Based on sources A (a fresco from Pylos depicting feasting), B (a Mycenaean stirrup jar), C (the

archives from Pylos), and your own knowledge of other sources, identify and investigate key
features of Mycenaean palace economy and its roles in society.

The palace economy of Mycenaean Greece was a sophisticated and methodical system that
was based on the control of land and resources by the palaces at various sites such as
Mycenae, Pylos and Knossos; which this essay will draw evidence from. The industrial
production and trade that occurred from the palaces, the documentation about these
processes and the actual palace buildings themselves are sources of evidence from which key
features of the Mycenaean palace economy such as centralisation, specialisation and
redistribution can be identified; along with the social, cultural and political roles that these
features had.

Centralisation of industrial production and distribution was a fundamental feature of

Mycenaean palace economy and society because the palaces were where the economy
operated from and hence, where society was established. Palaces were ruled by a king with
“combined sacred and profane capacities” that bore the title wanax. The wanax led and
worked alongside other figures - political, religious, administrative and military dignitaries who
resided in palatial and administrative centres (Maran and Wright 2019, 113-114); together
forming polities. Earlier archaeological interpretations had emphasised a more authoritative
“top-down model of palatial organisation” (Parkinson, Nakassis and Galaty 2013, 415) but
more recent scholarship has nuanced these views; suggesting that the control exerted by the
palaces “…seems to have varied depending on the type of activity” (Shelmerdine and Bennet
2008, 291) and may have focused on certain resources, processes and people (Shelmerdine
2006, 74) (Killen 2006, 87). This varied but specific control nonetheless was facilitated through
the adoption of bureaucratic management strategies (such as the ta-ra-si-ja system) and the
utilization of Linear B script for record-keeping and communication. The discovery and analysis
of some these records, particularly those found at Pylos and Knossos in higher volumes have
been significant in revealing the specific resources, processes and people that the wanax held
interest in mobilising in order to “fulfill the needs of [the state’s] political economy”
(Shelmerdine and Bennett 2008, 290).
The administrative authority over land, for example, was of significant importance to the
palace centre because of the power and control it enabled the palace to have over resources
which in turn, allowed for efficient control over production and resource allocation.
Substantial records of land grants have been found at Pylos, such as the Ea series which
document “ke-ke-me-no (perhaps ‘communal’)” land grants given to “…shepherds, tailors and
others from the damos” or district community (Shelmerdine 2006, 74). Shelmerdine (2006,
75) also contends that palatial authorities seem to have been able influence or even direct
how the damos allocated land; suggesting that “the presence of elite craftsmen among grant
holders” such as “a royal armourer on Eo 211/En 609.5 and a royal potter on Eo 371/En 457.5”
infer that some of these land grants may have been a form of payment for services to the
centre at an elite level. The reality presented from this is that the provision of land grants to
these individuals coincided with an obligation to work. The land in question even allowed the
means to provide the contributions to palace centres in the case of agricultural goods such as
wheat, oil and spices; indicated, for example, by Un series tablets (from Pylos) as well as
tablets from the Fh series at Knossos and (Shelmerdine 2006, 76) (Nakassis 2019, 146). Here, a
co-dependent relationship between land grantees reliant on their labour for land and the
palatial control over the goods provided is underscored - Shelmerdine (2006, 76) observing
that, even non-elite staples like agricultural produce from damos estates could fall under
palatial control; the central authority commanded resources and controlled people, while
having minimal involvement in the production processes. This relationship between central
control and local autonomy will be revisited and explored further in later discussion about
redistribution as a feature of the palace economy.

