having and holding

8/4/2019 Having and Holding

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/having-and-holding 1/13

Having and Holding: Storage, Memory, Knowledge, and Social Relations

Author(s): Julia A. HendonSource: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 102, No. 1 (Mar., 2000), pp. 42-53Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/683537

Accessed: 09/04/2009 15:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/683537?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/683537?origin=JSTOR-pdf



JULIAA. HENDON

Department f Sociology andAnthropology

GettysburgCollege

Gettysburg,PA 17325

Having and Holding:Storage,Memory, Knowledge,and Social Relations

StartingromGiddens' conceptof mutualknowledge,nthis article argue or anexpandeddefinition f storageas asitu-

atedpractice hroughwhich groupsconstructdentity,remember, nd controlknowledgeas partof a moraleconomy.

Drawingonethnographicndarchaeological xamples romarangeof societies, ncluding hoseof theTrobriandslands,

NeolithicEurope,andMesoamerica, consider hespatialandsocialmeaningof utilitarian, ousehold torage.Manyof

the socialmeanings mbodiedn utilitariantorageare ound oalsoinformotherkindsof storage, specially hosecatego-rized as burialsand votive offerings, or caches. [storage, mutual knowledge,social memory,inalienablewealth,

Mesoamerica]

Storage, Surplus, and Social Complexity

The role of storagehas become partof archaeology's"mutual nowledge"Giddens1993:105-106).We cannot

always easily see storage tself in our archaeological e-

cord,whetherwe thinkof it as anactivityor as a location.

We find it difficult o quantify he amountof surpluspro-ducedannually xceptthrough imulationsbasedonmany

assumptions.Despite these impediments,productionof

surplusand its storageover the long termbecomeactions

that we as archaeologists lmosttakeforgrantedn build-

ingmodelsof the

developmentof social

complexity(seeHalperin1994;Smyth1991;Tringhamn press).Storagebecomes one of those actionsthat both solves a problemforsedentary ocieties andopens upnew possibilities.We

arewillingto infer its existence fromevidence of settled

life, farming,populationgrowth,craftspecialization, o-

cialhierarchies,monumentalrchitecture,rother ignsof

developing complexitybecause we assume that surplusfood creates he foundation or materialwealth.

But if storage is part of our archaeologicalmutual

knowledge,how much moreso wouldit have beena parttheir mutualknowledge-of the people who produced,used,reliedon,transactedor,worriedabout,gloatedover,

in short, houghtand talkedaboutwhatwas beingstored?If mutualknowledge s thatbodyof informationhatpeo-ple, as members of a group,assumethey share,then itmakes communication ndsocial interaction ossibleandthus defines social competency.Since it is through om-munication ndpeople'sactions hatmutualknowledge s

displayed, t is subject o constant eaffirmation,modifica-

tion, and subversion. The dynamic interplaybetween

knowledgeand action makesmutualknowledgesimult

neouslypartof thebackground nd the foreground f so

cial interaction.s itpossiblethatconsidering torageas

componentof mutualknowledgemay helpus understathe interaction etween,on theone hand,material ultuand constructedspace (Bourdieu[1972]1977; Gidden

1993;Rapoport 990),and,onthe otherhand,socialinteactionand moralauthority?t is thesequestions hatI ex

plorein this paper. startwith the more common archa

ologicaldefinitionof storageas an activity nvolvingth

placementof useful material esourcesn specificphysic

locationsagainstfuture need (Halperin1994:167).Thkindof storage s a practice hatrequires ontainers,bot

portable e.g., jars or boxes) andfixed (e.g., buildingso

pits).Suchphysicalobjects,of course,arewhatgivethe ar

chaeologistevidence with which to understandtorageaan element of the grammar f space (Giddens1993;sealso Hodder1986). I firstconsiderethnographic nd ar

chaeologicalexamplesof storagepractices n order o ar

gue that f storage s indeedan elementof mutualknow

edge, it is then also partof the spoken and unspokedialogue throughwhichpeopleconstructandchallengemoralorder.Such a moralorderbecomesa basis forpoweandauthority ndfor validatingor contestingdifferenc

betweenpeople.Exploringhe connectionbetweenstoragand moralauthorityeads me to ask whatwe may learfromextendingour utilitarian efinitionof storage o includeotherkinds of material emains onventionallyee

(by archaeologists) s different, uch as burialsand votiv

offerings.Through hisdiscussion, suggesta further xtension of our ideas of storageto includememoryan

knowledge,an extension hatwouldhave been evidentan

AmericanAnthropologist102(1):42-53. Copyright? 2000, AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation



HENDON / HAVING AND HOLDING 43

reasonable othepeoplewe study.Throughout,try obal-ance "our"mutual knowledge against "their"mutual

knowledge.

Storage as Situated Practice

Studiesof modemdomesticarchitecture ave contrib-

uted to the developmentof an archaeologicalbody ofmutualknowledgethat has been appliedto the studyofancient ocieties see,e.g., Smyth1991;Vogt 1969;Wau-

chope 1938).RobertWauchope 1938), forexample,sur-

veyedcontemporaryMayahouselots in MexicoandGua-temala n the 1930s.His plansanddescriptions ecameafundamental artof discussionsof PrecolumbianMeso-american omestic pace.Inhis plans,Wauchope howedthatfamilyspacewas parceledout into discretekinds of

open or enclosedspaces,manyidentifiedwith particularactivitiesorfunctions.There s thehouse(the"dwelling"),beehives,chickenhouses,a storehouse, pileof marl limeforconstruction), placeto cook, openground, reespro-

vidingfruitandshade,andso on, all surroundedy a neatstonewall(Figure1).

Similar deasabout he use of spaceseem to have ani-matedMesoamericanommunitiesmuch earlier n their

history.Winter's"FormativePeriod householdcluster"

providesanexample Winter1972,1976).Basedon his re-search n the OaxacaValleyof Mexico,Winterproposesthe household cluster as a common form of household

space duringthe Formativeperiod(ca. 1500 B.C.-A.D.

200).Theconstant lements n Winter'shousehold lusterarethedwelling thewalled,roofedstructurewherepeoplesleep)andbell-shaped its dugintothegroundaroundhe

house.Otherelementspresentmayincludeotherkinds ofpits, outdoor ovens, trash heaps (middens), drainageditches,or graves(Figure2). Theabilityof pitsto enduremakesthememblematic f the house orresidential rea ous even when the house itself is not preserved.Winteridentifies wo kindsof depositsn hispits:trashandstores.He (1972:137-138, 154-158) argues hatthe bell-shapedpits were originallyintendedfor storagebased on the

higherfrequencyof maizepollenfromsamplesfromthe

pits,ascomparedo samples romother ontexts;hepres-ence of largeslabs of rock n thebottomsof thepits;andthe occurrence f bits of maize(kernelsandcobs),beans,

avocados, berries,and

legumes.He

suggeststhat

peoplealso usedthem to keepsafe otherkinds of useful orvalu-able materials.Amongthe itemsfound hathe interpretssstoredmaterials, atherhan rash,are bonetools (needlesand handles)and unworkeddeer bones that were beingsaved for laterworking;partof a turtleshelldrum;wingbones from a macaw;grinding tones; ars;andanobjectmadeout of organicmaterialhatmayhaveoriginally eena bundle of sticks or a mat (Winter1972:138-139,150,163-164, 1976:31).WhileWinter's pecificcontextualn-

terpretationsmay be debated, t is nevertheless he casethatother tudiesof pits,sometimesbell-shaped ndsome-times not, at Mesoamerican ites have continued o see

themas a way of concentratingndpreserving esourcessuch as water or particular indsof foods (e.g.,Flannery1976;McAnany1990;Miksicek1991;Puleston1977).

