze warfare in light of alliance-building.
Future research may show that the difference between societies with slaves and
those with slaves and indentured slaves reveals their sense of who is human, who is
‘us’ instead of who is ‘other.’ By comparing the hierarchy of gods or deities with the
social hierarchy and especially the treatment of slaves, we may learn more about
different states’ political and religious philosophy. But this must wait for another time.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

36"
"
Thanks to our researchers Robert Weiner, Kong Fai Cheong, and Jonah Nonomaque.
Thanks also to our citizen scientists Jeffrey Cohen, George J. Haddad, Jack M.
Jackson, and Shelley Waxman. Other contributors to particular cultures include
Sandra Barnes, Laurel Bestock, Gary Feinman, Michael Galaty, Abigail Holeman,
Peter Peregrine, Patrick Kirch, Gideon Shelach, Adam D. Smith, Michael E. Smith,
Charles Stanish, Stephen Tinney, and John Ware. Special thanks to Mirta Galesic and
Henrik Olsson for constructing Figure 4 and Table 1 and reading several drafts of the
paper. Henry Wright, Tim Kohler, Doug White, and Jerry Sabloff also provided sound
advice on a draft of the paper. Of course this project would not have been possible
without the continual guidance of Jerry Sabloff and Henry Wright.
This research was made possible by the John Templeton Foundation (“The
Principles of Complexity: Revealing the Hidden Sources of Order among the
Prodigies of Nature and Culture”) to the Santa Fe Institute, Grant No. 15705.
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, Robert McC. 2010. Slavery and Freedom in the Third Dynasty of Ur:
Implications of the Garshana Archives. Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2010: 2.
http://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2010/cdlj2010_002.html. Accessed January 29, 2014.
Adler, Patricia, Steven Kless and Peter Adler. 1992. Socialization to Gender Roles:
Popularity among Elementary School Boys and Girls. Sociology of Education 65: 3:
169–87. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2112807. Accessed March 30, 2015.

37"
"
Aguilar-Moreno, Manuel. 2007. Handbook to Life in the Aztec World. Oxford UK:
Oxford University Press.
Allen, Mark and Elizabeth Arkush. 2006. Introduction: Archaeology and the Study of
War. In The Archaeology of Warfare: Prehistories and Raiding and Conquest, eds.
Elizabeth Arkush and Mark Allen, pp. 1–19. Gainesville FL: University Press of
Florida.
Ames, K. M. 2008. The Archaeology of Rank. In Handbook of Archaeological
Theories, eds. Bentley R. A., H.D.G. Maschner, and C. Chippindale. Pp. 487–514.
Plymouth UK: AltaMira Press.
Arkush, Elizabeth N. and Mark W. Allen. 2006. The Archaeology of Warfare:
Prehistories and Raiding and Conquest. Gainesville FL: University Press of Florida.
Baines, John and Norman Yoffee. 1998. Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient
Egypt and Mesopotamia. In Archaic States, eds. Gary M. Feinman and Joyce Marcus.
Santa Fe NM: School of American Research Press.
Berdan, Frances F. et al.1996. Aztec Imperial Strategies. Washington D.C.:
Dumbarton Oaks.
Biddle, B. J. 1986. Recent Development in Role Theory. Annual Review of Sociology
12: 67–92.

38"
"
Blanton, Richard and Lane Fargher. 2008. Collective Action in the Formation of Pre-
Modern States. New York NY: Springer Science + Business Media LLC.
Blau, Judith. 1995. When Weak Ties are Structured. In Social Roles and Social
Institutions, eds. Judith R. Blau and Norman Goodman. New Brunswick NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Borgatti, S.P. 2002. Netdraw Network Visualization. Harvard MA: Analytic
Technologies.
Borgatti, S.P., M. G. Everett, and L. C. Freeman. 2002. UCINet for Windows:
Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard MA: Analytic Technologies.
Borgatti, Stephen P., Martin G. Everett, and Jeffrey C. Johnson. 2013. Analyzing
Social Networks. Los Angeles CA: Sage Publications.
Bradbury, R. E. 1973. Benin Studies, ed. Peter Morton Williams. International African
Institute. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.
Brughmans, Tom. 2013. Thinking through Networks: A Review of Formal Network
Methods in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20: 623–62.
Campbell, Roderick. n.d. Animal, Human, God: Pathways of Shang Animality and
Divinity. Posted on Academia.edu; Accessed June 30, 2014.

39"
"
Campbell, Roderick, Zhipeng Li, Yuling He and Yuan Jing. 2011. Consumption,
Exchange and Production at the Great Settlement Shang: Bone-working at Tiesanlu,
Anyang. Antiquity 85: 1279–97.
Connell, Samuel and Jay Silverstein. 2006. From Laos to Mesoamerica. In The
Archaeology of Warfare: Prehistories of Raiding and Conquest, eds. Elizabeth Arkush
and Mark Allen, pp. 394–433. Gainesville FL: University Press of Florida.
Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigrid. 1972. The Women of PY An 607. Minos: Revista de Filologia
Egea 13: 137–60. http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3161962. Accessed
March 2015.
Dickinson, Oliver. 1999 (December). Invasion, Migration and the Shaft Graves.
Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 43 (1): 97–107. doi:10.1111/j.2041-
5370.1999.tb00480.x.
Feng, Li. 2013. Early China: A Social and Cultural History. Cambridge UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Flannery, Kent and Joyce Marcus. 2012. The Creation of Inequality. Cambridge MA:
Harvard University Press.
Freidel, David and Stanley Guenter. 2003 (January). Bearers of War and Creation.
Archaeology. http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/siteq2/. Accessed March
29, 2015.

40"
"
Freidel, David, and Linda Schele. 1997. Maya Royal Women: A Lesson in
Precolumbian History. Gender in Cross-Cultural Perspective 1997: 59–63.
Gelb, I. J. 1965. The Ancient Mesopotamian Ration System. Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 24: 3: 230-43.
Ghvamshahidi, Zohreh. 1995. The Linkage between Iranian Patriarchy and the
Informal Economy in Maintaining Women's Subordinate Roles in Home-based Carpet
Production. Women's Studies International Forum18: 135–51.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027753959580050Y. Accessed
March 31, 2015.
Goode, William J. 1960. Norm Commitment and Conformity to Role-Status
Obligations. American Journal of Sociology 66: 246–58.
Goodenough, Ward H. 1969. Rethinking ‘Status’ and ‘Role’: Toward a General Model
of the Cultural Organization of Social Relationships. In Cognitive Anthropology, ed.
S.A. Tyler, pp. 311–30. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Hanneman, Robert A. and Mark Riddle. n.d. Introduction to Social Network Methods.
http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/nettext/C10_Centrality.html. Accessed 3/27/2015.
Hassig, Ross. 1992. War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica. Berkeley CA:
University of California Press.