Centralisation of power within Mycenaean palace centres was not only conducive to
administrative control but also paved the way for economic specialisation, allowing for the
efficient allocation of resources and the emergence of specialised craftsmen, traders, and
industries. Some crafts and industries of significance were those involving textile and ceramic
production; with the latter especially being an important form of evidence for foreign
exchange that took place between with other Mediterranean regions such as Italy, Cyprus and
the Levant. Ceramic and textile production are also significant for the reason that, the
majority of, if not all of the processes involved in the respective productions took place within
the palace and were thoroughly recorded by palace scribes (in contrast to some of agricultural
production previously discussed). Evidence for this in the case for textile production is present
in the Lc(1) series tablets from Knossos, for example, which records the textile production
targets for te-pa, pa-we-a and tu-na-no textile variants for central and western Crete. Marie-
Louise Nosch (2011, 495) suggests, from her analysis of these tablets, that the “the production
targets for wool textiles differed according to the groups assigned to fulfill the targets” and
that “these groups were designated according to ethnicity and occupation.” From the tablet
KN Le 641 for example, she (2011, 497) suggests that Te-pa/TELA+TE were “produced
primarily by the occupational group te-pe-ja and also by groups of women with an ethnic
designation.” Additionally, she (2011, 498-499) suggests that “ja on KN Lc(1) 7376 can…
plausibly be interpreted as the last syllable of an occupational designation because the target
is set for producing pa-we-a *161.”
Julie Hruby (2013, 424) also explores Linear B tablet evidence for potters, suggesting “the
palace hired one potter directly and may have obtained products from others on an ad hoc
basis, perhaps bartering, perhaps offering privileges or receiving “gifts”(however voluntary).”
Some of these potters recorded have been named; two examples being “pi-ri-ta-wo” who is
categorised as being of royal (“wa-na-la-te-ro”) and landowning (“ko-to-na-ki-ti-me-na”)
status and “qe-ta-ko” who was involved in other “activities beyond ceramics including
smithing and holding land, sheep and pigs…” Additionally, Palaima (1997, 412) contends,
echoing Hruby's observations (2013, 424), that craftsmen were meticulously documented in
the Linear B archives because they not only crafted goods for the king but also played a role in
delineating the king's rank and status within society. This was achieved through various
functions, such as organizing and contributing to feasts. The designation "wa-na-ka-te-ro" for
a potter in palace records, for example, likely signified their responsibility for creating pottery
specifically for royal feasts, with these vessels symbolizing the grandeur of the palace's
banquet gatherings (Hruby 2013, 424). These palatial vessels along with other plain ware such
as stirrup jars have been found in vast quantities in other Mediterranean regions such as
Anatolia, Cyprus and the Levant. From this, it can be inferred that the participation of these
other regions in trading networks that to acquire these craft goods enabled Mycenaean
cultural practices associated with these goods, such as drink and feasting, to be shared. Gert
Jan van Wijngaarden (2002, 276) suggests that Mycenaean pottery in Cyprus, for example,
enabled an elite lifestyle relating to “specific cultural practices, such as ceremonial dining and
activities to do with unguents and oils.” The fact that “…a fair proportion of Mycenaean
ceramic vessels in all areas [of the central Mediterranean] are dinner vessels” and that
“storage vessels are…as numerous” and significant in “exchange processes…related to wine,
oils and unguents” also seems to supports this (Van Wijngaarden 2002, 278). The extensive
ceramic goods that have also been found at the Mycenaean palaces also important in
suggesting that they used craft goods that were traded to them as well as goods produced
from their workshops. Deanna Wesolowski (2006, 118) notes that “up to 6,000 pieces of
pottery, ranging from stemmed kylikes, bowls, and large pots to small diminutive votive
vessels” were found in Rooms 17-22 of the main building at Pylos, which were “storage
pantries for the pottery of the palace.” Pithoi of varying sizes, a stirrup jar, storage jars, an
amphora, dippers, and other pottery are also found across Rooms 1 and 4 at the House of the
Oil Merchant at Mycenae (Haskell 1981, 230). Hence, the centralisation of economic activities
within Mycenaean palace complexes not only facilitated specialised production of goods such
as textiles and ceramics but also necessitated systems of redistribution to manage and
allocate these products within the palace economy.

The progression of economic specialisation within Mycenaean palace centres contributed to

the necessity of organised systems of redistribution, ensuring the efficient management of
valuable resources (such as raw materials) and optimal utilisation of specialised goods and
labour forces produced within the palace economy. While early interpretations of Linear B
offering tablets suggested a form of redistribution centred around religious activities, Susan
Lupack's analysis (2011, 207) contends the high unlikeliness for the sanctuaries to be fully
dependent on palatial support. Careful consideration of “…the goods recorded on the tablets
and the uses for which they were allocated” instead reveal the higher probability of these
goods being used for communal activities within Mycenaean palatial societies such as the
communal gatherings, religious ceremonies, and elite displays that took place at the palaces
(Lupack 2011, 210). For example, she (2011, 210) suggests that the livestock, wine, and cheese
recorded in the PY Un tablets were likely gathered specifically for particular festivals,
indicating they were likely consumed by the entire community involved in those festivities.
From this, it can be inferred that palatial elite held stronger interest in and concern for “…
fulfilling their ritual obligations and underwriting high-profile festivals (which probably served
to enhance their own reputations)…” (Lupack 2011, 211). Frescoes from the walls of the
different palaces are also a crucial source of evidence for revealing these palatial interests
including feasting and the hosting of banquets – seen for example in the Megaron Complex at
Pylos in Rooms 5 and 6 (Wesolowski 2006, 122-25)

Figure 1. “Reconstruction of the Processional Fresco from the Western Wall of Room 5 (based on Lang 1969”
(Wesolowski 2006,

Figure 2. “Reconstruction of the Northeast Wall of Room 6 (based on Lang 1969)” (Wesolowski 2006,