As noted earlier,houses are far less durableat manyFormativeperiodsites thantheir associatedpits, ovens,andgraves.Housesbuilt of wood and roofedwiththatchwould be preyto normalprocessesof decaythatdestroy

Storage Burialpit

Storagepitreused as a Oven

grave X o

Storagepit _ Bw Burial

Storagepit mightcontainmaize,turtleshell,macaw ordeer

bones)

Dwelling

a *

.1a

Figure 1. An example of a contemporary Maya houselot (Chan kom

[Yucatan]) recorded by Robert Wauchope (1938:Fig. 47).

Figure 2. A generalized version of Winter's Formative Period house-

hold cluster.



44 AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, NO. 1 * MARCH 2000

mostorganicmaterials tMesoamerican ites. Butnatural

decomposition xplainsthe disappearancef housesonlyin part.Houses were also burned, ometimesdeliberately(Winter1972:130-137,207-208). Whileburning ssists nthedestruction f wood andthatch,t fires theclayusedtoline wallsandfloors,creating umpsof daub,which,as ar-

chaeologistsknow,preserveverywell (Stevanovic1997).The mplications f deliberate urning f individual ouseshave beenexploredmorefullyin Tringham's1991, 1995,in press) and Stevanovic's (1997) work on Neolithic

(7th-4th millenniumB.C.) communitiesof Southeastern

Europewhere the practice s so common thatarchaeolo-

gistshave abeled he timeperiod he"BurnedHouseHori-zon" (Tringhamn press). Tringhamarguesthatpeopleburned heirhousesregularlyandrepeatedly eforebuild-

ing a new house nearbyas partof a cycle of social and

physicalrenewal.Burning hus was determined y factors

affecting ndividualhouseholds ather han hecommunityas a whole. Herstudyof thesite of Opovo,Yugoslavia, e-

veals thatafterremarkably ompletedestruction,esultingfromfireshotenough o vitrify heclay(Stevanovic1997),the debris was oftendeposited nto wells andpits associ-ated with the house (Tringham1995, in press;see alsoWinter1972).A new house was thenbuiltnearoroverlap-ping the remainsof the old house (Tringham1995).Theidea thathouse andpitshave a connectedmeaning o the

peoplewho builtand used them is suggestedby whatelse

archaeologists ypically find in pits-refuse or humanburials.The accumulation f waste materials n thesepitsresults roma deliberatedecisionon thepartof thehouse-holdto reorient hepits' purpose o a different indof stor-

age and,eventually,o close down the

pitas a

functioningrepository.Pits are not the only way thatpeoplesolve theproblem

of storage,however.Thecontainersn which storedmate-rialsareplacedmaybekept n separate uildings,nroomsset aside nsidehouses,orin specialspaces,suchas closetsor shelves (Halperin 1994; McGaw 1996; Xenophon1923).A high statusresidential one at the Mayasite of

Copan,Honduras, ccupied rom ca. A.D. 650-1000, pro-vides an interestingcase in point (Hendon1987, 1991).Peoplelivedhere n bounded ompoundsmadeupof sev-eral dwellingsfacing inwardonto a commoncourtyard.Storageareas, identifiedby a preponderance f storage

containers,have two different ocations.In a compoundoccupiedbypeopleof veryhighstatusandpoliticalmpor-tance,dwellingshave a singleentranceeading o a mainroomcontaininga built-inbench for sleepingandsitting.Most stored temswereplaced n small,narrow oomsoffthe mainone and which only could be entered romthatmain room.Individualresidences,therefore, ncluded ntheir nterior paceareas orstorageas well as forsleeping,working,andeating.Peopleof moremiddlingstatusandless politicalpowerreliedmoreon smallbuildingsbuilton

platformsocatednextto orbehind heirdwellings.These

dwellingshave mainroomswithbenchesbut ypicallyacthe small side rooms. It seems that the kind of storagspacechanges n concertwith the statusof thepeopleliv

ingintheresidentialompounds.TheCopanexamplesagreewell with,andareamplifie

by, data rom thecontemporaryite of Ceren n El Salva

dor, buriedby a volcanic eruption n about A.D. 60(Sheetset al. 1990).Excavation f severalhouse otsoccu

pied by prosperousarmers hows thatthe use of separastorehouses ontinuesas one movesdown thesocial scalof Maya society (Sheets 1992).l Cerenstorehouses, ikthose atCopan,containmany ars,but thebetterpreservtion atthe former evealsa mix of mundane, aluable, til

tarian, ndspecialobjectsormaterialsplaced ogethern

single structure. torage arsholdingbeans,maize,orcacao sharespace with stringsof chile peppers, umpsowoodash,gourds,baskets,polychrome atingandservinvessels, smallvessels full of redpaint, ade beads,greenstone celts, figurines,spindlewhorls,needles,pieces o

cloth,mats,portableences,incenseburners, ndobsidiatools.Someitems sit on thefloor,otherson shelves,som

hang fromthe ceiling, or, as in the case of the obsidiaknivesandscrapers, re tucked nto the thatchof therooitself. These differences n the location of storagearearaise heissue of thesignificanceof mutualanddifferenti

knowledgen socialrelationswithrespect o theapparentutilitarian ctivityof householdstorage.Decisionsabouthe locationof mundaneactivities, he form of buildingand even the disposalof refusemayall be informedwit

symbolicmeaning hatconstructs nd reflectssocialrelations(Moore1996).

Mutual Knowledge and Place

Physicalspaceacquiresmeaningbecause t is one waof embodyingmutualknowledge.Storage s asituated nlocalized practice (Bourdieu [1972]1977) that informconstructedpaceswithsocialmeaningbased on the connectionspeoplemakebetween he actof storageandsociarelations.Storage s thuspartof the complexrelationshbetweenhumanactorswithina landscape hattheycreatand inhabit. t is understood s partof specificlocales,towhich t givesmeaningand rom which t derivesmeanin(Giddens1985).Throughhe formandplacement f build

ings in thatlandscape,people inscribemarkers f certairelationshipsor identitieson it (Joyce and Hendon in

press).Mutualknowledgedevelopsin the contextof particularsettings.Constructed pace becomes a dynamicontainerorstructuringocialinteraction.t is not a fixedand inertbackdropor a constrainingrame.Just as "th

spatial [is] socially produced ... social life ... is alwaysspatiallydependent(ratherthan spatiallydetermined(Pred1990:10).

The mutualknowledgeabout Mesoamerican toragsharedby contemporary rchaeologists akes the domai




of thefamilyorhouseholdas extendingbeyond hedwell-

ing to includeformalstoragefeatures.Two implicationsfrom hismutualknowledgemayshed ightmoregenerallyon the way thatstorage practices nformsocial relationsand in turnareshapedby them.First,the use of pits dugintotheground,of platforms uiltnexttohouses,orof side

rooms gives us a sense of how residents viewed theiruseableandsociallycontrolled pace.

