ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOGRAPHY IN MESSENIA

Stanley E. Aschenbrenner
Department of Anthropology
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

The position of Messenia in Aegean archaeology is not unlike the role this re-
gion has played in the course of history. It is off in the southwest corner of
Greece, far from the center of activity and in a sense is geographically isolated
from the rest of the country.
Messenia has had its important, if ephemeral, moments in history, however.
Homer recorded Telemacho's journey t o Pylos in the Late Bronze Age. A de-
cisive battle between Athens and Sparta took place at Sphacteria in classical
times. Methoni and Koroni were economic strongholds of the Venetians during
the medieval period; and the War of Independence from the Turks was insti-
gated a t Kalamata on March 23, 182 1.
Equally singular and prominent developments in archaeology have come t o
pass in Messenia. In the early 193O's, Natan Valmin excavated completely the
Bronze Age town of Malthi.18 Shortly afterward, Carl Blegen discovered the
ruins of Nestor's palace (so-called) with its momentous archive of Linear B
tablets.4After World War 11, while Blegen continued a painstaking excavation
of the palace, McDonald and Hope-Simpson commenced a survey of ancient
Messenian sites, eventually locating several hundred.14 The site survey project
evolved into the multidisciplinary Minnesota Messenia Expedition, which
studied many aspects of the region from prehistoric to modern times.15 This
enterprise culminated in the excavation of Nichoria, a site inhabited from the
Middle Bronze Age through the Geometric period, and later during Byzantine
times.13 Few sites in Messenia have received such attention, however. As a
whole, we have only a modicum of information about the inhabitants of this
region in any cultural period.
Ethnography in Messenia is recent and limited. Gearing has studied the village
of Kardamili o n the east coast of the Messenian Gulf.6," Aschenbrenner . has
focused on the smaller village of Karpofora near the site of Nichoria.l,Z Finally,
there is the study of settlement and economy in central Messenia b y the cultural
geographer Sauerwein.16
Until the formation of several regional exploration projects recently, arachae-
ology in Greece has made only intermittent borrowings from the ethnographic
record. In pursuing the function of an artifact-type, or in scrutinizing the reason
for settlement in a particular place, the archaeologist has sometimes
appropriated information from the modern scene. But these borrowings, al-
though useful in some instances, have been infrequent and, on occasion, mis-
leading.
The potential of such intercourse between archaeology and ethnography is
undeniably worthy of consideration. This paper entertains the view that congress
between these two disciplines is essential t o a proper interpretation of ancient
cultures. Thorough examination of the structure and function of activity sys-
tems in a modern Greek community may indeed shed invaluable light on daily
158
 Aschenbrenner: Archaeology and Ethnography in Messenia 159
life in antiquity. What follows here is a proposal for cmsistent interaction
between archaeology and ethnography in Greece, and a method for achieving
this, t o the benefit of both disciplines.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
Aegean archaeology has emerged, since Schliemann’s pioneering efforts at
Troy, as a discipline founded on systematic excavation and a relatively clear
chronology. Over the years, excavation methods in Greece have been refined,
and the corpus of materials recovered has expanded greatly. New and increasing-
ly sophisticated techniques of archaeological interpretation have evolved. As
might be expected, some of the initial advances in interpretation were a result
of specialization by archaeologists in the study of a particular region, time
period, or class of artifact. Thus, for example, there are now specialists in
Middle Helladic pottery, Classical architecture, and Mycenaean bronzes. Grad-
ually, the practice developed for archaeologists to call upon specialists from
other fields t o aid in interpretation. This was begun modestly by sending some
of the excavated materials t o scientists for identification. It became rather stan-
dard that the final publication of a site would contain one or more special re-
ports, written perhaps by a physical anthropologist or a botanist.
Since World War 11, the range of what was considered t o be relevant archaeo-
logical evidence has broadened t o include materials such as charcoal, meta’llur-
gical slags, and other cultural residues. An increasing array of specialists from
other fields now interprets such evidence. At several points in the Aegean a mul-
tidisciplinary archaeology has emerged, with the conscious aim of reconstructing
the interrelationship between ancient communities and their environments.
A subtle, but significant shift in attitudes toward the contemporary world as
a source of information has accompanied these developments. This is n o doubt
encouraged by the fact that palaeozoologists, geographers, geologists and others
collect their comparanda and base-line data from the modern situation.