41"
"
Houston, Stephen D. and Takeshi Inomata. 2010. The Classic Maya. Cambridge UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, Allen W. and Timothy Earle. 2000. The Evolution of Human Societies: From
Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Keightley, David N., ed. 1983. The Origins of Chinese Civilization. Berkeley CA:
University of California Press. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4-
vdP2aZWhUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR14&dq=Keightley,+David+Origins+of+Chinese&ots=
tSEZmX6Jcq&sig=04iWaicr02WBRaFzWJSZlGSW8Rw#v=onepage&q=Keightley%
2C%20David%20Origins%20of%20Chinese&f=false. Accessed September 20, 2013.
Keightley, David N. 1999. At the Beginning: The Status of Women in Neolithic and
Shang China. NAN NÜ, 1(1): 1-63.
Kirch, Patrick. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of
Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
Kohler, Timothy. 1992. Fieldhouses, Villages, and the Tragedy of the Commons in the
Early Northern Anasazi Southwest. American Antiquity 57: 617–35.
Kohler, Timothy. 2013. How the Pueblos got their Sprachbund. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory. 20: 212-234. DOI: 10.1007/s10816-012-9145-4.
LeBlanc, Stephen. 2003 (May/June). Prehistory of Warfare. Archaeology (May/June):
18–25.

42"
"
LeBlanc, Steven. 2006. Warfare and the Development of Social Complexity: Some
Demographic and Environmental Factors. In The Archaeology of Warfare:
Prehistories of Raiding and Conquest, eds. Elizabeth Arkush and Mark Allen, pp.
437–68. Gainesville FL: University Press of Florida.
Linton, Ralph. 1936. The Study of Man. New York NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
Inc.
Lopata, Helena Z. 1995. Role Theory. In Social Roles and Social Institutions, eds.
Judith R. Blau and Norman Goodman. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Martin, Simon. 2008. Wives and Daughters on the Dallas Altar. Mesoweb.
www.mesoweb.com/articles/martin/Wives&Daughters.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2015.
McAnany, Patricia A. 1995. Living with the Ancestors: Kinship and Kingship in
Ancient Maya Society. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.
Merton, Robert K. 1957. The Role-Set: Problems in Sociological Theory. The British
Journal of Sociology 8: 106–20.
Osadolor, Osarhieme Benson. 2001 (July 23). The Military System of the Benin
Kingdom, c.1440 –1897. Doctoral dissertation. University of Hamburg, Germany.
http://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2001/544/pdf/Disse.pdf. Accessed
September 2014.

43"
"
Pennock, Caroline Dodds. 2008. Friends of Blood. New York NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Peregrine, Peter. 2012. Power and Legitimation: Political Strategies, Typology, and
Cultural Evolution. In The Comparative Archaeology of Societies, ed. Michael E.
Smith, pp. 165–91. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, James T. 1985. The Active vs. Passive Convert: Paradigm Conflict in
Conversion/Recruitment Research. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 24: 2:
163–79.
Sailer, Lee Douglas. 1978. Structural Equivalence: Meaning and Definition,
Computation and Application. Social Networks 1: 73–90.
Schele, Linda and David Freidel. 1990. A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the
Ancient Maya. New York NY: William Morrow and Co., Inc.
Smith, Adam Daniel. 2011. The Ernest K. Smith Collection of Shang Divination
Inscriptions at Columbia University, and the Evidence for Scribal Training at Anyang.
In Archaeologies of Text: Archaeology, Technology and Ethics, ed. Matthew T.
Rutz,. Oxford UK: Oxbow Books. http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P: 12146. Accessed
June 17, 2014.
Smith, Adam Daniel. 2010. The Chinese Sexagenary Cycle and the Ritual Origins of
the Calendar. In Calendars and Years II: Astronomy and Time in the Ancient and

44"
"
Medieval World, ed. John M. Steele. Oxford UK: Oxbow Books.
http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P: 9639. Accessed June 17, 2014.
Smith, Adam T. 2003. The Political Landscape: Constellations of Authority in Early
Complex Polities. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
Smith, Michael E., ed. 2012. The Comparative Archaeology of Complex Societies.
Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Michael E. 2008. Aztec City-State Capitals. Gainesville FL: University Press
of Florida.
Smith, Michael E. 2003.The Aztecs. Oxford UK: Blackwell.
Soustelle, Jacques. 1961. Daily Life of the Aztecs. Stanford CA: Stanford University
Press.
Stanish, Charles and Abigail Levine. 2011. War and Early State Formation in the
Northern Titicaca Basin, Peru. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
(PNAS) 108: 34: 13901-06.
Trigger, Bruce. 2003. Understanding Early Civilizations. Cambridge UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Turchin, Peter, Thomas Currie, Edward Turner, and Sergey Gavrilets. 2013. War,
Space, and the Evolution of Old World Complex Societies. PNAS Early Edition.
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1308825110. Accessed March 2015.

45"
"
Uchitel, Alexander. 2005. Land-Tenure in Mycenaean Greece and the Hittite Empire:
Linear B Land-Surveys from Pylos and Middle Hittite Land-Donations. Journal of the
Economic and Social History of the Orient 48(4): 473–86.
Westenholz, Joan Goodnick. 1990. Review: Toward as New Conceptualization of the
Female Role in Mesopotamian Society. Journal of the American Oriental Society 110:
3: 510–21.
Westenholz, Aage. 2002. The Sumerian City State.In A Comparative Study of Six
City-state Cultures: An Investigation, Volume 27, edited by Mogens Herman Hansen:
23: 43. Copenhagen: Reitzel. Google Books.
Whitecotton, Joseph W. 1977. The Zapotecs: Princes, Priests and Peasants. Norman
OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
5-6$/,&72&8/6#'-9#"-*'&*4&(#"#&30&%*:-,"02&
Associated*
territory/dates*
Status*
Expected*roles**
Place*in*
hierarchy**
Reports*to*
Basis*of*
legitimacy**
Comments*
;.#/+0<=#",>&
!?#'6&@?-'#&
7ABB<7BCB&D@.&&*
E-'6&;Wang>&
;F/-66,/&
GBBHIJK>*
L)$+,%&*M,/&#&%"#",&"?#"&
:*M,/%&N*%"&*4&'*/"?O:,'"/#+&
@?-'#&;@#NP3,++&'2(2IH>&
LF/#M,+%&#/*$'(&"?,&",//-"*/0&
;E,-6?"+,0&7KJHICHQ>&
LR,+,6#",%&#$"?*/-"0&"*&
",//-"*/-#+&6*M,/'*/%&;F/-66,/&
GBBHIG7A>&
LS::,P"%&"/-3$",&4/*N&+*/(%&
+-M-'6&*$"%-(,&"?,&:#P-"#+&
;D#/',%&7KKKI7HT>*
F*P&*4&+-M-'6&
3,-'6%U&3$"&
6#-'%&(-M-',&
#':,%"/#+&
%"#"$%&$P*'&
(,#"?*
)*0#+&
#':,%"*/%U&
:?-,4&6*(*
D*/'&-'"*&/$+-'6&
:+#'V&*+(,%"&%*'&
*/&',W"&*+(,%"&
3/*"?,/&*4&X-'6&
;5,'6&GB7HI7BH<
BAV&F/-66,/&
GBBHI7TK<CB>*
E-'6&Y#%&'*"&:*'%-(,/,(&Z"?,&
%*'&*4&?,#M,'Z["?,&
/,P/,%,'"#"-M,&*4&"?,&6*(%&*'&
,#/"?[$'"-+&"?,&\?*$&R0'#%"0&
;S2&R2&!N-"?U&P,/%*'#+&
:*NN$'-:#"-*'&A]HB]GB7T>*
&
&
& &