Alongside the sanctuaries, Lupack (2011, 207) also contends that with the exception of few
less affluent towns, many individual communities within palatial territories maintained a
similarly significant degree of independence from palace control; particularly due to the
economic influence of the damos. Pylos tablet Jn 829, for example, reveals that every damos
was overseen by a mayor, ko-re-te, and an assistant vice-mayor, po-ro-ko-re-te. Additionally,
the governance of distinct regions was overseen by a provincial leader, da-mo-ko-ro, who is
listed at the forefront of the damoi of the Further province on PY On 300 (Lupack 2011, 212).
Also revealed in these Pylos tablets such as PY Ep 301.2a, 8–14 were “…a set of people, called
the ko-to-no-o-ko, who seem to have been in charge of the management of the land that
belonged to the damos” particularly “(e-ke-qe) ke-ke-me-na land in the district/damos of pa-
ki-ja-ne.” This is land ownership is would’ve been significant in bringing about economic life –
supporting the production agricultural and industrial goods (Lupack 2011, 213). Lupack's
analysis along with the Linear B tablets and frescoes from Pylos reveal that while palaces may
have played a central role in organising communal activities and rituals, individual
communities within palatial territories maintained a significant degree of economic
independence. This nuanced understanding challenges traditional views of palace authority
and underscores the importance of communal institutions and local governance structures
within Mycenaean society.

The Mycenaean palace economy emerged as a multifaceted and dynamic system that played
a central role in shaping the economic, social, and cultural landscape of the Late Bronze Age
Aegean. Through the centralization of power, economic specialization, and organized systems
of redistribution, the palaces exerted considerable influence over production, trade, and
communal activities within their regions.

Bibliography

Hruby, Julie. 2013. “Crafts, Specialists, and Markets in Mycenaean Greece. The Palace of
Nestor, Craft Production, and Mechanisms for the Transfer of Goods.” American Journal of
Archaeology 117 (3): 423–27. https://doi.org/10.3764/aja.117.3.0423.

Killen, John T. 2006. “THE SUBJECTS OF THE WANAX: ASPECTS OF MYCENAEAN SOCIAL
STRUCTURE.” In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, edited by
Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy and Irene S. Lemos, 87–100, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1g09xng.9.

Lupack, Susan. 2011. “Redistribution in Aegean Palatial Societies. A View from Outside the
Palace: The Sanctuary and the Damos in Mycenaean Economy and Society.” American Journal
of Archaeology 115 (3): 207–17. https://doi.org/10.3764/aja.115.2.0207.

Maran, Joseph and James C. Wright 2019. “The Rise of the Mycenaean Culture, Palatial
Administration and Its Collapse” In A Companion to the Archaeology of Early Greece and the
Mediterranean, edited by Irene S. Lemos and Antonios Kotsonas, 99-132, Hoboken: Wiley-
Blackwell, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118769966.ch5

Nakassis, Dimitri. 2013. Individuals and Society in Mycenaean Pylos, Leiden: Brill.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004251465

Nosch, Marie-Louise B. (2011) “The Mycenaean Administration of Textile Production in the

Palace of Knossos: Observations on the Lc(1) Textile Targets.” American Journal of
Archaeology 115 (4): 495–505. https://doi.org/10.3764/aja.115.4.0495.

Palaima, Thomas G. 1997. “Potter and Fuller: The Royal Craftsmen.” In TEXNH: Craftsmen,
Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th
International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18–21 April 1996, edited by
Robert Laffineur and Philip P. Betancourt, 407–12, Aegaeum 16. Liège and Austin: Université
de Liège and University of Texas at Austin.
https://sites.utexas.edu/scripts/files/2020/05/1997-TGP-
PotterAndFullerTheRoyalCraftsmen.pdf

Parkinson, William A, Dimitri Nakassis, and Michael L. Galaty. 2013. “Crafts, Specialists, and
Markets in Mycenaean Greece. Introduction.” American Journal of Archaeology 117 (3): 413–
22. https://doi.org/10.3764/aja.117.3.0413.

Shelmerdine, Cynthia W, John Bennet, and Laura Preston. 2008. “Mycenaean States” In The
Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by Cynthia W. Shelmerdine, 289-309,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-
companion-to-the-aegean-bronze-age/mycenaean-states/
E382236599BFEC3AB09AA3981820BB9F

Shelmerdine, Cynthia W. 2006. “MYCENAEAN PALATIAL ADMINISTRATION.” In Ancient

Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, edited by Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy and
Irene S. Lemos, 73–86. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1g09xng.8.

Wesolowski, Deanna L. 2006. “Feasting at Nest easting at Nestor's Palace at Palace at Pylos.”
Nebraska Anthropologist 26: 117-128. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1025&context=nebanthro