ETHNOGRAPHY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION

Ethnography is a traditional aid t o archaeological interpretation in many re-
gions of the world. Its contribution to archaeology has grown over the past cen-
tury with an increase in the literature resulting from anthropological field work.
The use of ethnography has become conscious and deliberate, especially in the
form of analogy or parallel. Indeed, not only has literature appeared concerning
such inferences, but critical evaluation of and caution about such analogical in-
terpretations have also been e ~ p r e s s e d . 3 ~ Ethnography
8 can be related t o ar-
chaeology in a variety of ways, as may be seen in the following examples from
Messenia.
Many of these examples derive from ethnographic data gathered in the modern
community of Karpofora and pertain t o the site of Nichoria. Karpofora is a
diversified farming village 2.5 km inland from the northwest corner of the Gulf
of Messenia in the southwest Peloponnese. Nichoria is located on a ridge in the
territory of the village and was excavated in five seasons, from 1969 t o 1973.
Ethnographic Parallels
What is usually sought from ethnography is a positive, specific analogy for
some ancient item. F o r example, the traditional practice of grinding grain into
flour with a muller and quern illustrates how these same ancient artifacts may
have been used. Most often the analogy lacks adequate specificity to permit con-
160 Annals New York Academy of Sciences

fident and simple inferences. Instead, the ethnographic data perform an heuristic
function by suggesting some of the possibilities. So it has turned o u t in Messenia,
but even this has been beneficial.
The water source for the ancient inhabitants of Nichoria has been a puzzle. O n
Nichoria ridge there are neither wells nor springs and geologists rule o u t that
there ever were such. Some 60 to 70 meters below the ridge, however, water is
available from modern wells dug into the valley floor. It is feasible that the an-
cients followed this practice. The modern villagers drew water for household use
from t w o such wells located 400 meters distant until 1969-70 when a piped-in
water system (fed by a great spring 15 k m distant) began t o operate. Indeed,
the situation of the Karpofora settlement relative t o wells is equivalent t o that of
Nichoria, for t h e former lies o n a similar ridge just t o the west of the ancient
site. Other modes of adaptation are also suggested for the inhabitants of a water-
poor ridge or upland site. A seep at the base of Nichoria ridge was regularly used
during the dry season for watering oxen and goats. The women of Karpofora
made a 2 km trip to the lower Karia river to wash clothes. Vegetable gardens
(and other crops) were planted in the valley and were irrigated b y the river o r
wells. Finally, another adaptation t o the dry-season water problem was “a mini-
transhumance.” Many Karpofora families owned fields down in the valley, rel-
atively close t o the river. A number of them built houses in these fields and lived
there during the summer for the harvesting and drying of currants and figs. They
dug wells in the valley floor and made use of river water for irrigation, watering
of livestock, clothes-washing, etc. Overall, these modern adjustments offer possi-
ble clues t o ancient practice.
Many building foundations were revealed on the Nichoria ridge. Since these
socles consist of from one t o several courses of stone with a maximum
preserved height of 0.90 meter, what was the composition of the upper walls?
Were they of stone, mud-brick, or pisd? The total amount of tumbled stone
around these foundations is never sufficient t o add more than a few courses. In
rare cases, fragments of unfired mud-brick have been found, and in one instance,
three almost complete bricks were found in situ on a stone foundation. This
lends weight t o the understanding that mud-brick was used in wall construction.
In addition, limestone is not native t o Nichoria ridge. All of t h e foundation
stones uncovered were transported there, perhaps from the nearest available
source, a limestone outcrop 350 meters distant. The natural earth of the ridge
is highly suitable for the manufacture of mud-bricks, however.
Data from modern building practice shed some light on the matter. Karpofora
is located on a ridge composed of the same natural earth as that of Nichoria. The
limestone used in the houses of Karpofora is quarried from the outcrop near
Nichoria. Although most of the Karpofora houses are entirely of stone, some
were constructed of mud-brick on stone foundations. The mud-brick construc-
tion was used if sufficient donkeys were not available for stone transport, o r if
masons with their special skills were n o t at hand. Mud-brick construction could
be accomplished by using earth dug u p from shallow pits near the house o r from
foundation trenches, and the builder was not required t o have special skills.
While none of this settles matters, it does demonstrate the role of convenience in
the use of immediately available building materials. It suggests how and why it
may be difficult t o detect the use of mud-brick in an ancient construction, since
the brick debris and the local material may well be the same. Finally, the shal-
low pits used in mud-brick preparation suggest one factor that may account for
the changes in settlement topography as revealed in excavation profiles.
 Aschenbrenner: Archaeology and Ethnography in Messenia 161