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
5-6$/,&G2&S++&P*%%-3+,&%"#"$%,%&4*$'(&-'&#/:?#,*+*6-:#+&#'(&?-%"*/-:#+&+-",/#"$/,&*'&,#/+0&%"#",%&#'(&'*'O%"#",%2&^*Y&#&P#/"-:$+#/&%"#"$%&-%&*3"#-',(&-%&/,P/,%,'",(&
30&_S%`&;#%:/-3,(&30&3-/"?&*/&:?#'6,&4/*N&*',&%"#6,&*4&+-4,&&"*&#'*"?,/U&,262U&4/*N&-'4#'"&"*&"*((+,/>U&_S:?`&;#:?-,M,(&"?/*$6?&P,/%*'#+&,44*/">&*/&_a`&;-NP*%,(&30&
#'*"?,/&P,/%*'&*/&(,/-M,(&4/*N&#&P/,:,(-'6&%"#"$%U&4*/&,W#NP+,U&#'&,',N0&%*+(-,/&:#'&3,&N#(,&#&:#P"-M,&#'(&"?,'&#&%+#M,>2&&
&
Status*
How*obtained*
Definition*of*status*
7&
)$+,/&*4&/$+,/%&;P#/#N*$'"&/$+,/>&
S%&#'(]*/&S:?&
)$+,/&*4&*"?,/&/$+,/%&#'(&"?,-/&",//-"*/-,%&#%&Y,++&#%&?-%&*Y'2&S&P#/#N*$'"&/$+,/2&
G&
)$+,/&
S%&#'(]*/&S:?&
)$+,%&#&",//-"*/0&*/&P,*P+,2&
H&
b$,,'&/$+,/&
S%&#'(]*/&S:?&
5,N#+,&/$+,/&Y?*&:*'"/*+%]/$+,%&-'&?,/&*Y'&/-6?"2&
T&
1/-':,&
S%&
!*'&*4&#&/$+,/V&P*%%-3+,&?,-/&"*&?-%&4#"?,/`%&P*%-"-*'2&
C&
)$+,/c%&4,N#+,&X-'&
S%&
R#$6?",/U&%-%",/U&,":2U&Y?*%,&N#//-#6,&N#0&3,&$%,(&4*/&#++-#':,%&Y-"?-'&*/&3,"Y,,'&
P*+-"-,%2&d?-+,&?,/&'#"#+&P*%-"-*'&-%&#%:/-3,(U&?,/&/*0#+&X-'&N#0&-NP*%,&?,/&#($+"&%"#"$%2&
A&
b$,,'&:*'%*/"]N*"?,/&
S:?U&a&
!,'-*/&Y-4,&*4&#&X-'6&*/&P#/#N*$'"&/$+,/2&
Q&
)$+,/`%&*"?,/&Y-4,&
a&
S""#:?,(&"*&"?,&/$+,/&"?/*$6?&N#//-#6,&;*/&%*N,&4#:%-N-+,&*4&N#//-#6,>V&$%,(&4*/&#++-#':,%U&
,":2&
J&
)*0#+"0]'*3-+-"0ON#+,&
S%&
S&/*0#+&-%&#&P,/%*'&Y-"?&(-/,:"&X-'%?-P&"-,%&"*&#&/$+,/2&S&%*:-,"0&(,",/N-',%&?*Y&N#'0&
6,',/#"-*'%&*$"&"*&:*$'"&#%&3,+*'6-'6&"*&"?,&/*0#+2&S&'*3+,&-%&#&P,/%*'&Y?*%,&X-'&3*'(%&"*&
/*0#+&#':,%"*/%&#/,&"**&(-%"#'"&"*&3,&:*$'",(&#%&/*0#+&3$"&-%&%"-++&P#/"&*4&"?,&,+-",2&&
K&
)*0#+"0]'*3-+-"0O4,N#+,&
S%&#'(]*/&a&
)*0#+&*/&'*3+,&Y*N#'U&(,P,'(-'6&*'&?,/&+-',#6,&*/&?,/&N#//-#6,&-'"*&"?,&,+-",&%"/#"#2&&
7B&
1/*M-':-#+&,+-",&
S%&
S&P,/%*'&Y?*&Y#%&P#/"&*4&"?,&/$+-'6&%"/#"$N&*4&#&",//-"*/0&3,4*/,&-"&Y#%&:*'e$,/,(2&&
77&
@*NN*',/&
S%&
S&P,/%*'&'*"&3*/'&-'"*&#&/*0#+&*/&'*3+,&+-',#6,2&^,&N-6?"&3,&%*N,*',&Y?*&-%&'*"&#&%,/4U&*/&
"?,&:#",6*/0&N-6?"&-':+$(,&%,/4%2&a"&M#/-,%&-'&"?,&+-",/#"$/,2&S&4,N#+,&:*NN*',/&-%&3*/'&*/&
N#//-,%&-'"*&#&:*NN*',/&+-',#6,2&!?,&$%$#++0&/#'X%&#&%",P&3,+*Y&?,/&?$%3#'(2&84",'&%?,&
Y,#M,%U&6/*Y%&#&M,6,"#3+,&6#/(,'U&#'(&:#/,%&4*/&:?-+(/,'&#'(&?,/&?$%3#'(`%&4#N-+02&
7G&
@*NN*',/&+,#(,/&
S%&*/&S:?&
d-"?-'&"?,&:*NN*',/&%"/#"$NU&?,&-%&?,#(&*4&#&+-',#6,&#'(&-%&/,%P*'%-3+,&4*/&"?,&3,?#M-*/&
*4&-"%&N,N3,/%2&
7H&
!,/4&
S%&
S&P,/%*'&Y?*&4#/N%U&?,/(%U&*/&(*,%&6,',/#+&Y*/X&4*/&#'&*M,/+*/(2&^,&(*,%&'*"&*Y'&+#'(2&
7T&
!+#M,&
S%&*/&a&
!*N,*',&Y?*&Y*/X%&4*/&#'&*M,/+*/(&*/&%*N,&:*/P*/#",&,'"-"0I&"?,&%"#",U&"?,&/$+,/U&*/&#&
",NP+,]%?/-',2&^,]%?,&-%&"?,&*Y',/c%&P/*P,/"02&S&%+#M,&?#%&'*&4/,,(*N&*4&N*M,N,'"V&
?,]%?,&/,:,-M,%&:*NP,'%#"-*'&;4**(U&:+*"?-'6U&,":2>&/#"?,/&"?#'&#&Y#6,2&
7C&
@#P"-M,&
a&
!*N,*',&4/*N&*$"%-(,&"?,&P*+-"0&Y?*&?#%&3,,'&:#P"$/,(&;$%$#++0>&*'&"?,&3#""+,4-,+(&*/&30&
/#-(-'6&Y-"?-'&"?,&,',N0`%&",//-"*/02&
7A&
^$N#'&%#:/-4-:,&
a&
S&P,/%*'&Y?*&-%&%#:/-4-:,(2&^,]%?,&N#0&3,&#&P/-%*',/&*4&Y#/U&#&%+#M,U&,":2&

