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 by 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 a t 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~pressed .3~8 Ethnography 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. For 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. On Nichoria ridge there are neither wells nor springs and geologists rule out 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 the 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 by the river or 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 the 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 not at hand. Mud-brick construction could be accomplished by using earth dug up from shallow pits near the house or from foundation trenches, and the builder was not required t o have special skills. While none of this settles matters, i t 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

Warnings f r o m Ethnography

161

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 a t 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 no 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 no 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 not 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 no 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 15 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 no 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 a t 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 no 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

( 1 stremma = 0.1 ha or 0.247 acre) DATA FOR OLIVE OIL PRODUCTION^

Calendar of major activities Harvest: November 1 t o January 1 5 Plowing: February 15 t o May 15 Planting: March 1 5 t o May 1 (grafting, cuttings, and balled plants) Fert i l izat ion: March 1 5 to May 1

9 trees/stremma (average), older grafted trees 1 2 trees/stremma (average), newer trees f r o m cuttings and balled plants

By tree and age

Planting density

Oil yield (in heavy harvest year)

Large mature tree: 5 0 k g Medium (30-50 yr) tree: 15-20 kg Small (15-30 yr ) tree: 7-15 kg

By weight o f f ru i t : 4-6 kg f ru i t normally produce 1 k g o i l By area ( for 1,300 stremmata, to ta l area o f communi ty w i th olives

1968: 54.8 kg/stremma 1969: 115 kg/stremma

Pre-1940 heavy harvest year: 12,000 kg 1968 light harvest year: 70,000 k g 1969 Heavy harvest year: 150,000 kg

Plowing (male): 1 manday /4 stremmata Harvesting (male and female): 1 manday /20 kg o i l Pressing (male): 1 manday /70 kg o i l (using only human and animal power)

Tota l for communi ty

Labor (male and female)

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 or 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 OF ACTIVITY 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

Distribution of activity by household, settlement, region Amount of input, output, scrap, labor Frequency of activity occurrence

Sources, distribution and exchange of input and output Personnel, who they are, how skills were acquired, etc, Roles and organization of tasks

Dimensions

Socioeconomic Aspects

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, i t 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, i t 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

TA

BL

E 3

A

RC

HA

EO

LO

GIC

AL

MA

TE

RIA

LS

VS

. A

CT

IVIT

Y 0

RI E

NT

AT

ION

S:

A S

IMP

LIF

IED

SE

LEC

TIO

N O

F M

AT

ER

IAL

S A

ND

AC

TIV

ITIE

S I

NC

LU

SIV

E O

F M

AN

Y C

UL

TU

RA

L P

ER

IOD

S

k A

Pt iu

i tiP

C

, . -. . -

. . .- -

2

Arc

haeo

logi

cal

Hun

ting

and

Fo

od

Pre

para

tion

Spi

nnin

g an

d G

- 2 z 4

Mat

eria

ls

Agr

icul

ture

G

athe

ring

and

Sto

rage

W

eavi

ng

Sto

new

orki

ng

Met

allu

rgy

Chi

ppin

g fl

oo

r K

nive

s, s

crap

ers

Kni

ves,

scr

aper

s de

bris

Bla

des,

sic

kle

and

Axe

, poin

ts,

Chi

pped

sto

ne

sled

ge

scra

pers

Pec

king

sto

ne,

anvil

Gro

und

and

Plo

ugh,

hoe

, axe

, H

oe,

slin

g G

rind

ing

and

Who

rls

carv

ed s

tone

ad

ze

mis

sile

s po

undi

ng to

ols

grin

dsto

ne

Pot

tery

Ter

ra c

otta

obj

ects

Coo

king

and

C

ooki

ng a

nd

Spi

nnin

g b

ow

l st

orag

e ve

ssel

s st

orag

e ve

ssel

s

Who

rls,

loo

m-

wei

ahts

S

ling

mis

sile

s G

rill,

bra

zier

Bro

nze

and

othe

r P

loug

h, a

x, h

oe,

Poi

nts

adze

Cru

cibl

e, tu

yere

~~

i~

~~

,

ne

ed

les

Pun

ch,

Pre

ssur

e-

Ingo

ts,

scra

p V

esse

ls, v

ario

us

tool

s fla

ker

5'

