The Linear B tablets reveal the workings, at each of the centres at which docu- ments have been found, of a redistributive ‘revenue’ or ‘command’ economy in which the key role in the movement of goods and the employment of labour is played, not by a market or money, but by the central palace itself. The palaces exercise control – albeit a selective one – over a large territory surrounding them (in the case of Knossos, for example, the centre and far west of Crete), and from these catchment areas extract large quantities of foodstuffs and raw materials, partly at least via a taxation system. This revenue is then redistributed, in the form of rations and working materials, to a very substantial workforce, located both at the centres themselves and in outlying districts, which produces goods to palace specification: metalwork, textiles, furniture, perfumed unguent, etc.1
One of the marked characteristics of this palace-directed workforce is the extreme degree of division of labour, or specialisation of function, within it. We learn from the tablets dealing with textile production, for instance, not only of workers who specialise in the production of particular types of cloth (like the te- pe-ja and ko-u-re-ja, women who make the te-pa and ko-u-ra varieties of fabric respectively), but also workers who specialise in one of the numerous processes that are involved in producing textiles: a-ra-ka-te-ja, /alakateiai/, ‘distaff women’, pre- sumably spinners; pe-ki-ti-ra2, /pektriai/, ‘combers’ of wool or fabric; a-ke-ti-ri-ja/a- ze-ti-ri-ja, /asketriai/, ‘decorators’ of cloth; etc. This degree of specialisation could not have come about except through the intervention of the palaces, which by sup- plying the workers with both rations and working materials enable them to pursue these specialisms in a world without markets or money without anxiety about their means of subsistence. Indeed, once the palaces are destroyed, this extreme special- isation clearly ceases, as witness the disappearance from the Greek language in the post-Mycenaean period of nearly all the terms we have just mentioned: all that tend to survive are terms indicating broad areas of craft activity, like ‘smith’ and ‘potter’, not those reflecting much narrower specialisms (Morpurgo Davies 1979). In all 1 On the typology of the Mycenaean economy, see further Killen 1985; De Fidio 1987; De Fidio
probability, the purpose of this specialisation was to improve the quality, rather than the quantity of the product, as was generally its purpose in the ancient world (Finley 1973: 135 and n. 25, 146): to provide the palace with supplies of high grade textiles, etc. both for its own domestic use and also very likely for export. Among the descriptions of completed cloth at Knossos, some of it now in the palace stores, are wa-na-ka-te-ra, /wanakterai/, ‘royal’, possibly cloth for the use of the monarch, though perhaps only fabric of particularly high quality,2 and ke-se-nu-wi-ja,
/xenwia/, almost certainly cloth ‘for guest-gifts’, which may have been fabric intended for export.3
But who precisely are these workers in state-directed textile and other work- shops? What is their exact legal and – more important – socio-economic status; and do they work for the centres all the year round or merely on a part-time basis? I attempted to provide some tentative answers to these questions in a paper given to the London Mycenaean Seminar in 1979, a summary of which appeared in BICS (Killen 1979a). Since then, other scholars have published important dis- cussions of the problem: A. Uchitel (1984), P. de Fidio (1987) and J. Chadwick (1988); and it will perhaps be useful to return to the issue here in the light of these studies, one of which in particular, that of A. Uchitel, reaches rather different conclusions about the status of the women workers than I and others, including Chadwick (1976 and 1988), have done.
I begin with the women on the Aa, Ab and Ad records at Pylos and the closely similar Ak and Ap records at Knossos, who make up the great bulk of the female workforce recorded on Mycenaean texts. We know from the evidence of the Pylos Ab tablets, which record a month’s ration of wheat and figs for what are clearly the same groups as those listed on the Aa tablets (though some slight differences in numbers show that the records, while relating to the same accounting year, are not exactly contemporaneous), that these women (and their children, who are also recorded on the documents) were dependent on the centre for their mainte- nance for at least part of the year. We also have indications at Knossos that the women there received rations from the palace.4But did both sets of women
receive these rations all the year round, or only for a part of the year when they were working for the palace?
88 .
2 For the use of ‘royal’ as a description of high quality fabrics not intended for the monarch’s own use in the ancient Near East, see Veenhof 1972: 192–3.