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
7Q&
1/-N,&N-'-%",/&
S%&#'(&S:?&
S&P,/%*'&Y?*&#(M-%,%&"?,&/$+,/&*/&N#X,%&P*+-:0&(,:-%-*'%&/,6#/(-'6&P,*P+,&#'(&",//-"*/02&
7J&
@*$':-+&N,N3,/&
S%&#'(&S:?&
S&N,N3,/&*4&#&:*$':-+&"?#"&#(M-%,%&"?,&/$+,/&*/&N#X,%&,W,:$"-M,&(,:-%-*'%&Y-"?-'&#&
:-/:$N%:/-3,(&",//-"*/02&^,]%?,&*P,/#",%&*'&%,M,/#+&+,M,+%&*4&6*M,/'N,'"2&
7K&
1/*M-':-#+&6*M,/'*/&
S%&#'(&S:?&
S&P,/%*'&Y?*&:*'"/*+%&#&:#P"$/,(&",//-"*/0&*/&P,*P+,&-'&"?,&'#N,&*4&"?,&/$+,/2&^,&-%&
$%$#++0&#&N,N3,/&*4&"?,&/*0#+&4#N-+0&*/&"?,&'*3-+-"0U&3$"&%*N,"-N,%&?,&-%&"?,&4*/N,/&/$+,/&
*4&"?,&:#P"$/,(&",//-"*/02&
GB&
F,//-"*/-#+&*44-:-#+&
S%&#'(&S:?&
!*N,*',&Y?*&-%&/,%P*'%-3+,&4*/&#&:+$%",/&*4&%,""+,N,'"%&Y-"?-'&#&/$+,/c%&",//-"*/0&"?#"&-%&
%N#++,/&"?#'&#&P/*M-':,2&&
G7&
!,""+,N,'"]Y#/(&*44-:-#+&
S%&#'(]*/&S:?&
S&P,/%*'&Y?*&6*M,/'%&#&%,""+,N,'"&*/&P#/"&*4&#&%,""+,N,'"I&#&"*Y'U&M-++#6,U&*/&?#N+,"2&a'&
=*Y,/&f,%*P*"#N-#U&?,&-%&:#++,(&"?,&_:-"0&/$+,/2`&
GG&
g*M"2&#(N-'-%"/#"*/&
S%&#'(&S:?&
S'&*44-:-#+&/,%P*'%-3+,&4*/&*M,/%,,-'6&#&P#/"&*4&"?,&3$/,#$:/#:0U&,262U&#6/-:$+"$/,U&"/,#%$/0U&
P$3+-:]/,+-6-*$%&Y*/X%2&^,&N#0&#+%*&3,&#&N-(O+,M,+&#(N-'-%"/#"*/U&Y?*&%$P,/M-%,%&#&%,:"-*'&
Y-"?-'&#&(,P#/"N,'"&%$:?&#%&4*/,-6'&/,+#"-*'%U&#6/-:$+"$/,U&*/&"#W&:*++,:"-*'2&^,&N#0&#+%*&
3,&#&"#W&:*++,:"*/2&
GH&
!:/-3,&
S%&#'(]*/&S:?&
!*N,*',&Y?*&Y/-",%&#::*$'"%2&!$:?&Y/-"-'6%&N#0&3,&(-M-'#"-*'%&*/&*"?,/&/,+-6-*$%&
#::*$'"%U&"#W&/*++%U&,":2&?,&N#0&3,&#&/*0#+U&'*3+,N#'U&*/&:*NN*',/2&
GT&
f-+-"#/0&:*NN#'(,/]Y#//-*/&
S%&#'(&S:?&
S&6,',/#+&*/&Y#/&:?-,4&Y?*&(,:-(,%&N-+-"#/0&%"/#",60&*/&+,#(%&#'&#/N02&^,]%?,&N#0&3,&
#'0*',&4/*N&#&/$+,/&"*&#&N,N3,/&*4&"?,&'*3-+-"02&a'&D,'-'U&?,&N#0&%*N,"-N,%&3,&#&%+#M,2&
GC&
S6,O6/#(,&N,N3,/&
S%&#'(&S:?&
d?,'&#&%*:-,"0&-%&(-M-(,(&-'"*&#6,&6/#(,%U&,#:?&N#+,&#3*M,&P$3,/"0&-%&-'-"-#",(&-'&#'&#6,O
6/#(,&*4&?-%&:*?*/"%2&F*6,"?,/&"?,0&N*M,&"?/*$6?&"?,&6/#(,%&*4&0*$"?U&#($+"U&#'(&,+(,/2&
GA&
5-,4&?*+(,/&
S%&#'(]*/&S:?&
S&/*0#+&*/&'*3+,&Y?*&*Y'%&%Y#"?%&*4&P/*($:"-M,&+#'(&;#6/-:$+"$/#+&*/&P#%"*/#+>V&#&+#'(,(&
#/-%"*:/#"2&
GQ&
),"#-',/&
S:?U&P,/?#P%&S%&
!*N,*',&Y?*&(-/,:"+0&%,/M,%&"?,&/$+,/U&?-%&-NN,(-#",&4#N-+0U&*/&*"?,/&N,N3,/%&*4&"?,&
:*$/"2&h*"&#&%+#M,U&?,]%?,&:*N,%&4/*N&"?,&/*0#+&"*&"?,&:*NN*',/&%"/#"$N2&&
GJ&
!$P,/M-%*/O%X-++,(&Y*/X,/%&
S:?&
!*N,*',&Y?*&*M,/%,,%&"?,&P/*($:"-M-"0&*4&%X-++,(&Y*/X,/%U&,262U&:/#4"%&P,*P+,U&
,'",/"#-'N,'"&6/*$P%U&N#%*'%U&,":2&
GK&
!$P,/M-%*/O$'%X-++,(&Y*/X,/%&
S:?&
!*N,*',&Y?*&*M,/%,,%&"?,&P/*($:"-M-"0&*4&$'%X-++,(&Y*/X,/%U&,262U&(-":?&(-66,/%&*/&4-,+(&
?#'(%2&
HB&
!X-++,(&Y*/X,/&
S%U&S:?U&*/&a&
S'&#/"-%#'U&*/&:/#4"%N#'2&!*N,*',&Y?*&N#X,%&#'(]*/&/,P#-/%&#'0"?-'6&4/*N&:?#/-*"%&"*&
:,/#N-:%2&84",'&"?,/,&-%&#&?-,/#/:?0&Y-"?-'&"?-%&:#",6*/0U&#'(&"?,&N#%",/&:/#4"%N#'&N#0&
/$'&#&Y*/X%?*P&*/&"/#-'&#PP/,'"-:,%2&
H7&
i'%X-++,(&Y*/X,/&&
S%&*/&a&
!*N,*',&Y?*&P,/4*/N%&$'%X-++,(&+#3*/U&,262U&4#/N-'6U&(-":?O(-66-'6U&*/&:#//0-'6&3/-:X%2&