Warnings f r o m Ethnography
As often as ethnography suggests positive parallels for interpretation, it pro-
vides cautions against the facile application of standard interpretations and
common assumptions. For example, a disorderly array of stones in the vicinity
of wall foundations is regularly interpreted as debris or tumble from a deposit
later than the occupation level associated with such walls. In other words, “peo-
ple would not live with such debris lying about.” After observing contemporary
villages, one must doubt this assumption. For the past two years I have studied
an older village house that had been continuously occupied since its construc-
tion in 1904. Within the courtyard of this house were three small heaps of
stones, one against a terrace wall and two others against a building wall; all of
these were in a much-trafficked area. In one corner of the house storeroom that
had just been cleaned out for a new occupant was another pile of stones; two
more were in the stable. All these, to be sure, did rest on some earlier occupation
level, but they were also contemporary with ongoing occupation, and they had
been so for many years.
Another archaeological assumption is that floors or occupation levels are at
o r above the bottom course of stones in a wall. While this may certainly hold
true a good deal of the time, the contrary is n o t impossible. There is an earth
floor in the above-mentioned house that has been so eroded away by use that in
some places it is now 15 cm below the bottom of the wall. Several examples of
this are visible elsewhere in the village.
Our imagination plays a role in the assumption that most foundations uncov-
ered in excavation had full upper walls and were part of roofed structures. But,
in the modern village, at least 25% of the total linear meters of foundation is not
utilized for full walls or walls associated with roofed areas. Rather, these founda-
tions serve as part of terrace or retaining walls, yard walls, and ovens. Distin-
guishing them from house walls in the archaeological record might n o t be total-
ly impossible; average house walls in Karpofora are 5 t o 7 cm thicker and tend t o
have deeper foundation trenches than walls used for other purposes.

Ethnography as a Discovery Procedure

Ethnographers have learned that villagers accumulate vast knowledge and lore
about their fields and region. They have noted and distinguished many topo-
graphic features and their characteristics over a period of time, with the conse-
quence that they can give account of local ongoing changes and processes. Vill-
agers are n o t an infallible source of information and are surely selective ob-
sewers, but these are the same limitations t o which field-workers have already
necessarily adapted. A variety of information possessed by the villager and useful
in archaeological interpretation can be collected by common ethnographic meth-
ods.
The large number of sherds recovered from Nichoria excavations obliges one t o
consider a possible local pottery industry (although n o kilns were discovered)
and perhaps, the use of local clay resources. In discussions with villagers, nine
places were identified in the locality of Nichoria where they themselves obtained
earth and clay (for making ovens, roof tiles, and plastering earth floors). Profes-
sor Frederick Matson and I then took samples for his potting tests, which show-
ed that some local clays were indeed suitable materials for the prehistoric pot-
ters to have utilized in manufacturing the kind of pottery found at Nichoria.
Attempts have been made t o reconstruct the settlement history of the Nichoria
162 Annals New York Academy of Sciences