3 For this suggestion, see Melena 1975: 45; Killen 1985: 263. For caution about the idea, however, see Olivier 1998: 286–7.
4 Given that they are written by scribe 103, all of whose other output concerns the textile indus- try or has some connexion with it, it seems likely that E(2) 668, 669, 670, which record wheat and olives, are concerned with food intended as rations for textile workers; and the amounts involved are compatible with the hypothesis that the rations in question were allocated both to male workers (like those on Am(1) 597, also in h. 103, where the MONTH ideogram suggests a rationing context) and the much more numerous females in the industry. Note, too, the record of a commodity measured in dry measure on the edge of Ak(2) 613, which the analogy of the Pylos Ab records suggests is likely to be a ration.
In my 1979 discussion, I opted for the conclusion, also reached by a number of other scholars, that the women were fully dependent: that they received these rations all the year round. Among the arguments which can and have been deployed in favour of this conclusion are the following.
1. As I noted in my 1979a paper, we find the term do-e-ra, whose Classical continuant is doule, ‘slave’, on two tablets at Knossos which are likely to relate to female workers in the textile industry, as all those listed on the Ak tablets and many of those listed on the Aa, Ab, Ad records at Pylos clearly are. First, Ai(3) 824, which lists thirty-two women and twenty-four children ‘of’ an ‘owner’ a-pi- qo-i-ta, describes the women as do-e-ra; and while we cannot finally confirm that this is a record of textile workers like those on the Ak records (the hand of the tablet is not that of any of the Ak texts, and there is no mention of a-pi-qo-i-ta on other textile records in the archive), so close are the similarities between this and the Ak records (it lists women and children only; in the children section, girls are listed before boys; and the girls and boys are further categorised as ‘older’ (me- zo-e) and ‘younger’ (me-wi-jo-e)) that there is a strong likelihood that it is. Second, Ap 628 lists small numbers of women described as the do-e-ra of three ‘owners’; and though the occupation of these women is not specified, the fact that the tablet is by scribe no. 103, all of whose other records in the archive are concerned with the textile industry or have some link with it, makes it very difficult to doubt that they are textile workers. It is also possible, though unfortunately not certain, that there is a reference to do-e-ra on one of the Ak tablets themselves. On Ak(2) 7022 [+] 7024, the main entry of women and children on the record is followed by a subsidiary WOMAN entry preceded by the term ]e-ra. There appears to be a trace before ]e-ra, which if it exists is likely to be part of the same word; but while ]do-e-ra was once read here, there is little positive evidence to support that reading. If the trace is not a mirage, do-e-ra would still be a very attractive restora- tion, given its presence on Ap 628; the mention of an ‘owner’ in the heading of the tablet (see further below); and the rarity of other terms on the records ending in -e-ra. Since, however, we cannot be certain that ]e-ra is not complete, we are unable to exclude another possibility: that this is a reference to the place e-ra, fre- quently mentioned on the Knossos tablets, which we know to have been the loca- tion of one or more textile workgroups.5
Now it should certainly be stressed that the term do-e-ra (masc. do-e-ro) in Mycenaean is not in itself a secure indication of social status. Though it is clear that in some contexts it refers to chattel-slaves (see below), it is also used of the land-holding do-e-ra, do-e-ro of divinities and do-e-ro of the ‘collector’ a-pi-me- de on the E tablets at Pylos, who whatever of their precise standing – and it should certainly be noted that they hold o-na-ta, ‘benefices’ or the like, rather than the
5 There are references to e-ra-ja, women of e-ra, in the following textile contexts: Ap 639.5, Lc(1) 528.B, Lc(1) 561.b. ]e-ra-ja on the CLOTH record L(4) 7578 is also most likely feminine plural, but might alternatively be neuter plural and a description of the cloth.
more significant ktoinai – are likely to be of relatively high status. A number of texts at Knossos, however, clearly record the purchase of do-e-ra and do-e-ro (see the term qi-ri-ja-to, whose Classical continuant is epriato, ‘he bought’, on B 822, etc.); and it seems more probable that the (unnamed) women on Ai(3) 824, Ap 628 are chattel-slaves, i.e. can be bought and sold, like the do-e-ra, do-e-ro on these records than that they are land-holders like the (normally) named do-e-ra, do-e- ro on the E records, given that they are likely to be textile workers, and that the groups at Pylos, besides the workers in the textile industry, include others with plainly menial occupations, such as corn-grinders (me-re-ti-ri-ja, /meletriai/ and bath-pourers (re-wo-to-ro-ko-wo, /lewotrokhowoi/). Note that while a-pi-qo-i-ta, the ‘owner’ of the do-e-ra on Ai(3) 824, is probably a ‘collector’, like a-pi-me-de at Pylos, only (male) do-e-ro, never (female) do-e-ra, of a-pi-me-de are named among the land-holders on the E tablets.