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
HG&
!"#",&Y*/X,/&
S%U&S:?U&*/&a&
!*N,*',&Y?*&Y*/X%&4*/&"?,&/$+,/U&"?,&%"#",U&*/&#&",NP+,2&
HH&
1/-M#",&Y*/X,/&
S%U&S:?U&*/&a&
!*N,*',&Y?*&Y*/X%&4*/&#&P/-M#",&*M,/+*/(2&
HT&
5#/N,/]?,/(,/&
S%&#'(]*/&S:?&
!*N,*',&Y?*&"-++%&"?,&%*-+&#'(]*/&/#-%,%&#'-N#+%&4*/&#&+-M-'6&;#&?,/(,/&*/&%?,P?,/(>2&F?,&
+#'(&N#0&*/&N#0&'*"&3,+*'6&"*&?-N2&84",'&?,]%?,&P,/4*/N%&:*/Mj,&+#3*/&#'(&-%&$%$#++0&#&
:*NN*',/2&
HC&
!*+(-,/U&P*+-:,&
S:?&#'(]*/&a&
!*N,*',&Y?*&%,/M,%&4$++O"-N,&-'&"?,&/$+,/`%&#/N0U&6$#/(U&*/&P*+-:,2&d?-+,&4#/N,/%&*4",'&
%,/M,&#%&4**"O%*+(-,/%&-'&"-N,%&*4&:*'4+-:"U&%*+(-,/%&Y?*&(/-M,&:?#/-*"%U&#/:?,/%U&,":2U&N#0&3,&
4$++O"-N,2&
HA&
1,((+,/]"/#(,/&
S%&#'(]*/&S:?&
!*N,*',&Y?*&,W:?#'6,%&6**(%&#'(&P/*($:,2&F?,&P,((+,/&*/&"/#(,/&N#0&*P,/#",&Y-"?-'&#&
3#/",/&*/&N#/X,"&,:*'*N02&&
HQ&
f,/:?#'"&
S%&#'(]*/&S:?&
!*N,*',&Y?*&,W:?#'6,%&6**(%&*/&P/*($:,&$%$#++0&4*/&+$W$/0&-",N%&*/&/,%*$/:,%&:*N-'6&
4/*N&*$"%-(,&"?,&%"#",&*/&4/*N&+*'6&(-%"#':,%&Y-"?-'&"?,&%"#",2&F?,&N,/:?#'"&N#0&*P,/#",&
Y-"?-'&#&3#/",/&*/&N#/X,"&,:*'*N02&&
HJ&
!,/M#'"&&
S%&#'(]*/&S:?&
!*N,*',&Y?*&Y*/X%&4*/&#'*"?,/&#'(&/,:,-M,%&Y#6,%2&&
HK&
!"#",&P/-,%"&
S%&#'(&S:?&
F?,&?-6?&P/-,%"&4*/&"?,&,'"-/,&%"#",2&^,]%?,&N#0&3,&"?,&/$+,/&*/&%*N,&:+*%,&X-'&*4&"?,&/$+,/2&
TB&
^,#(&P/-,%"&
S%&#'(]*/&S:?&
F?,&?-6?&P/-,%"]P/-,%",%%&4*/&#&%?/-',&*/&",NP+,2&^,]%?,&N#0&3,&%*N,&:+*%,&X-'&*4&"?,&
/$+,/2&
T7&
!,/M#'"&*4&"?,&6*(%&
S%&#'(]*/&S:?&
F?,&P,/%*';%>&/,%P*'%-3+,&4*/&N#X-'6&%$/,&"?,&6*(%&#/,&k4,(l&"?/*$6?&%#:/-4-:,&*/&
*44,/-'6%2&^,]%?,&N#0&3,&"?,&/$+,/2&
TG&
1/-,%"U&P/-,%",%%&
S%&#'(]*/&S:?&
S&P,/%*'&/,%P*'%-3+,&4*/&/,+-6-*$%&#:"-M-"-,%&P,/?#P%&-'&#&",NP+,&*/&%?/-',2&^,]%?,&N#0&
P,/4*/N&%P,:-#+-9,(&/-"$#+%U&,262U&X-++-'6&#'-N#+%&*/&%#:/-4-:-'6&?$N#'%U&P,/4*/N-'6&
:,/,N*'-,%&*M,/&"?,&(,#(&#'(&P/,OY#/&/-"$#+%2&
TH&
F,NP+,&#(N-'-%"/#"*/]%"#44&
S%&#'(&S:?&
F?,&:?-,4&#(N-'-%"/#"*/&(-/,:"%&*"?,/%&-'&N#-'"#-'-'6&%?/-',%U&",NP+,%U&#'(&"?,&/-"$#+&
P#/#P?,/'#+-#&$%,(&-'&/-"$#+%2&&
TT&
),+-6-*$%&%P,:-#+-%"&
S:?&
S&P,/4*/N,/&4*/&/,+-6-*$%&/-",%OON$%-:U&(#':,U&,":2&
TC&
R-M-',/&
S%&#'(]*/&S:?&
!*N,*',&Y?*&P/,(-:"%&"?,&4$"$/,&*/&#%%-%"%&#'*"?,/&-'&:,/,N*'-,%&"*&P/,(-:"&"?,&4$"$/,2&
TA&
!?#N#']N#6-:-#'&
S%&#'(]*/&S:?&
!*N,*',&Y?*&:*'',:"%&-'(-M-($#+%&*/&6/*$P%&"*&"?,&%P-/-"&Y*/+(U&*4",'&4*/&:$/-'6&
P$/P*%,%2&^,]%?,&N#0&*P,/#",&*$"%-(,&"?,&/,+-6-*$%&?-,/#/:?0U&#%&-'&@?-'#2&8',&Y?*&$%,%&
N#6-:&"*&#::*NP+-%?&#&"#%X&%$:?&#%&?,#+-'6U&:$/%-'6U&*/&X-++-'6&#'*"?,/2&
TQ&
@?-,4&6*(&
&
F?,&?-6?&6*(U&$%$#++0&"?,&:/,#"*/&*4&"?,&Y*/+(&*/&"?,&P/*6,'-"*/&*4&*"?,/&(,-"-,%2&
TJ&
=,%%,/&6*(&
&
S'0&(,-"0&/#'X,(&3,+*Y&"?,&:?-,4&6*(2&