Second,the repetitiveanddifferentiated atureof stor-

age spacesmusthavebeen as obviousto theirusers as to

us, theirexcavators.The OaxacaValleypeoplestudiedbyWinter,wholivedin a fairlyhomogenous ommunitywithfew apparent ocial distinctions,placedtheirvaluedre-sourcesoutsidebutbelowground,npitscoveredwith ids.

Although hepitsthemselvesare nvisible, helidsbecomemarkers f theirnumberand ocation,evident o anyone nthehouseholdarea.Inthe case of themoresociallydiffer-entiatedMayasociety,thelower to middleechelonsof so-

ciety,as represented tCopanandCeren,continued o putthebulk of theirstoredresources utsideof theirdwellingsbutaboveground n morevisiblebuildings.Higherstatus

Maya at Copan preferred o keep theirresources nsidetheirdwellingswhere heywouldhavebeenmuch ess ob-viousto peoplenot inside the houseitself.I argue hatthedifference n more and less visibleformalstorage pace nthecasesdiscussedhererelates o differences n theappli-cationof an ethic of storage hatvaries nconjunctionwiththeneedto defineandvalidate ocialstatus, eflectinghow

people in differentkinds of society interpret ocial rela-tions and enact social values. The occurrenceof such

spaces,theirnumber,and theirlocationwould be some-

thingthatwouldbe well knownto theresidentsof a com-

munity.Peoplewouldknow thatotherpeoplehavethingsstoredup.Morethan hat,I wouldsuggest hat hisknowl-

edge wouldenter ntotheir nteractionswithothers,either

overtlyorasbackgroundnowledge.Buttheywouldnotallknow thesamethingorhaveac-

cess to the sameknowledgeequally.Through he typeoffixed storagecontainerused,peoplecreatedifferences n

visibility.Whilepoliticallypowerfulelite groupsworkedto makecertainkinds of placesor actions ess visiblebycontrollingmovementand observationhrough he kindsof physicaland symbolicbarriershey constructedLove1999),less exaltedmembersof societyputondisplay heirmaterial esourcesby making heir ocation,albeitnottheir

quantity rtype,obvious,reflecting hegreater oncernofthosenot-on-topwithsociallyappropriateisplay(RathjeandMurphy1992).Thedesire odrawattention othe stor-

agelocationsmayexplainwhytheonesexcavated t Cerenhavefrontwallsthatare muchmorecarefullybuilt han hebackandsides (Sheets 1992).Butby making heirstoragemore visible, lower-rankingmembersof society give to

higherstatusgroupsa kind of knowledge hat s notrecip-

rocatedunless a more ntimateacquaintance ith theintriorsofhighstatusdwellings s achieved.

Storage, Social Memory, and Moral Authority

Themoralaspectsof economicrelations s anenduritopic in anthropological esearch(see Bloch and Par1989;Firth1963;Godelier[1996]1999;Gudeman1981998;Miller1998;Weiner1976, 1992).Figuringout th

culturallyonstructed localmodel" Gudeman 986)witwhichsocieties udgecertainkindsof relations, bjects,otransactions s rightorgood,andothersas wrong,hasle

anthropologistso argue hat"economic elations estupomoral foundations" Firth 1963:144) and that "valu

[give] meaning to the economic system" (1963:154). Discussionsof production, xchange,andconsumptionseGudeman1998)haveput ittleemphasison storage xcepas a required artof theexchangeprocess,where hefocuis primarilyon the surplus presumedto be in stora

(Halperin1994).Modelsthatlook to the relationship etweenpoliticalpowerandinstitutionalizedenerosity,o

example,takethe existence of a controllableurplusas

necessaryprecondition-"the constructionof coalition

requiresheproduction f surpluswealthwhichcanundewritegiftexchange"Brumfiel1994:11; eealsoClarkanBlake1994;HaydenandGargett1990).Storage s mereautilitarianct thatallows,butdoesnotaffect,a set of economicinteractionshat ntersectwithissues of powerancontrol. If we follow Halperin'ssuggestion(1994:167however,thatwe uncouple he studyof storage romth

conceptof surplusproduction,we thenclear hegroundoaconsideration f themoral mplications f storagetself.

Storageacquires moraldimensionbecause t is partotheprocessconnectingresourceswithpeople'sneedsandesires,and because the social evaluationof people o

groupsmaytake ntoaccount heirconnection o thepracticeof storage.Trobriandmenbuildyamhousesnear hehouses butdisplayonly certainyamsin them.Foodyamarekeptin thehouseandusedas needed.Yamsto be ex

changedareput n theyamhouseswhere heymaybe seeandcommented n as evidence of a man'swealthandsocialnetworks.Throughts decoration, ualityof constrution,permanence,ndprominence, man'syamhousesignals his adultstatusand skill in exchangerelationshi

(Weiner1976:138-143,214-215). Trobriand omenhavtheirown formof wealth,bundles of banana eaves an

grass skirts,which are displayedand exchangeddurinmortuaryeremonies.A woman'sstatus s builtprimarithrough hesepublicexchangesandherwealth s notdis

playedexcept duringthe ceremonies.However,"Whe

largebasketsof bundlesandpilesof skirtsarestored n threcesses of houses, women have reputations s 'stronwomen"'(Weiner1976:91).Furthermore,ecausea husbanduses hiswealth yams)to aidhiswife inacquiringhmaterialswithwhichto make her wealth,the yam hous




displaymakes visible the potentialfor achievingwealth

not actually present.Women providesome of the yams

displayedbecause each wife gives her husbandgifts of

yamsproducedor herby her brothern a specialgarden.Theyam displayand thedisplayof leaf bundlesandgrassskirtsexpressactualandpotentialwealth,skillinexchange

relationships,and the interactionbetween husbandandwife (Weiner1976:138-143,210-215).OnewaytheTzotzil-speakingMayaof Mexico definea

domesticgroup s as a set of "kinsmen,iving togethern a

housecompound ndsharing singlemaizesupply"Vogt1969:127).Animportantlement n theirunderstandingf

whatconstitutes family s notonlythe socialties andeco-

nomic nterdependencyhatcreatereasons o sharebutalso

the physicalembodimentof those ties, the maizestoragecontainera raisedbin locatedoutside, n a storehouse, r

in the house [see Miksicek1991;Sheets 1992:83;Smyth1991;Wauchope1938]).Themorallycharged onnection

betweenpeopleandstorage eaturesbecomeseven clearer

in Bernardinode Sahagin's collectionof Aztec wisdomand knowledge, The Florentine Codex (1953-1982). One

sectiondescribescategoriesof peoplebasedon age, gen-der,socialstatus,andoccupation.These normativemoral

judgementscontrast he "good"person,who displaysthe

positiveattributesssociatedwith his or hertype,withthe

"bad."A goodfather whois nota memberof thenobility)is one who "storesup forhimself;he storesup for others.