It is also in keeping with the hypothesis that the do-e-ra on Ai(3) 824, Ap 628 are chattel-slaves that we can be reasonably confident that this was a description which did not apply to the great bulk of the women in textile workgroups at Knossos. As I pointed out in my 1979a discussion, it is unlikely to be an accident that the do-e-ra on Ai(3) 824, Ap 628 (and indeed also on Ak(3) 7022 [+] 7024, if they are recorded there) are all described as ‘of’ an ‘owner’: ‘of’ a-pi-qo-i-ta on Ai(3) 824, ‘of’ *a-ke-u and others on Ap 628 and ‘of’ do-ki on Ak(3) 7022 [+] 7024. This is in accord with the picture elsewhere in the records, where the great major- ity of do-e-ro, do-e-ra, and possibly all, are again described as the property of ‘owners’: which in turn suggests that the majority of the women on the Ak tablets, who are recorded in terms of a place or occupation and not of an ‘owner’, are not of this category, rather than being do-e-ra whose status the scribe does not hap- pened to have mentioned on the tablet. And this is in turn encouraging for the belief that the do-e-ra on Ai(3) 824, Ap 628 are chattel-slaves; for there is evidently a rather similar situation in the ancient Near East. Here, the gemé-dumu (women and children) groupings, many of them textile workers, who are frequently recorded in palace and temple archives from the pre-Sargonic period onwards, and the records of whom have many points in common with the women and chil- dren records at Knossos and Pylos (see below), do include some chattel-slaves, sag, arád (Waetzoldt 1972: 93 re weavers at Lagash; Waetzoldt 1987: 119 and n. 19); but these, as I. J. Gelb and others have observed, form only a small minority of the workers, the great majority of whom fall into a separate category. (Gelb 1976: 195–6. Gelb regards these as legally semi-free, though still, like the chattel- slaves, fully dependent: see further below).
2. Among the descriptions of the workgroups on the Aa, Ab records at Pylos is ra-wi-ja-ja, which Chadwick and others interpret as /lawiaiai/ and a reference to ‘captives, prisoners of war’ (Ventris and Chadwick 1956: 156, 162, 407; Chadwick 1988: 83). The interpretation is purely an ‘etymological’ one, and others have sug- gested other explanations: a derivative of laion, ‘cornfield’, meaning ‘harvesters’ vel sim. (Tritsch 1958: 428; Uchitel 1984: 275); a derivative of laos, ‘people, host’,
meaning ‘workers of laos land’ (Heubeck 1969: 543.); an ethnic adjective (Palmer 1963: 114, 121, 452). Neither of the first two explanations is very plausible: no other description on the Aa, Ab records refers to agricultural – as opposed to domestic or ‘industrial’ – workers. But we cannot completely exclude the possibil- ity that the term is an ethnic derived from a non-Pylian place-name, others of which are attested in the series (see below), though no obvious identification sug- gests itself. It is, however, supportive, though not of course proof, of the ‘captive’ explanation that prisoners of war (nam-ra-ag) are regularly mentioned in the gemé-dumu records in the Near East, including as women engaged in textile pro- duction, gemé-usˇ-bar (Waetzoldt 1972: 93).