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
TK&
h#"$/,&%P-/-"]6*(&
&
S&(,-"0&"?#"&:*'"/*+%&'#"$/,[/#-'U&%$'U&#6/-:$+"$/,2&^,]%?,&N#0&#+%*&3,&#&+,%%,/&6*(2&
CB&
!,""+,N,'"&6*(&
&
F?,&:?-,4&(,-"0&4*/&#&%,""+,N,'"2&
C7&
)$+,/c%&#':,%"*/&%P-/-"&
&
F?,&%P-/-"&*4&#&(,#(&#':,%"*/&Y?*&Y#%&-'&(-/,:"&+-',&"*&"?,&:$//,'"&/$+,/2&
CG&
8"?,/%c&#':,%"*/&%P-/-"&
&
F?,&%P-/-"&*4&#&(,#(&#':,%"*/&*4&*"?,/%[,+-",%&#'(&'*'O,+-",%&#+-X,2&
&

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
5-6$/,&H2&@*/,&%"#"$%,%&*4&,#/+0&%"#",%&30&(*N#-'U&/#'XU&#'(&%*:-,"02&R*N#-'%&#/,I&%*:-*P*+-"-:#+&;!1>U&,:*'*N-:&;.>U&/,+-6-*$%&;)>U&#'(&,W",/'#+&
-'",/#:"-*'&;d>2&!*:-*P*+-"-:#+&/#'X&/#'6,%&4/*N&7&;(,-"-,%>&"*&G&;/$+,/&"*&'*3-+-"0>U&H&;:*NN*',/U&-2,2U&',-"?,/&'*3+,&'*/&%+#M,>U&#'(&T&;%+#M,U&
:#P"-M,>2&F?,&P,/:,'"#6,%&-'&:*+$N'&C&/,P/,%,'"&"?,&P,/:,'"&*4&,#/+0&%"#",%&"?#"&#/,&X'*Y'&"*&?#M,&"?#"&%"#"$%2&F?,&:,++%&N#0&3,&B&4*/&'*"&
P/,%,'"U&7&4*/&P/,%,'"U&#'(&3+#'X&4*/&N-%%-'6&(#"#2&&
&
!"#"$%&
R*N#-'&
)#'X&
.60P"U&=*Y,/&f,%*P*"#N-#U&@?-'#U&f#0#U&
^#Y#--U&S9",:U&\#P*",:U&g/,,:,U&D,'-'&
F,Y#&
^*P-&
7&
)$+,/&;X-'6&*/&e$,,'>&
!1&
G&
7BBm&
B&
B&
G&
1/-':,&
!1&
G&
7BB&
B&
B&
H&
)$+,/c%&4,N#+,&X-'&&
!1&
G&
7BB&
B&
B&
T&
b$,,'&:*'%*/"]N*"?,/&&
!1&
G&
7BB&
B&
B&
C&
)*0#+"0]'*3-+-"0&;N#'>&
!1&
G&
7BB&
B&
B&
A&
)*0#+"0]'*3-+-"0&;Y*N#'>&
!1&
G&
7BB&
B&
B&
Q&
1/*M-':-#+&,+-",&
!1&
G&
JK&
B&
B&
J&
F,//-"*/-#+&*44-:-#+&
!1&
G&
JK&
B&
B&
K&
),"#-',/&&
!1&
GU&H&
7BB&
B&
B&
7B&
)$+,/`%&*"?,/&Y-4,&
!1&
GU&H&
7BB&
B&
B&
77&
!,""+,N,'"]Y#/(&*44-:-#+&
!1&
GU&H&
7BB&
7&
7&

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
7G&
g*M,/'N,'"&#(N-'-%"/#"*/&&
!1&
GU&H&
7BB&
B&
B&
7H&
@*NN*',/&&
!1&
H&
7BB&
7&
7&
7T&
!+#M,&&
!1&
T&
7BB&
B&
B&
7C&
@#P"-M,&&
!1&
T&
7BB&
B&
B&
7A&
5-,4&?*+(,/&&
.&
G&
JK&
B&
B&
7Q&
!$P,/M-%*/&*4&%X-++,(&Y*/X,/%&
.&
GU&H&
JK&
&
&
7J&
1,((+,/]"/#(,/&
.&
H&
QJ&
&
&
7K&
5#/N,/]?,/(,/&
.&
H&
7BB&
7&
7&
GB&
!,/4&&
.&
H&
7BB&
B&
B&
G7&
!X-++,(&Y*/X,/&&
.&
GU&HU&T&
7BB&
7&
7&
GG&
!$P,/M-%*/&*4&$'%X-++,(&
Y*/X,/%&&
.&
HU&T&
7BB&
7&
7&
GH&
i'%X-++,(&Y*/X,/&&
.&
HU&T&
7BB&
7&
7&
GT&
!"#",&Y*/X,/&&
.&
HU&T&
7BB&
B&
B&
GC&
1/-M#",&Y*/X,/&&
.&
HU&T&
7BB&
7&
7&

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
GA&
!,/M#'"&
.&
HU&T&
QJ&
B&
B&
GQ&
f-+-"#/0&:*NN#'(,/]Y#//-*/&&
d&
G&
7BB&
7&
7&
GJ&
!*+(-,/U&P*+-:,&&
d&
H&
7BB&
&
&
GK&
!,/M#'"&*4&"?,&6*(%&&
)&
G&
7BB&
B&
B&
HB&
1/-,%"]P/-,%",%%&
)&
GU&H&
JK&
B&
B&
H7&
@?-,4&6*(&
)&
7&
7BB&
B&
7&
HG&
=,%%,/&6*(&
)&
7&
JK&
&
&
HH&
h#"$/,&%P-/-"]6*(&
)&
7&
JK&
7&
7&
&
& &

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
F#3+,&7nnn2&!*:-,"-,%`&.$:+-(,#'&(-%"#':,&4/*N&#&P/*"*"0P,&*4&#'&,#/+0&%"#",&;/#'X,(&4/*N&%N#++,%"&"*&+#/6,%"&(-%"#':,>2&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
Based*on*domains*only*
*
Based*on*ranks*only*
*
Based*on*domains*and*ranks*
@?-'#&
B2BB7&
&&
f#0#&
B2BBJ&
&&
=2&f,%*P*"#N-#&
B2B7C&
S9",:&
B2BB7&
&&
^#Y#--&
B2BBK&
&&
f#0#&
B2B7J&
=2&f,%*P*"#N-#&
B2BBG&
&&
D,'-'&
B2BBK&
&&
D,'-'&
B2BHB&
f#0#&
B2B7B&
&&
=2&f,%*P*"#N-#&
B2B7G&
&&
g/,,:,&
B2BHT&
g/,,:,&
B2BGB&
&&
g/,,:,&
B2B7C&
&&
^#Y#--&
B2BHQ&
D,'-'&
B2BG7&
&&
\#P*",:&
B2BCA&
&&
@?-'#&
B2BAA&
^#Y#--&
B2BGJ&
&&
@?-'#&
B2BAC&
&&
S9",:&
B2BQA&
.60P"&
B2BCG&
&&
S9",:&
B2BQC&
&&
\#P*",:&
B27GB&
\#P*",:&
B2BAT&
&&
.60P"&
B2BQA&
&&
.60P"&
B27GJ&
^*P-&
B2AAC&
&&
^*P-&
B2A7T&
&&
^*P-&
72GQK&
F,Y#&
72BGG&
&&
F,Y#&
72BHJ&
&&
F,Y#&
G2BAB&
&