environs by gathering data on local topographic features and antiquities. Over

the years, knowledge of perhaps 1 5 such locations have been gradually accumu-
lated through casual interaction with villagers. Recently, a more directed effort
began with the mapping and field-checking of these locations. In the course of
this routine, discussions were held with field-owners and others encountered on
rural paths. As a result, the locals guided us t o 36 additional sites. (To my know-
ledge, this is the system also used by the Argolid Exploration Project Survey).
Several points warrant emphasis. No single individual knew about more than a
few sites and thus it was imperative t o talk with the greatest possible number of
persons. It was not infrequently evident that the rapport and confidence we had
previously established with the villagers were essential t o our success. For ex-
ample, in a field where only surface sherds manifest antiquity, the owner report-
ed t o us that in plowing he had encountered a mass of stones, o r that in planting
trees he had found a grave.
For the past three years, two geologists and I have collaborated in studies of
coastal change occurring in several embayments of Greece during the past 6000
years.'o A study focusing on the Gulf of Messenia commenced with an exam-
ination of the coastal plain nearest the site of Nichoria. In the initial research
design, drill cores from coastal sediments were to supply the data on sea level
and environmental changes. Yet, with the first drill hole, data from ethnographic
sources began t o make a contribution t o the research.
The local people came t o watch the drilling out of curiosity, and my discus-
sions with them soon revealed a few bits and shreds about recent changes in the
coastal landscape. The potential value of such cluesled t o the decision t o gather
such data systematically from all of the inhabitants of the coastal plain. Thus,
for example, enough of the field owners recalled the strata encountered in dig-
ging their wells that we were able t o estimate their extent and t o learn more of
some apparent breaks in these sedimentary layers. Such data helped in the inter-
pretation of upper sections of the drill cores.
The data base of our studies was deliberately redefined t o include ethno-
graphic, historical and archaeological information (such as datable sherds). In-
deed, Kraft and I have just completed a paleogeographic reconstruction of the
bay at Methoni,g in which a majority of the data were derived from such
sources.
Ethnography and Systemic Relations of Archaeological Materials
The archaeology/ethnography examples thus far considered have a common
characteristic. In them, the contemporary situation is n o t usually seen as a sys-
tem. Rather, it is a source of specific ad hoc items of information and relatively
simple analogies. Yet ethnographers know and study the contemporary scene as
if it were a system and seek t o describe and understand systemic relationships.
The modern economic system as a whole surely differs significantly from pre-
historic systems. But, if some caution is exercised, it seems possible t o make a
judicious selection of some aspects of or relationships between factors of the
modern system that can be projected back in time, or can at least guide such
projection.
Van Wersch studied the modern agricultural economy of Messenia with a
major aim being the exploration of some relationships between land use, ag-
ricultural potential, and settlement size and distribution.19 This was accom-
plished through field work in four villages representative of the region, a care-
fully field-checked mapping of land use, and agricultural census data. Because
of the apparent importance of cereals in prehistoric periods, he concentrated
 Aschenbrenner: Archaeology and Ethnography in Messenia I63

on developing a range of values for their production in those periods. As a

result, he has armed the archaeologist with one of the initial premises required
in order to reconstruct the agricultural economy of ancient communities (such
as those on Nichoria ridge).
Whereas Van Wersch’s work was at the regional level and concentrated on
cereals, my own is at the level of the community and has focused o n other
crops and aspects of economy.2 That olive oil, wine, and figs were produced
during the Late Bronze Age is known from the Linear B tablets20 and the
carbonized remains of such crops. Unknown are other factors related to these
commodities, such as area of land planted t o them, labor expended in their
production, and the calendar of such activities. However, observation of the
modern village yields data on these factors.TABLE 1 presents the data 1 have
compiled on olive oil production in Karpofora. It offers some basis for estima-
ting labor, yield, and production rates in ancient communities, although one
might expect the rates t o have been lower then.
Such modern data need supplementing in order t o make better estimates for
ancient times. While the cultivation, harvesting, and production system from
which these data derive is universal in Messenia, it is n o t the only system used in
Greece. Thus, at Methana in the southern Argolid, Forbes and Forbes report sub-
stantial differences.5 There the olive harvest is accomplished without severe
pruning and beating of branches. Instead, the olives ripen on the tree until they
fall t o the gound and are gathered. This has the effect of delaying or prolonging
harvest by three months or so, and, it would seem, of reducing the sharp tenden-
cy t o fluctuation in olive oil production. Again, in Crete I note the same absence
of pruning and beating, with harvest that continues into mid-June. When data
like that inTABLE 1 are available from these other cultivation systems, recon-

