Land tenure was important for the administration of Pylos since all who rendered services to the kingdom or to a community within it received a plot of land in compensation. The various E-series list numerous plots of land and illuminate the system of land tenure. The term for a plot was ktoina, which etymologically meant “settled or worked plot” (i. e., under cultivation) as opposed to unworked land (not planted, but used for grazing). Oddly, however, the plots listed in the tablets are divided into two sorts, called ktoinai ktimenai (literally, “worked worked-plots”) and ktoinai kekhesmenai (effectively “unworked worked-plots”). This distinction is strange because both types of plot are clearly being worked. A likely explanation is that the names of the two types of plot reflect distinct stages in the development of land tenure. Originally, the ktoinai comprised all land under cultivation at the time. Eventually, when the etymological meaning of ktoina had been forgotten and the word meant simply “plot,” previously unworked land was also divided up into plots in a second stage of development. Now each of the two sorts of plot needed its own name - hence ktoinai ktimenai and ktoinai kekhesmenai. In a third stage, after the “unworked plots” themselves had come under cultivation, the system had two distinct categories of worked plot with no difference in size or use.
The division of grazing land into plots (the ktoinai kekhesmenai) and then the taking of these plots under cultivation together imply a growing population. Additionally, archaeological evidence for the settlement of this area shows that it was more heavily settled in the late Mycenaean period than at any other time before the modern era. By the end of the thirteenth century BC the population had grown dramatically, and its increasing demands on the land affected the system of land tenure as more and more land came under cultivation.
From this long process there had emerged two distinct categories of worked plot. The distinction had legal and social significance, for the holders of ktoinai ktimenai were very few, while the holders of ktoinai kekhesmenai were numerous. Moreover, a number of texts make clear that the damos retained ownership of ktoinai kekhesmenai. By implication, then, the holders of ktoinai ktimenai owned their land privately. So, in a given damos only a select few actually owned land, but they tended to own a great deal of it. The majority of landholders, however, only leased their plots, either directly from the damos or from the owner of a ktoina ktimena or, through a sublease, from the holder of a ktoina kekhesmena. Subletting, incidentally, was common.
The system of land tenure was, moreover, legally sophisticated. There were different types of leases, and occasionally disputes arose over the nature of a landholder’s tenancy. Here is one interesting entry in a cadaster, in which such a dispute, unresolved at time of writing, was recorded:
Ep 704, lines 5-6:
“(Woman’s name), a priestess, holds and solemnly affirms that she holds an e-to-ni-jo-lease on behalf of a deity, but the damos says that she holds an onaton-lease on a ktoina kekhesmena, of such a size: 1 9I10 units.”
While the actual size of the Mycenaean unit of area is unknown, the two types of lease - e-to-ni-jo and onaton - surely differed somehow. For example, an e-to-ni-jo-lease might have accorded its holder greater rights in the use of the land or certain legal privileges.
World History