He caresfor his assets;he savesforothers .. he savesfor

the future"Sahagun1953-1982, 10:1).Manysuchfathers

were farmersandwe aretold, the good farmer"fillsthe

maize bin" Sahaguin953-1982, 10:42).While socialnormsfor lower-classAztec men

empha-size theirrole as saversand storersof material oods,those

for womenin the samesocialclass focus on theirroles as

wise usersof resources or the benefit of theirhousehold

(e.g., Sahagun1953-1982, 10:2--12).Despitethefact that

they do not, in this normative cheme,put stuffinto stor-

age,womenarestillsymbolically inked o the contentsof

storagecontainers.A riddleasks,"What s thatwhich s anold woman with hairof strawstandingat the house en-

trance?" Sahagun1953-1982, 6:238). The answer,"themaize bin,"connectspeople who are old (andtherefore

worthyof respect)andfemale(andthereforehemanagerof storedresources)with the food that s the sacred ource

of life. These differences n responsibilityowardstoredgoods, andespeciallyfood, situatethe Aztecs within the

largerMesoamericandeal of the householdeconomyinwhichgenderprovidesa complementaryivisionof labor,

throughwhichmenproduceand women transformBurk-hart 1992; Hendon 1997, 1999). The wise conservationand use of resourceswithin he householdcontinue he as-sociation of differentroles andresponsibilitieswith each

gender.2The connection between the family and storageextends

to children.Aztec childrenwho die in infancyshould be

"buried n frontof the maize bin, for this signifieth ha

they go to a good place,a fineplace,because heyare stilas preciousgreenstones,still as preciousbracelets; til

pure, they become as precious turquoises" (Sahagu1953-1982, 4:116).Babies have not hadtime to be contaminatedby the realities of living on earth(Burkha

1989);they are like the preciousmaterials,ade and turquoise,and husareburied s close tothe container oldinthe most valuedandsymbolically ignificant ood,maize

Thus, hegoodAztec farmer ills themaizebin thatguardthe gravesof his infant childrenand which is identifiewith the respected emale membersof his family.Maiz

bins, like Trobriand am houses,are symbolsof genderhousehold elations, nd he future.

Food is of courseperishable nd cannotstayin storagindefinitely.Maizewill be at rest n the maize binonlyfoa while (albeita rather ong while since properly toremaize may keep up to threeyears [Smyth1991:25]), n

volving the farmer n a constantprocessof putting n so

thathis wife maytake out foodfordailymeals,weddingfunerals,and other events requiring ood. Since Aztefarmers ived in a stratified ociety with politicalpoweconcentratedn the handsof a centralized, ristocraticovernment,heyalso drewon theirmaizebinsto satisfysomof the state's ribute emands.Yams can bekeptondisplafor six monthsat most before heybecomeunusable Weiner1976:138).Taro,anothermportantrop nMelanesirots much morequicklyand cannot become partof thkind of exchange relationship hat yams embody. Th

memory f taro,however,maybe conservedbyremembe

ingthegenealogiesof particular lants Weiner1992:38).Thejade beads andgreenstone elt in one Cerenstore

house, andthe incense burners ound in several of thosdescribedby Sheets, show us thatstorage s about morthan ood(whether urplus rnot)or,morebroadly,usefuitems.They speak o us aboutboththeissueof inalienabwealthand therole of memory Weiner1992).Exchangeconomies are as much aboutholding onto as they araboutgiving away.Weiner'sparadoxof "keeping-whilgiving"shows us thatgenerositys onlyonewaythatpeople enmeshed n competitivegift-givingrelationshipsanbind others o them.Peoplenotonlywish to give,theyalsowish to retainvaluedobjects, o keepthem"transcendeandout of circulationn the faceof all thepressureso give

them to others"(Weiner 1992:7). Such objects acquirtheirvalue fromtheirhistory, heirassociationwithvalue

people,and their nalienability. ossessionof suchobjectredoundsback on the possessor,who acquiresprestigthroughownershipof notjust the objectitself but of th

historyand memorythe object incarnates.While seven

jade beadsmay seem a ratherpicayuneset of inalienab

possessionswhen compared o the feathercloaks of th

Maori,the fine mats of the Samoans, he coppersof th

Kwakiutl, rthe ade bodyornaments f theMayanobilitytheirpresence n one farming amily's storehouseargue




that hedesire o retainvaluedobjectsaroundwhichmem-

oryaccrues s notrestrictedo oneparticularocialclassorcenteredon only one kindof object.Thesebeads, iketheYurokheirloomsdiscussedby Joyce (in press),mayhaveservedas embodiments f familyand househistory.Their

possessionservedto set thatfamilyapart romthe others.

Whenarchaeologistsinda storagearea,we have foundapartof thesociallandscapehat, o thepeoplewhouseditand to thepeoplewho sawit ortalkedabout t,hadthepo-tentialto holdtheentirespectrum f objectsthatsymbol-ized a household'scoherenceandidentity.Through tor-

age, past householdlabor is preserved, he potentialoffuture aborembodied,and the different(anddifferentlyvalued)contributions f womenandmenactualized.

Imagining the Hidden Dimensions of Social and

Physical Space

Given the abilityof formalstoragecontainers o sym-

bolize positive values, why, then, are storagelocationssometimesmadeless visible,as in the case of thehigheststatusCopanresidences?Earlier, suggested hatonewayfor the elite to reinforce heirpoweris through estrictionandcontrol.Love(1999)shows howthedesignof "public"space channelsmovementand restrictswhat can be ob-served as political powerbecomes morecentralized.Thehiddenstorage n dwellingsapplies he sameprinciples othe residentialcompound.Such spatialsecrecy and con-tainmentvisibleata Mayasitefinds a paralleln normsofAztec elite behaviorandattitude.Admiredqualities n thenoble men and womeninclude eadership, arefor one's

subordinates,ndpiety.Butself-effacement, toicism,and

strictcontrol n publicalso arelauded."Theone of noblelineage wishes no praise; [he is] one who magnifies,praises,exalts,commends others].... Thebad oneof no-ble lineage... bragsof his noblelineage,... boastsof hisnoble estate, ... belittles others" (Sahaguin 1953-1982,

10:21).Youngmenandwomenof the eliteareexpected odressmodestlyandkeepfrombeingnoticed n public Sa-haguin1953-1982, 6:87-126). Storinggoods inside the

dwellingresonateswiththeMesoamericandealof elitere-straintwhilealso givingmorecontrol o its residentsoverwhat kind of informationhey give out aboutwhattheypossess. Knowledge tself becomes a way of differentiat-

ingpeople.Sheets(1992)argues hatobsidianknivesandbladesarehidden in the thatchof the roof of storehouses andthe

dwelling)because heyarevaluable obsidianbeinganim-

portedmaterial) nddangerous,specially o childrenwho

mightcutthemselveson thesharp dges.Concealedwithinthis pragmaticnterpretation,owever,arethe seeds of a

greaterunderstandingf therole of thehidden nbothfam-

ily andcommunityife. Hidingawaysharp ools shows usthat not all membersof a householdknow whereevery-thingis storedorwhat thehouseholdpossesses.Theneed

to protectsome familymembers romobjectsthat coul

endanger hemextendsto knowledge tself. In the PopoVuh,a sixteenth-centuryQuiche (Maya) document,th

youngprotagonists,heHeroTwins,learn rom a rat3htheir ather'sballgameequipment as beenin theirgranmother'shousewheretheyhavelived all their ives (Ted

lock 1996:111-112). The equipmentwas stored out osight in the raftersof the house.Theirgrandmothernmotherdeliberatelyoncealed heequipmentromthem

