I like it!

The most obvious external factor that could have stirred things up in this period, to my imagination, is trade: I mean palace economies and in general command economies work pretty well in times where trade is not plentiful or safe: just look at, say, the early soviets: international trade was limited and, in that context, they did incredibly well! but when nasty traders start disrupting the nice balance your bureaucrats have figured it all goes to hell. I think that may have been a factor in the success of ancient Egypt's command economy: it's really hard to smuggle stuff in and out of egypt cause you have to go through either the river, which is patrolled, or the desert, which is a horrible place to smuggle through. Or you'd have to go south into like Nubia and up again, in which case Malaria. Similarly, the Tawantinsuyu, which apparently was kind of command economy-ish as well, is located in a mountain range, so you can just have key outposts and control movement of goods. Umam, however, is not such a place: it has lots of coast and a couple navigable rivers, so maybe when other cities developped decent sails and started figuring out that, say, tin was really cheap in Umam, trade started flowing and disrupting the nice palace economy, which refused to acknowledge this because, I don't know, it would have been shameful to acknowledge that the King in his Majesty could be fooled by mere smugglers.

Then again, the smuggling might have been an offensive move by a witty king from elsewhere...


I love the revolution of the potters. maybe pots took on a relevant cultural significance? like, pots are not a symbol of the sleeping power of the silent masses, and revolutionaries break pots the way earth revolutionaries wear phyrgian caps ? pots mean freedom for the people and sedition for the rulers, so rulers only eat in metal plates and amphorae and so on ?