TABLE 1
DATA FOR OLIVE O I L PRODUCTION^
( 1 stremma = 0.1 ha or 0.247 acre)
Calendar of major activities
Harvest: November 1 t o January 1 5
Plowing: February 15 t o May 1 5
Planting: March 1 5 t o May 1 (grafting, cuttings, and balled plants)
Fertilization: March 1 5 to May 1
Planting density
9 trees/stremma (average), older grafted trees
1 2 trees/stremma (average), newer trees f r o m cuttings and balled plants
Oil yield (in heavy harvest year)
By tree and age
Large mature tree: 5 0 k g
Medium (30-50 yr) tree: 15-20 kg
Small (15-30 y r ) tree: 7-15 kg
By weight o f f r u i t : 4-6 k g f r u i t normally produce 1 k g o i l
By area ( f o r 1,300 stremmata, t o t a l area o f c o m m u n i t y w i t h olives
1968: 54.8 kg/stremma
1969: 115 kg/stremma
Total for community
Pre-1940 heavy harvest year: 12,000 k g
1 9 6 8 light harvest year: 70,000 k g
1969 Heavy harvest year: 150,000 k g
Labor (male and female)
Plowing (male): 1 m a n d a y / 4 stremmata
Harvesting (male and female): 1 m a n d a y / 2 0 kg o i l
Pressing (male): 1 m a n d a y / 7 0 k g o i l (using o n l y human and animal power)
164 Annals New York Academy of Sciences
structions of ancient agricultural economies can proceed with a bit more confi-
dence.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION BY ACTIVITY SPECIALISTS

A fundamentally ethnographic aim of archaeology is t o proceed as far as possi-
ble in reconstructing the way of life of ancient communities. A large measure of
such reconstruction is a patient, rigorous, and courageous attempt t o specify the
kinds, nature, and intensity of some of the basic activities of dailv life in such
communities. As an example, for Bronze Age Greece, these would include: ag-
riculture, hunting and gathering, herding and animal husbandry, food prepara-
tion and storage, spinning and weaving, house construction, pottery making,
metal working, and stone working. This inventory could easily be expanded t o
include trade and transport, seafaring, and warfare, for which the archaeological
record is less complete. A list of the optimal categories of data than constitute an
activity system appears in TABLE 2.
Three principal sources of knowledge are utilized in the reconstruction of an-
cient activities: (1) comparative materials and artifacts from other sites; (2) tech-
nology, both modern and ancient, as reconstructed from literary evidence, picto-
rial representations, and the archaeological record; and ( 3 ) ethnography from
modern and ancient sources.
How have scholars and researchers deployed themselves with respect t o these
areas of knowledge? Most are concerned primarily with one area while being
only partially acquainted with and sporadically borrowing from the other two,
There has been n o strong tendency in Greek archaeology t o specialize in a partic-
ular activity system. Rather, individual classes o r artifacts have been studied in
detail, as for example, pottery, chipped stone, bronzes. Only rarely in technol-
ogy are there such happy cases as those of Tylecote17 (in metallurgy) and
Matson" q l *(in ceramics), where an activity orientation has been adopted. More
usually in the study of technology, much effort has gone t o the assemblage of
compendia that survey all of the evidence for all of the ancient crafts. These
are useful, indeed, as an introduction, but the sheer breadth of such a survey
and the scholar's first-hand knowledge of but a few of these techniques may de-