protect heboys.Thedangernherentnpossessingandus

ing theequipment omesnotfrom theobjects hemselvor thenature f thegame,but rom hepossibilityof angeing theLordsof theUnderworld,who havealready acrficed thetwins' fatheranduncleforlosinga game playeagainst hesedeities.Inorder oretrieve heequipment,htwinsmusthide theiractions rom theirgrandmothern

mother,and thus deprivethem, at least briefly, of th

knowledge hat heobjectshave beentakenoutof storageDepositswhose contentsareintentionally iddenfrom

view andwhose locationmay or may not be markedarnot limited to householdgoods (Figure3). Two otheformsof storageareroutinelyoundby archaeologists nform animportant artof ourmutualknowledgeabout h

past:burialsandcaches.Some of thesedeposits, ike thcoin andmetalhoardsof European rehistory, avebee

interpreted s a kind of utilitariantorage,either to safe

guardvaluablesor to preservequantitiesof materials olateruse(Bradley1990,whoargues hathoardsmaynotbas utilitarian s oftenassumed).However,manydeposiareclearlynotdesigned oreasyretrieval, uch as the ob

jects found n European iversand akes orthe onesburie

insidebuildingsduring onstructionnMesoamerica. ucofferings,often referred o as votiveofferingsor cachedisplay a considerablematerialand conceptualoverlawithburials Becker1992;Bradley1990;ChaseandChas

1998).Formy purposes, hey may be discussedtogethebecausecachesandburialsbothserveas a kindof storagthatfocusesmemoryandpracticewithina particularpatial framework.Like storagecontainerssuch as storehouses or pits, burialsandcachesare spotson the land

scape that are remembered.Their presence informs alocale withmeaning.

As a form of storage,burialsandcaches combine thmaterialwith the moral.

Theyarelike storehouses n tha

theyare oci where tems,andsometimespeople,of material and symbolic value are depositedand guarded.Al

thougharchaeologicalmutualknowledge akes a burial obe symptomaticf thedeceased's tatuswhilealive,the acof burying omeone s as muchabout heattitudes nd decisionsof theliving,reflectingwhattheywishto do aboua person's death and how they wish to remember i

(Bradley1990:39,94, 197-198).Burialof people in storagepits makesthe most litera

connection between storage and burial. Although we




Figure 3. Mutualknowledgemadevisible in two highstatusresidential ompoundsatCopan,Honduras.

sometimes assume such a burial location results from

chanceorconvenience, uchanassumptionmaybeimpos-ing ourown notionsof whatconstitutesa properocation.

Moore (1996) has shown that people attach symbolic

meaning o all aspectsof theirspatialworld, ncluding e-fuse (see also Rathje and Murphy 1992). Bradley(1990:161-166)argues hatburials n grainbins found at

some IronAge European ites representdeliberatedeci-

sions by people to associate a personwith the locus of

groupsustenance.Burialsarea commonenough eatureof

pitsin some areas orarchaeologistso questionwhat wasthe originaluse-storage receptacleor grave? Hunter-Tate's (1994) small but consistentsamplefromCaracol,Belize, for example,containsat least one burial n everychultun large,oftenmulti-chamberedits found at manyMayasites)investigated,eadingherto argue hat hepitswere created o begraves,at leastduring heearlyperiodof

occupationof the site,rather hanas storagecontainers sothers have argued(Miksicek1991;Puleston1977).Ontheotherhand, hepresenceof rectangular,hallowgraves

as the morecommonmode of burial n Winter'sOaxac

research, oupledwith thepollenandartifact ata rom he

bell-shaped its,suggesta conversion. nfact,our nabilitto determinewhich is the "real" r "primary"unctionof

pits containing urialsmaynotbeonlydue to a lackof datbutmayreflecta realconflationof meaningby theircreators.

Cachesmay be associatedwith naturalor constructe

featuresof the landscape, uch as lakes, caves,temples,orhouses(Bradley1990;ChaseandChase1998;Joyce1992Hendon 1991). They may be placedwhen a building sbuilt or when it is renovated r destroyed Garber1983)Theyoftencontain"wealth,"uchas metal n Europeand

jade in Mesoamerica.But theircontentsalso have a rich

symbolism hatmay,forexample, reaterepresentationsfhow the cosmos is structuredJoyce 1992).Sequesterinvaluables n cacheshas been interpreteds an attempt oremove suchwealthfromcirculation n order o diminish

supply n theface of a steadyorincreasingdemand Garber 1983). Puttingvaluables in this sort of religiousl




charged storagedoes remove them from exchange, al-

thoughnot,asJoyce(1992)hasargued,romcontinuingobe partof ritual ventscarriedoutafter heirdeposition. f

theyareremembered, bjects n cachesare notoutof cir-

culation, heyare inalienable.One way to solve Weiner's

paradoxs to transformwealth ntoritualobjects(Weiner

1992;see also Godelier 1996]1999;Joyce npress).Knowledgeof thepresenceof caches,burials, ndstores

of useful or valuablecommodities nsideroomsor store-housesrepresents nowledgeof a hiddendimensionof so-cialandphysicalspace.Itis mutualknowledge hatpeoplesharebutnotequally-some peopleknow morethanoth-

ers, or have moreprecise knowledge.Burials, ike store-

houses,maybe more or less visible,andthedegreeof thisovertvisibilityrelates ikewise to power.InMesoamerica,the locationof certainburials s oftenmadeobviousby theconstructionof a large structureover or around them

(McAnany1998).Justas information bout he actionsof

only certainpeopleare recorded n the hieroglyphicexts

on Maya publicmonuments Marcus1992), so are onlycertaingraves(andoften of the same people).But othermembers f societyalso remembered ndmarked heloca-tions of burialsandcaches of significanceo them.

In one highstatuscompoundatCopan,a doubleburialwasplacedbelow thepatiofloor with two rockslabs cov-

eringthebodies. Insteadof repaving hepatio, hemourn-ers left the slabsexposedso that wheneverone looked atthatcomer of thepatioone would see the evidence of theburial Hendon t al. 1990).Probablyhe mostfamousex-

amples of reinforcingmemory throughvisual cues inMesoamericaknownto archaeologistss thatof Offering

No. 4 fromLaVenta,anOlmecsite inMexico(Drucker tal. 1959:152-161).Sixteen stone figurinesand six celtswerearrangedo forma tableau epresentingomesort ofritualaction.Thistableauwas coveredwithsandandhid-denfromviewby a floor. At a laterpoint n theoccupationof thesite,the floorwascutthrough nd he fill removed o

expose ustthetopsof thefigures.Then hehole wasfilledback n andthefloorrepaired.Theaccurate lacement nd

sizingof the hole arguesthat the diggershadan idea not

only of thecache's existence but also of its approximatelocation.

Burialsand cachescan be dynamicdeposits.Theprac-tice of reopening raves o putnew bodies n, or takebod-

ies out, is found at a numberof ancient Old and NewWorldsettlements Chesson1999;Kuijt1996;McAnany1998).In thesamehighstatus esidential ompound tCo-

pan where the exposed burialwas found, the residents

placeda formal omb nside a building hat heythencov-eredover witha new versionof thedwelling.Later,before

constructing thirdversion,someoneuncovered hetomb,openedit, removed he body andany contents, illed thetomb with dirt, resealedit, placed an offeringof poly-chromevessels ontopof thecapstones, nd henproceeded

with the construction f the new version of the buildin(Hendonet al. 1990).Tombs areoftendesigned o faciltate this movement n and out (Chaseand Chase 1998Smith1962),a movement hatparallelshe mostbasicaction associatedwiththestorehouse.