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
5-6$/,&T2&!-N-+#/-"-,%&3,"Y,,'&%*:-,"-,%&#%&(,",/N-',(&4/*N&N#":?,%&#'(&N-%N#":?,%&*'&CG&%"#"$%,%2&5*/&,#:?&P#-/&*4&%*:-,"-,%U&"?,&%*+-(&6/,0&
P#/"&*4&#&3#/&/,P/,%,'"%&"?,&P,/:,'"&*4&"?,&%"#"$%,%&"?#"&#/,&X'*Y'&"*&N#":?U&,262U&3*"?&%*:-,"-,%&%?#/,&"?,&%#N,&'$N3,/&*4&%"#"$%,%2&F?,&Y?-",&
P#/"&*4&#&3#/&/,P/,%,'"%&"?,&P,/:,'"&*4&X'*Y'&N-%N#":?,%U&%$:?&#%&Y?,'&*',&%*:-,"0&?#%&#&(-M-',/&3$"&"?,&*"?,/&(*,%&'*"2&f-%%-'6&(#"#&?#M,&
3,,'&,+-N-'#",(2&
&

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
5-6$/,&C2&)*+,%U&(*N#-'%U&#'(&#6,':0&*4&#&%"#",&/$+,/2&S++&P*%%-3+,&/*+,%U&%"#/"-'6&Y-"?&"?,&:*/,&/*+,%U&-2,2U&"?*%,&"?#"&*::$/&-'&#"&+,#%"&,-6?"&*4&"?,&
'-',&%"#",%2&R*N#-'%&-':+$(,&!1&;%*:-*P*+-"-:#+>U&.&;,:*'*N-:>U&)&;/,+-6-*$%>U&#'(&d&;,W",/'#+>2&
&
h#N,&*4&/*+,&&
R,4-'-"-*'&
R*N#-'&
S:"-M,]1#%%-M,&
&
@*/,&/*+,%&&
7&
)$+,%&
)$+,%&;N#X,%&P*+-:0&(,:-%-*'%&4*/>&#&",//-"*/0&;4/*N&#&X-'6(*N&*/&,NP-/,&"*&#&
P/*M-':,&*/&M-++#6,V&N#X,%&/$+,%]P*+-:0>&*/&3$/,#$:/#"-:&$'-"&;,262U&6*M,/'N,'"&
(,P#/"N,'"&%$:?&#%&"/,#%$/0>&
!1&
S&
G&
S(N-'-%",/%&
@#//-,%&*$"&P*+-:0&(,:-%-*'%&30&#(N-'-%",/-'6&#&6*M,/'N,'"&(,P#/"N,'"U&P$3+-:&
Y*/X%U&,":2&
!1&
S&
H&
o$(6,%&
o$(6,%&Y/*'6(*-'6%U&%,""+,%&(-%P$",%U&,":2&
!1&
S&
T&
S$"?*/-9,%&
S$"?*/-9,%&%*N,&3,?#M-*/U&;,262U&"?,&3$-+(-'6]N#-'",'#':,&*4&",NP+,%U&%?/-',%U&
#'(&*"?,/&P$3+-:&Y*/X%V&%$::,%%-*'&#'(&:/*Y'-'6&*4&"?,&X-'6>&
!1&
S&
C&
R,+,6#",%&
R,+,6#",%&#$"?*/-"0]6*M,/'#':,&
!1&
S&
A&
@*'"/*+%&3,?#M-*/&
@*'"/*+%&"?,&3,?#M-*/&*4&*"?,/%U&,262U&:*'"/*+%&"?,&3,?#M-*/&*4&/*0#+%U&,":2&
!1&
S&
Q&
@*,/:,%&
@*'"/*+%&:*,/:-M,&P*Y,/&;P*+-:,U&#/N0U&,":2>&
!1&
S&
J&
1/*",:"%&
1/*",:"%&P,*P+,&#'(&P*+-"0U&"/#(,&/*$",%V&#':,%"*/%&N#0&P/*",:"&(,%:,'(#'"%&
!1&
S&
K&
a%&/,%P*'%-3+,&4*/&
a%&/,%P*'%-3+,&4*/&%*N,"?-'6&;,262U&-%&/,%P*'%-3+,&4*/&N#-'"#-'-'6&*/(,/&*4&"?,&
:*%N*%U&P,*P+,`%&4**(&%$PP+0>&
!1&
S&
7B&
1#"/*'-9,%&
S:"%&#%&#&P#"/*'&30&6-M-'6&6-4"%U&4#M*/%U&&"-"+,%U&,":2&&
!1&
S&
77&
1/#:"-:,%&P*+06#N0&
f#//-,%&N*/,&"?#'&*',&Y-4,&
!1&
S&
7G&
D,6,"%&
D,6,"%&/*0#+&:?-+(/,'&;P*%%-3+,&?,-/%>&
!1&
S&
7H&
a'?,/-"%&
a'?,/-"%&"-"+,U&P/*P,/"0U&+,#(,/%?-P&/*+,U&,":2&
!1&
S]1&
7T&
a%&a'",/P/,",(&
a%&-'",/P/,",(&30&#'*"?,/V&(*,%&'*"&k%P,#Xl&4*/&*',%,+4&
!1&
S]1&
7C&
),:,-M,%&"/-3$",&
.W#:"%]/,:,-M,%&"/-3$",&
!1U&.&
S&
7A&
.W#:"%&"#W&
.W#:"%]/,:,-M,%&"#W,%&
!12&.&
S&
7Q&
S++-,%&Y-"?&
5*/N%&#++-#':,%&Y-"?&P,*P+,&Y-"?-']*$"%-(,&",//-"*/0V&M-#&N#//-#6,U&4,#%"%U&
?$'"%U&,":2&;'*"&6-4"%>&
!1U.&
S&
7J&
@*'"/*+%&#::,%%&
@*'"/*+%&#::,%%&"*&:/-"-:#+&/,%*$/:,%U&,262U&Y#",/U&4#/N+#'(U&*/&P/*P,/"0&
;,%P,:-#++0&+$W$/0&6**(%>&
!1U&.&
S&
7K&
h,6*"-#",%&
h,6*"-#",%&;,262U&"/,#"-,%&#'(&"/#(,&#6/,,N,'"%>&
!1U&.&
S&
GB&
D$-+(%]N#-'"#-'%&
D$-+(%&*/&N#-'"#-'%&3$-+(-'6%U&-'4/#%"/$:"$/,&-':+$(-'6&#'&#/N0U&",NP+,%U&
%?/-',%&
!1U&)&
S&