TABLE 2
ANALYSIS O F A C T I V I T Y SYSTEMS
Components
Input (raw materials)
Labor (human and animal)
Knowledge, skills, techniques, recipes
Processes and procedures
Tools and fixtures
Spatial location
Schedule and occasion (timing)
Output (finished products)
Scrap and debris
Dimensions
Distribution of activity by household, settlement, region
Amount of input, output, scrap, labor
Frequency of activity occurrence
Socioeconomic Aspects
Sources, distribution and exchange of input and output
Personnel, who they are, how skills were acquired, etc,
Roles and organization of tasks
 Aschenbrenner : Archaeology and Ethnography in Messenia 165
tract from the overall account. Ethnographers have also studied the whole range
of modern-day industries, but have concentrated on their socioeconomic rather
than material aspects.
In terms of TABLE 3 , the archaeologist has specialized in artifacts as one might
read horizontally across the chart. However, upon examination of particular
activities as described vertically on this chart, it indeed becomes clear that many
classes of artifacts are within the domain of one activity system. How worth-
while it would be t o supplement the former approach with an orientation to-
ward activity systems.
An example of this approach is given by the British archaeologist, Jill
Carington Smith, a specialist in the textile industry of prehistoric Greece, who
came t o Nichoria t o study finds relevant t o her work. These consisted of so-
called spindle whorls (made of fired clay or carved steatite) and loom weights
(of fired clay). They had already been measured, described, and inventoried.
Smith made use of the records, but at once set about weighing each of the ob-
jects on a sensitive scale. Weight had been completely ignored in the inventory
descriptions. The relevance of this dimension of the whorls and weights had not
even been appreciated! Some of the whorls struck Smith as being unusual in
weight and/or shape (mainly diameter) and she proceeded t o spin with them by
inserting a spindle (dowel-like axle) that was part of her equipment. Thus, by
actual experiment, she concluded that some of the doubtful whorls were act-
ually serviceable for spinning certain types of thread, while others were alto-
gether ineffectual.
Smith, as i t turns out, had made a considerable ethnographic study of trad-
itional spinning and weaving throughout Greece, and had herself become pro-
ficient in these activities. Her examination of the Nichoria loom-weights was
equally illuminating, again, as far as weight is concerned. A set of loomweights
is used in a vertical loom t o apply tension t o the warp threads, and thus, ex-
plained Smith, it is important that all of the weights in a loom be of approxi-
mately the same heaviness. In grouping the loomweights on this basis she assem-
bled a set of nine that had come from several adjacent trenches. Her tentative
conclusion was that somewhere in this vicinity there had once been a loom.
This case is a compelling demonstration of the fruitful results of an activity
orientation making use of all three bodies of information. Her ethnographic
and technological research covered the entire activity sequence from raw ma-
terial to finished product, the beliefs and perceptions involved with each task,
production factors, schedules and requirements.
It is equally feasible for a nonarchaeologist to adopt the activity orientation
and t o achieve such informative results. The British metallurgist, R.F. Tylecote,
is a fine example of one who began with a professional background in techno-
1OgY.l' This was then augmented by a familiarity with the archaeological evi-
dence on metallurgy and with ethnographic data (from literature as well as
field work). I t is no surprise, given his preparedness, that he is able t o recognize
as tuyeres (the nozzle of a bellows) and crucibles the ceramic pieces that com-
monly remain unidentified in archaeologicai interpretation. Thus, metallurgical
activities benefit from a much fuller reconstruction than they would otherwise
receive.
I t is appropriate here t o cite the advantage of having professional ethnogra-
phers involved in activity analyses. Since the traditional bailiwick of the ethnog-
rapher is primitive and preindustrial societies, he is familiar with relevant litera-
ture, with fellow ethnographers possessing unpublished data, and with locations
where certain activities may be studied to advantage. Ethnographers are trained
 TABLE 3
ARCHAEOLOGICAL M A T E R I A L S VS. ACTIVITY 0 R I ENTAT IONS:
A SIMPLIFIED SELECTION OF MATERIALS A N D ACTIVITIES INCLUSIVE OF M A N Y C U L T U R A L PERIODS
A
, Pt tiPC
.-..iui- ...-- k
Archaeological Hunting and Food Preparation Spinning and 2G-
Materials Agriculture Gathering and Storage Weaving Stoneworking Metallurgy
z
Blades, sickle and Axe, points, Chipping floor
Chipped stone sledge scrapers Knives, scrapers Knives, scrapers debris 2
4
Ground and Plough, hoe, axe, Hoe, sling Grinding and Whorls Pecking stone,
carved stone adze missiles anvil
pounding tools grindstone

