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