The acts of adding,removing,orviewing integratesh

burialorcache intotheongoingconstruction ndrenewof memorythroughwhichprestige s createdandpowevalidated.The existenceof inalienablewealth, heconnectionof thelivingto the valueddead,andtheability o controlthatknowledgedifferentiate roupswithina commu

nity. Burials, caches, and storehouses are part of thcreationof socialmemoryby groups.Theprocessof creation occurs at many levels, includingthat of the huma

body itself, objects,andplaces.Body ornamentationn

markingnscribedentityandrelations n the humanbodyThevisibilityof thesemodifications penthemuptosocia

comment,creatinghistoriesvital to the production f social memory Joyce1998).Objectsacquirevaluebecaus

they embody memory and knowledge (Weiner 199256-60). Theyareawayto ensure hecontinuation f mem

oryaboutpeopleandrelationshipshat,unlikebodymar

ing, is separable rom the person. Prestige is not onlmarkedby thepossessionand use of valuedobjects,especially inalienablewealth,but is createdand negotiatthroughheknowledgeandmemory iedupin theobjectIn orderto manufacture istories,others need to noticcommenton,and nterpret. osmanandRubel(1971:178argue hat heNorthwestCoastpotlatchhas no meaningnotobservedby witnesses.Witnessesneedtoagree hat hevent was successful n order or it to be knownand re

memberedas a such.5An unavoidableension exists betweenthe desireto preserve ecrecy,whichmay promoauthority(Weiner 1992:106), and sharinginformatiowhichauthenticatesctionsand ntent.

While Weiner's argumentfocuses on the object a

memorymadevisible,sometimesmemoryandobjectar

separated,withmemory tselfbecominga formof cultur

capital.Malanganareobjectsproducedn severalNew IrelandIslandsocietiesfor funerals.They featurea rich im

ageryand are well representedn Westernartmuseum

Despite their visual elaboration and aesthetic appeamalanganare meantto be ephemeral.They must be de

stroyed or sold to outsiders) hortlyaftera funeralcere

mony is completed. Because they are not preserveknowledgeof how to createanddecoratea new malangacomesonlythroughhememory,memory hat s validonlif comingfrompeoplewhostand n aparticularinship e

lationship o the dead (Kuchler1987, 1988). Peoplebecomerepositories f knowledge ustas storehouses rere

positoriesof theobjects hatembodymemory."Thegooweaver of designs is skilled ... a person of good memory(Sahagun1953-1982,10:51). The physician is]a knoweof herbs,of roots,of trees,of stones,she is experiencedn




these ... she is a woman of experience" (Sahagun

1953-1982, 10:53). As a source of livelihood, prestige, and

power, such knowledge is something to be guarded,shared, or hidden. Those at the center of political control

may privilege certain knowledge over others. Only certain

actions by certain people may be written down or remem-

bered through officially sanctioned oral histories. Butevery farmer, every weaver, every goldsmith, every di-

viner, and every midwife is privy to some body of knowl-

edge that is not accessible to others unless shared (Hendon

1999; Tedlock 1982). Because knowledge of this sort is

often entirely stored in memory, it is subject to loss

(Kiichler 1987) but also to "strategicrememberingand de-

liberateforgetting"(Melion and Kuchler 1991:30).

Places, like people and objects, also incarnate, fix, and

reiterate social memory. By creating andmodifying a land-

scape of natural and built forms, groups constructa settingthat gives concrete, permanent expression to relationshipsand identities (Joyce and Hendon in press). Such spaces are

given meaning throughtheir form and the action that takes

place in them (Bourdieu [1972]1977; Giddens 1993;Moore 1996; Pred 1990). Because not all action is ob-

served by all, at least partof what comprises a group's mu-

tual knowledge is imagined. Anderson (1991:6) has writ-

ten, "all communities are imagined." That imaginationcoalesces aroundand is given shape by places, objects, and

systems of knowledge (Anderson 1991:ch. 10). Storage ar-

eas, burials, and caches provide one set of features to be

imagined, remembered, and discussed. The people at Co-

pan who left the grave visible, at Ceren who enhanced the

front walls of their storehouses, and at Opovo who sited

new houses to overlap with old ones, share a concern withensuring the persistence of certain memories and manag-

ing their contribution to mutual knowledge. Archaeologi-cal mutual knowledge has typically seen the kinds of stor-

age discussed here as belonging to separate spheres of

society, but such a separation dces not adequately reflect

the perspective of the people themselves. Storage, whether

"utilitarian"or "ritual,"raises issues of secrecy, memory,

prestige, and knowledge thathelp construct the moral sys-tem within which people live.

Notes

Acknowledgments.This articleis an

expandedand revised

versionof a paperpresentedat the 64th AnnualMeetingof the

Society for AmericanArchaeology, Chicago, in the sessionThe Social Contextof Food Storage.I would like to thank he

organizerof thesession, IanKuijt, or theinvitation o partici-pate.Thecomments of GailAnnRickertandRosemaryJoyceon earlierdraftsof the articleare muchappreciated.Responsi-bility for the ideas expressed n the final version restsentirelywith theauthor.

1. The Cerendataalsoprovidea moredynamicsense of the

processof storing,showing it to be, as we would expect buthave haddifficulty demonstratingrom less completearchae-

ologicalremains,a processof puttingstuff in andtakingstufout constantly(see Xenophon 1923). Storageat Ceren is no

restricted o the formalspacebuiltfor it but also occursin th

dwellings and kitchens. Nor is the storehouseonly a passivspace designed to hold materials.Maize grinding,for exam

ple, tookplacein at leastone storehouse tudied.2. Moore's (1996:116-118) discussion of how the Endo o

Kenya attributedifferentattitudes toward resources to meand women was influential n my looking at genderandstor

age in this way. The Endo see women as producingand con

suming resources for their own ends whereas men producand use resources for the good of larger groupsof kin. Al

thoughthis reflects the realities of the mode of productionntheirsociety, and women are expected to be responsiblefo

farming for their own family, nevertheless this characterizationcarriesa negativeconnotation.A morecomplementary, although also more hierarchical (unlike householeconomiesin Mesoamerica),view of thegenderedroles is ex

pressedby a dialoguebetween a Greekgentlemanand his wifon estatemanagement:

"It would surpriseme,"answeredmy wife, "if the leader'activities did not concernyou more than me. Formy care othe goods indoors and my managementwould look rathe

ridiculous .. if you did not see thatsomething s gatherein from outside.""Andmy ingatheringwould look ridiculous," countere"if there were not someone to keep what is gathered n.

[Xenophon1923:427]

3. The rat was caught raiding he boys' garden.It offers to

tell theboys a secretif theywill let himgo. Once the secret i

revealed,the rat is rewardedby being given permission o ea

from the family's (andby extension,all farmers')stores:" 'I

anything .. is storedorgets wasted,thengnaw away,' the ra

was toldby [the twins]"(Tedlock 1996:111).4. It is interesting o note thatseveralpieces of ceremonia

regaliaassociatedwith theballgamefound in one of thehighest statuscompoundsat Copan appearto have fallen from

storageplacein the roofwhen thebuildingcollapsed(Websteet al. 1986).