9 nu

ts,

wo

od

nu

ts, w

oo

d

nuts

bas

ketr

y Fa

bric

' fl

ax

Woo

den

tool

s C

harr

ed w

ood

z B

otan

ical

re

mai

ns

Gra

ins,

fru

its,

Gra

ins,

fru

its,

See

ds, o

il, r

esin

,

Ani

mal

rem

ains

D

raft

an

ima

l A

nim

a1,fi

sh b

one

As

foo

d

Leat

her,

nee

dles

~

~~

~~

~,

f$

~~

;

bone

s b

ille

t

Aschenbrenner: Archaeology and Ethnography in Messenia 167

and experienced a t gathering information f rom 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 make him less inclined to impose alien perceptions, thought patterns, assumptions, and categories on the field work data.

Many ethnographers, or course, would be unable to devote so much time to the reconstruction of ancient activity systems. I t is, however, within the power of every ethnographer t o note and s tudy in detail some of the tradit ional activ- ities in Greece with a n eye to their use in archaeological interpretation. A few such at tempts in the.Aegean will contribute immensely. Needless to say, the opportuni ty fo r such s tudy is disappearing, since these activities are daiiy pass- ing

1.

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12. 13.

14.

15.

16.

17. 18. 19. 20.

from the scene, f rom practice to memory.

REFERENCES

ASCHENBRENNER, S.E. 1971. A study of ritual sponsorship in a Greek village.

ASCHENBRENNER, S.E. 1972. A contemporary community. In McDonald and Ph.D.dissertation, University of Minnesota.

Ram.’ ASCHER, R. 1961. Analogy in archaeological interpretation. Southwest Journal of

BLEGEN, C.W. & M. RAWSON. 1967. The Palace of Nestor at b los in Western Anthropology 17: 317-325.

Messenia. (2 vols.) Princeton University Press. Princeton, N.J. FORBES, H. & M . FORBES. 1973. Personal communication. GEARING, F. 1968. Preliminary notes on ritual in village Greece. h Contributions to

Mediterranean Sociology. J.G. Peristany, Ed. Mouton. The Hagve; The Netherlands. GEARING, F. n.d. KARDAMILI: Work and Honor in a Greek Village. Unpublished

HEIDER. K.G. 1967. Archaeological assumptions and eth~graphical facts: A cau- tionary tale from New Guinea Southwest Journal of Anthropology 23: 52-64.

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*;.

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.

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.

MATSON, F.R. 1972. Ceramic studies. In McDonaldand Rapp.” McDONALD, W.A. 1972. Excavations at Nichoci in Messenia: 1969-71. Hesperia

McDONALD, W.A. & R.H. SIMPSON. 1972. Archaeological exploration. In McDonald and Rapp.”

McDONALD, W.A. & G.R. RAPP. 1972. The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Re- constructing a Bronze Age Regional Enviroment. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

SAUERWEIN, F. 1968. Landschaft, Siedlung uad Wirtschaft lnnermesseniens (Griech- land). Frankfurt Economic and Social Geogriphical Papers No. 4 J.W. Goethe Uni- versity.

TY LECOTE, R.F. 1962. Metallurgy in Archaeobgy. Edward Arnold. London, England. VALMIN, N. 1938. The Swedish Mersenia Expcdition. Lund, Sweden. VAN WERSCH, H.J. 1972. The ~griculturd Xonomy. In McDonald and Rapp.I5 VENTRIS, M . & J . CHADWICK. 1956. Doaments in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge

manuscript.

KRAFT, J.C., G.R. RAPP & S.E. ASCHENBRENNER. 1375. Late holocene pdeogeo-

41: 219-273.

University Press. Cambridge, England.