Redistribution in Aegean Palatial Societies A View from Outside the Palace: The Sanctuary and theDamosin Mycenaean Economy and Society

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.

HOW ELITIST WERE TYPICAL MYCENAEAN COMMUNITIES? INVESTIGATING RELATIVE STATUS IN MYCENAEAN DAMOI THROUGH THE LANDHOLDERS OF THE PYLOS EP AND EA SERIES

“…The tablets record what was of interest to the palatial administration, and because they were written from this point of view, initially it was thought that the palace exerted control over all the individuals and groups recorded on them. Over time, though, it was recognized that there are elements of the Mycenaean economy that are not recorded on the tablets and that other players within Mycenaean society likely managed their own resources and participated in marketplaces (Halstead 1992; Lupack 2006; 2008, 2011; Nakassis, Parkinson and Galaty 2011; Parkinson, Nakassis and Galaty 2013). The two major non‐palatial spheres of power within Mycenaean society are the sanctuaries with their associated religious personnel (Lupack 2008; 2011), and those who governed the sixteen (or seventeen) separate districts of the region, recorded in the tablets as da‐mo , or damoi .…”

“…Over time, though, it was recognized that there are elements of the Mycenaean economy that are not recorded on the tablets and that other players within Mycenaean society likely managed their own resources and participated in marketplaces (Halstead 1992; Lupack 2006; 2008, 2011; Nakassis, Parkinson and Galaty 2011; Parkinson, Nakassis and Galaty 2013). The two major non‐palatial spheres of power within Mycenaean society are the sanctuaries with their associated religious personnel (Lupack 2008; 2011), and those who governed the sixteen (or seventeen) separate districts of the region, recorded in the tablets as da‐mo , or damoi . Both the land and the religious observations of these damoi , as mentioned above, seem to have been managed by a collective group called the ko‐to‐no‐o‐ko , or the ko‐to‐na holders of land within the damos (Lupack 2011; Palaima 2015, 623, n. 13).…”

“…The two major non‐palatial spheres of power within Mycenaean society are the sanctuaries with their associated religious personnel (Lupack 2008; 2011), and those who governed the sixteen (or seventeen) separate districts of the region, recorded in the tablets as da‐mo , or damoi . Both the land and the religious observations of these damoi , as mentioned above, seem to have been managed by a collective group called the ko‐to‐no‐o‐ko , or the ko‐to‐na holders of land within the damos (Lupack 2011; Palaima 2015, 623, n. 13). Taxation documents, which would include the land tenure tablets, may have been drawn up by palatially appointed agents, possibly the da‐mo ‐ ko‐ro who were appointed by the wanax or the ko‐re‐te associated with each district (Palaima 2015, 623, ns.…”

“…In all, 46 te‐o‐jo do‐e‐ro‐a appear in the Ep tablets holding at least 58 plots of land, demonstrating that even the lower‐status individuals could have held multiple landholdings. The higher status officials were recorded at the end of the series (Lupack 2017a). For example, the landholdings of two of the highest religious officials are recorded on Ep 704, the last tablet of the series: a woman named e‐ri‐ta who is recorded as the priestess of pa‐ki‐ja‐ne appears on lines 3 and 5, while another named ka‐pa‐ti‐ja, the Keybearer of the sanctuary (the keeper of the sanctuary’s wealth, as in historical times) appears on line 7.…”

Aegean Bronze Age Seal Stones and Finger Rings: Chronology and Functions

“…Or, in more detail (Halstead 2011;Lupack 2011;Nakassis, Parkinson, and Galaty 2011): palatial authorities assessed commodities to be produced by outlying villages and people and conveyed to the palace; raw materials could be distributed to those who prepared and finished these commodities, which could be redistributed back to those outlying villages and people where needed or where they could bestow palatial privilege. For example, palatial shepherds shipped wool to the administration for redistribution to individual women weavers to make into everyday clothing and to groups of specialized women and men to make bulk cloth that could be exported and traded, say, for bronze (like the recipe of 10 tons of copper and one ton of tin on the Uluburun wreck : Muhly 2009: 26).…”