5. The film Man WithoutPigs (1990, Ronin Films) illustratesvividly the dependenceof a feast-giveron the assessment of hisguestsandassistants.

References Cited

Anderson,Benedict1991

ImaginedCommunities:Reflectionson theOriginan

Spread f Nationalism.Revisededition.London:Verso.

Becker,MarshallJ.1992 Burials sCaches,Cachesas Burials:A NewInterpre

tionof theMeaningof RitualDepositsamong heClassicPeriodLowlandMaya. n New Theorieson theAncientMayaElin C. DanienandRobert .Sharer, ds.Pp. 185-196. Uni

versityMuseumMonograph, 7. Philadelphia: he Univer

sityMuseum,University fPennsylvania.Bloch, Maurice,andJonathanParry

1989 Introduction:Moneyand theMorality f Exchange. n

Moneyand the Moralityof Exchange.JonathanParryan




MauriceBloch,eds.Pp. 1-32. Cambridge:CambridgeUni-

versityPress.

Bourdieu,Pierre

[1972]1977 Outlineof a Theoryof Practice.RichardNice,trans.Cambridge: ambridge niversity ress.

Bradley,Richard1990 The Passageof Arms:An ArchaeologicalAnalysisof

PrehistoricHoardsandVotiveDeposits.Cambridge:Cam-

bridgeUniversityPress.

Brumfiel,ElizabethM.1994 FactionalCompetitionndPoliticalDevelopmentnthe

New World:An Introduction.nFactionalCompetition nd

Political Developmentin the New World. ElizabethM.

BrumfielandJohnW.Fox,eds.Pp.3-13. Cambridge: am-

bridgeUniversityPress.

Burkhart,LouiseM.1989 TheSlipperyEarth:Nahua-Christian oralDialoguen

Sixteenth-CenturyMexico. Tucson:Universityof Arizona

Press.1992 Mujeres mexicas en "el frente" del hogar: trabajo

domesticoy religi6nen el Mexico azteca.Mesoamerica23:23-54.

Chase,DianeZ., andArlen F. Chase1998 TheArchitectural ontext fCaches,Burials, ndOther

RitualActivities or theClassicPeriodMaya asReflectedat

Caracol,Belize).In Function ndMeaning n ClassicMayaArchitecture.tephenD. Houston, d. Pp.299-332. Wash-

ington,DC:Dumbarton aks.

Chesson,MeredithS.1999 Libraries ftheDead:EarlyBronzeAgeCharnelHouses

andSocialIdentity tUrbanBabedh-Dhra', ordan. ournal

ofAnthropological rchaeology 8:137-164.

Clark,JohnE., andMichaelBlake

1994 ThePowerof Prestige:CompetitiveGenerosity nd heEmergenceof RankSocieties n LowlandMesoamerica.nFactionalCompetitionndPoliticalDevelopmentn theNew

World.ElizabethM. BrumfielandJohnW. Fox, eds. Pp.17-30.Cambridge: ambridge niversityPress.

Drucker,Philip,RobertF. Heizer,andRobertJ.Squier1959 Excavationsat La Venta,Tabasco,1955. Bureauof

AmericanEthnologyBulletin170.Washington,DC:Gov-

ernment rintingOffice.

Firth,Raymond1963 Elements fSocialOrganization.oston:BeaconPress.

Flannery,KentV.1976 TheEarlyFormativeHouseholdClusteron theGuate-

malanPacificCoast. In The EarlyMesoamericanVillage.KentV.Flannery,d.Pp.31-34. NewYork:AcademicPress.

Garber, amesF.1983 Patterns f JadeConsumption ndDisposalat Cerros,

Northern elize.AmericanAntiquity 8:800-807.Giddens,Anthony

1985 Time,Space,andRegionalisation.n SocialRelationsandSpatialStructures. erekGregory ndJohnUrry, ds.Pp.265-295. NewYork:St.Martin's ress.

1993 TheGiddensReader.PhilipCassell,ed. PaloAlto,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

Godelier,Maurice

[1996]1999 TheEnigmaof the Gift.NoraScott,trans.Ch

cago:University fChicagoPress.

Gudeman,Stephen1986 Economics sCulture:ModelsandMetaphorsfLivel

hood.London:Routledge ndKeganPaul.1998 Introduction. n Economic Anthropology.Steph

Gudeman,d.Pp.xi-xviii.TheInternationalibraryfCritcal Writings n Economics,99. Cheltenham,UK:Edwa

ElgarPublishing.Halperin,RhodaH.

1994 Cultural conomiesPastandPresent.Austin:Universiof TexasPress.

Hayden,Brian,andRobGargett1990 Big Man, Big Heart?A MesoamericanView of th

Emergenceof Complex Society.AncientMesoamerica13-20.

Hendon,JuliaA.1987 TheUses of MayaStructures: Studyof Architectu

and ArtifactDistribution t Sepulturas,Copan,HondurPh.D.

dissertation,Department f Anthropology,HarvaUniversity.AnnArbor,MI:UniversityMicrofilms.1991 StatusandPower nClassicMayaSociety:AnArche

logicalStudy.AmericanAnthropologist3:894-918.1997 Women'sWork,Women'sSpaceandWomen'sStat

amongtheClassicPeriodMayaEliteof theCopanValleHonduras. n Women in Prehistory:NorthAmericaanMesoamerica.CherylClaassen ndRosemaryA. Joyce,ed

Pp.33-46. Philadelphia: niversity fPennsylvaniaress.1999 MultipleSourcesof PrestigeandtheSocialEvaluati

of Womenin PrehispanicMesoamerica.n MaterialSymbols:Culture ndEconomy nPrehistory.ohnRobb,ed.Pp257-276. OccasionalPaper,26. Carbondale: enter or Ar

chaeologicalnvestigations,outhernllinoisUniversity.

Hendon,JuliaA., RicardoAgurciaF.,WilliamL.Fash,Jr.,andEloisaAguilarP.

1990 Excavaciones en 9N-8, Conjuntodel Patio C. I

Proyecto rqueol6gicoCopan egundaase:Excavacionesel areaurbana eCopan,Tomo2.WilliamT.Sanders,d.Pp11-109.Tegucigalpa:ecretariaeEstado nelDespachodCultura Turismo, nstitutoHondurefio e AntropologiaHistoria.

Hodder, an1986 Reading hePast:CurrentApproachesoInterpretat

inArchaeology.Cambridge: ambridge niversity ress.Hunter-Tate,ClarissaC.

1994 TheChultuns f Caracol.n Studies ntheArchaeologof Caracol,Belize.DianeZ. ChaseandArlenF. Chase,eds

Pp.64-75. Pre-ColumbianrtResearchnstituteMonograp7. SanFrancisco: re-Columbian rtResearchnstitute.

Joyce,RosemaryA.1992 IdeologynAction:ClassicMayaRitualPractice. nAn

cientImages,AncientThought:TheArchaeologyof Ideo

ogy. A. SeanGoldsmith,SandraGarvie,DavidSelin,anJeannette mith,eds. Pp.497-506. Proceedings f the23rAnnualChacmoolConference.Calgary:Archaeological ssociation ftheUniversity fCalgary.