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
G7&
8Y'%&+#'(]P/*P,/"0&
8Y'%&P/*($:"-M,&+#'(U&P/*P,/"0I&%+#M,%U&P#+#:,U&3$%-',%%&
.&
S&
GG&
g#-'%&Y,#+"?&
S:e$-/,%&Y,#+"?&"?/*$6?&X-'6c%&4#M*/U&%P*-+%&*4&Y#/U&P/*($:"-*'U&,":2&
.&
S&
GH&
f#-'"#-'%],WP#'(%&
3*$'(#/-,%&
@*'e$,/%&',Y&",//-"*/0V&N#-'"#-'%](,4,'(%&3*$'(#/-,%&
d&
S&
GT&
=,#(%&
=,#(%&P,*P+,&-'&%*N,&,'(,#M*/&;,262U&N-+-"#/0&:#NP#-6'[#'0&+,M,+&*4&
+,#(,/%?-P>&
d&
S&
GC&
5-6?"%&
5-6?"%&-'&3#""+,%U&,":2&
d&
S&
GA&
@#P"$/,%]-%&:#P"$/,(&
@#P"$/,%&",//-"*/0U&P/-%*',/%&*4&Y#/U&,":2&&
d&
S]1&
GQ&
f*'*P*+-9,%]-'",/P/,"%&
f*'*P*+-9,%&#::,%%&"*&#':,%"*/%&#'(&6*(%V&-'",/P/,"%&"?,-/&Y-++&&
)&
S&
GJ&
1#/"-:-P#",%&-'&/-"$#+&
1,/4*/N%U&#%%-%"%U&*3%,/M,%&/-"$#+&*/&*"?,/&,M,'"%&
)&
S&
GK&
!,/M,%&"?,&6*(%&
_5,,(%`&"?,&6*(%&"?/*$6?&*44,/-'6%&*4&P+#'"%U&#'-N#+%U&?$N#'%&
)&
S&
HB&
!,/M,%&
!,/M,%U&:#//-,%&*$"&;,'4*/:,%>&%$P,/-*/`%&Y-%?,%V&#&/$+,/&N#0&%,/M,&"?,&6*(%&*/&
#':,%"*/%2&
)&
1&
&
&
8"?,/&P*%%-3+,&/*+,%&
&
&
H7&
1/,(-:"%&
R-M-',%&"?,&4$"$/,&;-':+$(-'6&*$":*N,&*4&Y#/>&M-#&"?,&Y-++&*4&"?,&6*(%&
;-NN,(-#",&*/&+*'6O",/N>&
!1U&.U&d&
S]1&
HG&
!$P,/M-%,%&
f#'#6,%&#&%,:"-*'&*/&6*M,/'N,'"&(,P#/"N,'"V&%$P,/M-%,%&Y*/X,/%&
!1&
S&
HH&
f#//-,%&X-'&
f#//-,%&%-%",/]?#+4O%-%",/&"*&%?*Y]-'",'%-40&?-%&(-M-',&%"#"$%&
!1&
S&
& &

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
5-6$/,&A2&.#/+0&%"#",%&Y?*%,&/$+,/%&%?#/,&/*+,%2&@*'%"/$:",(&4/*N&&#&o*?'%*'`%&?-,/#/:?-:#+&:+$%",/-'6&#'#+0%-%&-'&i@ah,"&;D*/6#""-U&.M,/,""U&#'(&
5/,,N#'&GBBG>2&
& &

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
5-6$/,&QI&)*+,%&*4&4#/N,/%]?,/(,/%&:*NP#/,(&Y-"?&%,/4%&-'&,#/+0&%"#",%U&$%-'6&"?,&N,"/-:&N$+"-(-N,'%-*'#+&%:#+-'6&;fR!>&-'&h,"R/#Y2&F?,&/*+,%&
4*/N&"?,&'*(,%U&#'(&"?,&,(6,%&+-'X&'*(,%&"?#"&:*O*::$/&-'&#&P#/"-:$+#/&%*:-,"02&F?,&"?-:X,/&"?,&,(6,&#'(&"?,&:+*%,/&"?,&'*(,%U&"?,&N*/,&%"#",%&
-':+$(,&"?,&:*O*::$//-'6&'*(,&P#-/%&-'&"?,&(#"#3#%,2&S:"-M,&'*(,%&#/,&/,P/,%,'",(&30&"/-#'6+,%V&#:"-M,&/*+,%&Y-"?&#&P#%%-M,&:*NP*','"&#/,&:-/:+,%V&
#'(&P#%%-M,&'*(,%&#/,&%e$#/,%2&a'&3*"?&6/#P?%U&"?,&:,'"/#+&P,'"#6*'&/*+,%&*/-6-'#++0&#PP,#/,(&#%&%"#:X,(&*',&*'&"*P&*4&"?,&*"?,/2&
#2&5#/N,/%]?,/(,/%2&F?,&:,'"/#+&P,'"#6*'&/*+,%&*/-6-'#++0&#PP,#/,(&#%&%"#:X,(&*',&*'&"*P&*4&"?,&*"?,/2&
&&&
& & &
& &

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
32&!,/4%&
&&& &

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
5-6$/,&J2&5#/N,/&#'(&%,/4&/*+,%&30&%*:-,"0U&6,',/#",(&-'&h,"R/#Y&$%-'6&"?,&N,"/-:&N$+"-(-N,'%-*'#+&%:#+-'6&;fR!>&P/*6/#N2&^,/,&"?,&'*(,%&#/,&
"?,&%"#",%&#'(&'*'O%"#",%V&"?,&"?-:X',%%&*4&"?,&,(6,%&#'(&/,+#"-M,&(-%"#':,&4/*N&,#:?&*"?,/&/,P/,%,'"&"?,&4/,e$,':0&*4&:*O*::$//,':,&*4&/*+,%&
3,"Y,,'&"?,&'*(,%2&a'&C3U&"?,&'*(,%&:*'',:",(&30&,(6,%&Y,/,&P/#:"-:#++0&*'&"*P&*4&*',&#'*"?,/V&"?,0&#/,&%P/,#(&*$"&4*/&,#%-,/&/,#(-'62&
#2 5#/N,/%&#'(&?,/(,/%
&

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
&&&&&&&&
32 !,/4%&

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
5-6$/,&K2&@*O*::$//-'6&/*+,%&*4&%+#M,%&#'(&-'(,'"$/,(&%+#M,%&%?*Y-'6&:*/,&#'(&P,/-P?,/#+&/*+,%U&6,',/#",(&-'&h,"R/#Y&$%-'6&fR!2&F/-#'6+,%&#/,&
#:"-M,&/*+,%V&:-/:+,%&#/,&#:"-M,]P#%%-M,&/*+,%V&#'(&%e$#/,%&#/,&P#%%-M,&/*+,%2&F?,&/*+,&_-%&:#P"$/,(U`&_-%&:*'"/*++,(U`&_-%&:*(,/:,(U`&#'(&_%,/M,%`&
*/-6-'#++0&*M,/+#PP,(V&"?,0&#/,&%,P#/#",(&4*/&,#%-,/&M-,Y-'62&&

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
&& &

!"#"$%&#'(&)*+,&-'&.#/+0&!"#",%&12&!#3+*44& &
5-6$/,&7B2&!+#M,&#'(&-'(,'"$/,(&%+#M,&/*+,%&30&%*:-,"0U&6,',/#",(&-'&h,"R/#Y&$%-'6&fR!2&&