20 I think I should add here that I do think the sanctuaries held their own land, but not the land recorcled by the palace scribes. 9 This view is seen, for example, in Hiller's seminal article on the Linear B evidence for Mycenaean sanctuaries. 21 His focus was not the economic aspect of the sanctuaries, but he was trying to answer some of the same questions that I address. For instance he asks, "What role did [the shrines] play in the political system? What was, in detail, their relation to the palace?" 22 Thus he discusses the issue of the religious sector's involvement in economic activities as it comes up in the tablets. When looking at the Theban Of series, in which deities and other personages associated with the religious sphere receive allocations of wool, he accepts the idea (first proposed by Chadwick 23 ) that deities presided over oikoi, which he defines as industrial complexes that also had a sacred character. 24 Hiller also uses this concept to explain the economic activities of *ma-ri-ne-u and me-za-na whom he accepts as deities, and many other instances where economic resources are associated with religious references (such as the flocks of sheep and pigs found on PY Cc 665 that are associated with Potnia, the Potnian bronzesmiths of PY Jn 310.14 and Jn 431.16, the references to Potnia on PY An 1281 where she is allocated workers, and the flocks that are held by Potnia and Hermes in the Knossos D and D 1 series). 25 The institution of the oikos, he says, "in a way seems to be a Mycenaean parallel to the oriental institution of the so-called 'temple economy.' 26 But he hastens to say that the oikos system makes up only a part of the

No abstract

No abstract

The Linear B offering tablets at first seem to indicate that Mycenaean palaces engaged in a form of redistribution with respect to the religious sphere. That the palace sent offerings caused many scholars to assume the religious sector was dependent on the palaces for its daily maintenance. The sanctuaries were therefore also thought to have been subject to palatial authority. However, more detailed analysis shows that the offerings could not have fully supported the sanctuaries, which eliminates the main argument used to support the idea that the sanctuaries were subject to palatial authority. This also indicates that the offerings cannot be interpreted as part of a real system of redistribution. Like the religious sphere, the individual communities found within palatial territory, referred to as da-mo, or damos, have been seen as subject to the political and economic control of the palace. However, a closer look at the textual evidence shows that each damos maintained a significant degree of independence from the palace. We may therefore posit (at least) three spheres of economic influence in Mycenaean states: the palace, the sanctuaries, and the damos.

No abstract