Pottery Cooking and Cooking and Spinning b o w l

storage vessels storage vessels

Terra cotta objects Sling missiles Grill, brazier Whorls, loom-

Crucible, tuyere
weiahts
Bronze and other Plough, ax, hoe, Points Vessels, various ~ needles
~ i Punch,
~ Pressure-
~ ~ Ingots,
, scrap
adze tools flaker
Botanical remains Grains, fruits, Grains, fruits, Seeds, oil, resin, 5'
nuts, wood nuts, wood nuts basketry Fabric' flax Wooden tools Charred wood z
9
Animal remains Draftanimal Anima1,fish bone Asfood Leather, needles ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , f $
bones
billet
 Aschenbrenner: Archaeology and Ethnography in Messenia 167
and experienced a t gathering information f r o m humble sources in unfamiliar
places. They are already sensitive t o recording the normative, social-organizational
and economic aspects of an activity. Hence, they could readily proceed to obtain
the more particular kinds of activity data needed. T h e anthropologist’s cultural
relativism should m a k e him less inclined to impose alien perceptions, thought
patterns, assumptions, and categories on the field work data.
Many ethnographers, or course, would b e unable to devote so m u c h time to
the reconstruction of ancient activity systems. I t is, however, within the power
of every ethnographer t o note and study in detail some of the traditional activ-
ities in Greece with a n eye to their use in archaeological interpretation. A few
such attempts in the.Aegean will contribute immensely. Needless to say, the
opportunity f o r such study is disappearing, since these activities are daiiy pass-
ing from the scene, f r o m practice to memory.

REFERENCES
1. ASCHENBRENNER, S.E. 1971. A study of ritual sponsorship in a Greek village.
Ph.D.dissertation, University of Minnesota.
2. ASCHENBRENNER, S.E. 1972. A contemporary community. In McDonald and
Ram.’
3. ASCHER, R. 1961. Analogy in archaeological interpretation. Southwest Journal of
Anthropology 17: 317-325.
4. BLEGEN, C.W. & M. RAWSON. 1967. The Palace of Nestor at b l o s in Western
Messenia. (2 vols.) Princeton University Press. Princeton, N.J.
5. FORBES, H. & M . FORBES. 1973. Personal communication.
6. GEARING, F. 1968. Preliminary notes on ritual in village Greece. h Contributions to
Mediterranean Sociology. J.G. Peristany, Ed. Mouton. The Hagve; The Netherlands.
7. GEARING, F. n.d. KARDAMILI: Work and Honor in a Greek Village. Unpublished
manuscript.
8. HEIDER. K.G. 1967. Archaeological assumptions and eth~graphicalfacts: A cau-
tionary tale from New Guinea Southwest Journal of Anthropology 23: 52-64.
9. KRAFT, J.C. & S.E. ASCHENBRENNER. 1974. Paleogecgiaphic projections in the
Methoni embayment in southern Greece from Helladic to present time. Paper pre-
sented at annual meetings of Geological Society of Arne*;.
10. KRAFT, J.C., G.R. RAPP & S.E. ASCHENBRENNER. 1375. Late holocene pdeogeo-
graphy of the coastal plain of the gulf of Messenia, Grece, and its relationships to
archaeological settings and to coastal change. Geolcgixl Society of America Bul-
le tin. In press.
11. MATSON, F.R. 1965. Ceramic ecology: An approach to the study of the early cul-
tures of the near east. In Ceramics and Man. F.R. Matson, Ed. Viking Fund Publica-
tions in Anthropology No. 41.
12. MATSON, F.R. 1972. Ceramic studies. In McDonaldand Rapp.”
13. McDONALD, W.A. 1972. Excavations at Nichoci in Messenia: 1969-71. Hesperia
41: 219-273.
14. McDONALD, W.A. & R.H. SIMPSON. 1972. Archaeological exploration. In McDonald
and Rapp.”
15. McDONALD, W.A. & G.R. RAPP. 1972. The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Re-
constructing a Bronze Age Regional Enviroment. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
16. SAUERWEIN, F. 1968. Landschaft, Siedlung uad Wirtschaft lnnermesseniens (Griech-
land). Frankfurt Economic and Social Geogriphical Papers No. 4 J.W. Goethe Uni-
versity.
17. TY LECOTE, R.F. 1962. Metallurgy in Archaeobgy. Edward Arnold. London, England.
18. VALMIN, N. 1938. The Swedish Mersenia Expcdition. Lund, Sweden.
19. VAN WERSCH, H.J. 1972. The ~griculturdXonomy. In McDonald and Rapp.I5
20. VENTRIS, M . & J . CHADWICK. 1956. Doaments in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge, England.