She held authority over several other people, including at least fourteen women who were probably assigned to her by the palatial state as servants to assist with the distribution of religious offerings.

In the last year before the destruction of the Palace of Nestor at Pylos (c. 1180 BCE), Eritha was involved in a legal dispute over the status of her lands against the local damos, which represented the other landholders of Sphagianes.

While the precise terms of the dispute are unclear, Eritha appears to have tried to argue that part of her landholdings were held on behalf of her deity, and consequently that she was entitled to lesser tax or other obligations than if they were her personal possession.

It has been used as evidence for the status of women in the Mycenaean world, as well as for relations between the palace, religious organisation and civic society, and for the legal systems and infrastructure that existed in the Pylian state.

[1][b] Most of the landholders there, including Eritha, are described with titles associated with religious cult,[3] particularly forty-six people labelled as "servants of the god".

[19] Another individual at Sphagianes, by the name of Huamia, is listed on the tablet PY Ep 704 as a "servant of the god" and as holding land given to her as a "gift of honour" by a priestess.

[21] While the specific nature of these priestly duties is not recorded by the palace, Eritha is unusual as a woman holding power over those designated as "slaves" or "servants":[e] elsewhere, only men are listed as doing so.

[23] The tablet PY Ae 303 lists at least fourteen women, designated as "servants of the priestess", possibly assigned to Eritha by the palace to help with the distribution of gold as religious offerings.

[31] The local damos, rather than the palace, is generally taken to have controlled all the land at Sphagianes recorded on the Linear B tablets, and therefore to have been able to call upon the service of its land-holding supervisors, known as telestai.

[44] According to Bennet and Shelmerdine, the substance of the dispute was that Eritha argued that the majority of her holdings were exempt from regular administrative obligations on the grounds of having religious status.

[26] Michael Galaty suggests that, by categorising the land as being held "for the god", Eritha hoped to have it excluded from her property for the purposes of calculating tax obligations.

[46] Only three plots are listed as etōnion land in the Linear B tablets: Lupack suggests that these were gifts of the ruler (wanax), granted only rarely so as to avoid antagonising the damos.

[47] According to Nakassis, the dispute shows that religious institutions, such as the one with which Eritha was connected, were simultaneously involved with the palatial authority and at least partially independent of it.

[49] Castleden suggests that the actions of the damos constitute a formal complaint by "ordinary people" against their social superiors, and so evidence that the hierarchy of Pylian society was "not overwhelmingly oppressive".

[51] She cites Eritha's dispute as an example of the "frictions" that could emerge between competing loci of religious, civic and royal power in Mycenaean society.

[53] Philippa Steele has argued that the use in the Linear B tablets of verbs of speaking to describe the positions of Eritha and the damos indicates that legal business was conducted orally, rather than through written documentation, and its results recorded only in memory.