3. Further possible evidence for slave memberships of the Pylian workforce is provided by the references in the Aa, Ab, Ad records to groups described as mi-ra- ti-ja, ki-ni-di-ja, ze-pu2-ra, etc., whom it is attractive to identify as women from Miletus, Knidos, Halicarnassus, etc. Though the interpretations in question are again purely ‘etymological’, it is remarkable how many of these descriptions are capable of explanation in terms of a non-Pylian, and often Eastern Aegean, place- name. While, however, there are strong arguments against Tritsch’s early suggestion that these are recently-arrived refugees (Tritsch 1958),6and while it is difficult to
take these descriptions as referring to otherwise unknown places within the Pylian kingdom itself, it is not perhaps impossible that they refer to peaceful migrants from Asia Minor, etc., and not to slaves which have been acquired in markets in these areas, as Chadwick has suggested (Chadwick 1988: 92): though if they were peaceful migrants, we should have expected them to be accompanied by adult male members of their families, and it is noticeable that there is no mention on the records of any men who are described as Milesian, etc. (as distinct from ‘sons of the Milesian women’, etc.) or in terms of any other non-Pylian provenance – though this might of course simply be the result of an accident of preservation.
4. Finally, as a number of scholars have observed, and as we have already noted above, there are remarkably close similarities between the women-and- children workgroups at Pylos and Knossos and the many women and children (gemé-dumu) workgroups recorded in ancient Mesopotamian archives. Like most of the Mycenaean workers, many of these Mesopotamian workgroups are engaged in textile production, in their case in temple and palace workshops; and many of the features of the records which list them (the recording of rations for the groups; the preponderance of girls over boys among the children; the ref- erences to workshop supervisors; etc.) are also characteristics of the Mycenaean texts. Given these resemblances, it is tempting to suppose that the women who 6 The parallel of the very similar Ak records at Knossos shows both that the Pylian groupings are likely to form part of the regular workforce of the palace and that women described solely by means of an ethnic do not necessarily lack an occupation (we can show that the groups so described in the Ak series are workers in the textile industry), and hence does not provide support for Tritsch’s argument that they are recently-arrived refugees who have not yet been assigned work. See further Chadwick 1988: 90–3.
make up these groupings in the two areas have a closely similar status: as I. J. Gelb has put it, ‘anybody who has only glanced at the Mycenaean ration lists and lists of personnel finds so many parallels with the corresponding early Mesopotamian texts that one is almost forced to the conclusion that the same, or at least a very similar, type of labour class must have existed in both areas’ (Gelb 1976: 202). But if this is the case, the question then arises: what was the status of the Mesopotamian workers?
As we have already noted above, I. J. Gelb has concluded that the great major- ity of these women (particularly, he thinks, those in temple establishments), though not technically chattel slaves, are nonetheless fully dependent: depressed members of a legally semi-free class (Gelb 1972: 88; Gelb 1979: 293–4). Moreover, although he stresses that ‘all through the periods, from Fara to Ur III, we have great difficulty distinguishing personnel living permanently in a house- hold and working for that household all year around from personnel working for the household only during certain parts of the year’, he notes that there is clear evidence that gemé-dumu received rations all the year round, that is, were fully dependent, in the pre-Sargonic texts from Lagash-Girshu (Gelb 1965: 241). H. Waetzoldt also, though he does not accept Gelb’s contention that the term sˇe- ba, used of the rations allocated to gemé-dumu, is itself a reliable indicator of dependent status, and notes that the workers in Ur III weaving and milling estab- lishments included women of several different legal statuses, ranging from free to chattel slave, concludes that the gemé who make up the great bulk of these workers seem to be persons who are ‘in a legal status of dependence, perhaps semifree, since [their] master[s] could force [them] to work as a weaver or miller’.7
J. N. Postgate, too, reaches similar conclusions, at least about the workers in weaving establishments, commenting that ‘the production of textiles is excep- tional in that it required a large trained workforce on a permanent basis’ (Postgate 1992: 235).
In his paper ‘Women at work: Pylos and Knossos, Lagash and Ur’, however, A. Uchitel has challenged both Gelb’s view of the status of the Mesopotamian gemé and Chadwick’s (and my own) conclusions about the nature of the Mycenaean women-and-children workforce (Uchitel 1984). As far as Mesopotamia is con- cerned, his argument focuses on records of female and male millers. First, he men- tions a group of texts, including MVN VI 456, 532, which deal with female millers in the new palace during the 33rd and 34th years of Sˇulgi. Here, he notes, the numbers employed in the mill fluctuate greatly from month to month, so that the (unnamed) women concerned ‘can hardly represent the permanent staff of the “household” ’. As he observes, the situation here contrasts with that elsewhere, such as in the weaving establishment at Girshu recorded on UNT 18, HSS IV 3