1998 PerformingheBodyinPre-Hispanic entralAmericRes:AnthropologyndAesthetics 3:147-165.



52 AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, NO. 1 * MARCH2000

Inpress Heirlooms ndHouses:MaterialityndSocialMem-

ory.In BeyondKinship:Social and MaterialProductionn

House Societies.RosemaryA. JoyceandSusanD. Gillespie,eds.Philadelphia:niversity fPennsylvania ress.

Joyce, RosemaryA., andJuliaA. HendonInpress Heterarchy, istory, ndMaterialReality:"Commu-

nities"in Late Classic Honduras. n TheArchaeology

of

Communities:A New WorldPerspective.Marcello-Andrea

Canuto ndJasonYaeger, ds.London:Routledge.Ktichler,Susanne

1987 Malangan:Art andMemory n a MelanesianSociety.Man22:238-255.

1988 Malangan:Objects,Sacrifice and the Productionof

Memory.AmericanEthnologist 5:625-637.

Kuijt,Ian1996 NegotiatingEqualityhroughRitual:AConsiderationf

LateNatufianandPrepotteryNeolithicA PeriodMortuaryPractices.Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 15:

313-336.

Love, Michael

1999 Ideology,MaterialCulture, ndDaily Practice n Pre-classic Mesoamerica:A PacificCoastPerspective.nSocial

Patternsn Pre-ClassicMesoamerica. avidGroveandRose-

maryA.Joyce,eds.Pp.127-153.Washington,DC:Dumbar-

tonOaks.MarcusJoyce

1992 RoyalFamilies,RoyalTexts:Examplesrom heZapo-tec andMaya.In Mesoamerican lites:An ArchaeologicalAssessment.Diane Z. Chaseand Arlen F. Chase,eds. Pp.221-241. Norman:University f Oklahoma ress.

McAnany,PatriciaA.1990 WaterStoragen the PuucRegionoftheNorthernMaya

Lowlands:A KeytoPopulationEstimates ndArchitectural

Variability.nPrecolumbianopulationHistoryntheMayaLowlands. T. PatrickCulbertand Don S. Rice, eds. Pp.263-284. Albuquerque:niversity fNewMexicoPress.

1998 AncestorsandtheClassicMayaBuiltEnvironment.n

Function ndMeaningnClassicMayaArchitecture.tephenD. Houston, d.Pp.271-298. Washington,DC: Dumbarton

Oaks.

McGaw,JudithA.1996 ReconceivingTechnology:Why FeminineTechnolo-

gies Matter. n Gendern Archaeology:Essaysin Research

andPractice.RitaP.Wright, d.Pp.52-75. Philadelphia:ni-

versityofPennsylvaniaress.

Melion,Walter,andSusanneKiichler1991 Introduction:Memory,Cognition,andImageProduc-

tion. In Imagesof Memory:On Remembering ndRepre-sentation. usanneKiichler ndWalterMelion,eds.Pp.1-46.

Washington,DC:Smithsoniannstitutionress.

Miksicek,CharlesH.1991 The Naturaland CulturalLandscapeof Preclassic

Cuello. nCuello:AnEarlyMayaCommunitynBelize.Nor-manHammond,d.Pp.70-84. Cambridge: ambridgeUni-

versityPress.

Miller,Daniel1998 A Theoryof Shopping. thaca,NY:CornellUniversity

Press.

Moore,HenriettaL.

1996 Space,Text,andGender:AnAnthropological tudyo

theMarakwet f Kenya.NewYork:Guilford ress.

Pred,Allan1990 MakingHistoriesand ConstructingHumanGeogra

phies:TheLocalTransformationfPractice, owerRelation

andConsciousness.Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.

Puleston,Dennis E.1977 An ExperimentalApproacho the Functionof Classi

MayaChultuns. nExperimental rchaeology.DavidIngersoll, John E. Yellen, and William MacDonald,eds. Pp79-102. NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity ress.

Rapoport,Amos1990 Systemsof ActivitiesandSystemsof Settings. n Do

mestic Architecture nd theUse of Space:An Interdiscip

nary Cross-CulturalStudy. Susan Kent, ed. Pp. 9-20

Cambridge: ambridge niversity ress.

Rathje,WilliamL., andCullenMurphy1992 Rubbish!TheArchaeology fGarbage. ewYork:Har

perCollins.

Rosman,Abraham, nd PaulaG. Rubel1971 FeastingwithMineEnemy:RankandExchange mon

NorthwestCoastSocieties.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversitPress.

Sahaguin, ernardino e1953-1982 FlorentineCodex:GeneralHistoryof theThing

of New Spain.Arthur .O.Anderson ndCharlesE.Dibbletrans.Monographs f the School of AmericanResearch ndthe Museumof New Mexico,no. 14,parts1-13. SantaFeNMandSaltLakeCity:Schoolof AmericanResearch nd h

University fUtah.

Sheets,PaysonD.1992 The Ceren Site:A PrehistoricVillageBuriedby Vol

canic Ash in CentralAmerica.Orlando:Holt, Rinehart, ndWinston.

Sheets,PaysonD., HarrietF.Beaubien,MarilynBeaudry,AndreaGerstle,BrianMcKee,C.DanMiller,Hartmutpetzler,and David B. Tucker

1990 HouseholdArchaeology tCeren,ElSalvador.Ancien

Mesoamerica:81-90.

Smith,A. Ledyard1962 Residentialand AssociatedStructures t Mayapan. n

Mayapan,Yucatan,Mexico.H. E. D.Pollock,RalphL.RoysTatiana roskouriakoff,ndA. Ledyard mith.Pp.165-319Publication 19. Washington,DC: Carnegie nstitution f

Washington.Smyth,Michael P.

1991 Moder MayaStorageBehavior:EthnoarchaeologiCaseExamplesrom hePuucRegionofYucatan.Memoirs nLatinAmericanArchaeology,3. Pittsburgh:Universityof

Pittsburgh, epartmentfAnthropology.Stevanovic,Mirjana

1997 TheAge of Clay:TheSocialDynamicsof House De-struction.Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 16334-395.

Tedlock,Barbara1982 Time and the HighlandMaya.Revised edition.Albu

querque:University f NewMexicoPress.




Tedlock,Dennis,trans.1996 PopolVuh:TheMayanBookof the Dawn of Life.Re-

visededition.NewYork:SimonandSchuster.

Tringham,Ruth1991 HouseholdswithFaces:TheChallenge fGenderinPre-

historic Architectural emains.In EngenderingArchaeol-

ogy:WomenandPrehistory.oanM.GeroandMargaretW.

Conkey, ds.Pp.93-131. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.1995 ArchaeologicalHouses,Households,Houseworkand

the Home.In TheHome:Words,Interpretations,eanings,and Environments.David N. Benjamin,ed. Pp. 79-107.

Aldershot,UK:Avebury.Inpress TheContinuousHouse:A View from heDeepPast.

InBeyondKinship: ocialandMaterialProductionnHouseSocieties.RosemaryA. Joyceand Susan D. Gillespie,eds.

Philadelphia:niversity fPennsylvania ress.

Vogt, EvonZ.1969 Zinacantan: MayaCommunityn the Highlandsof

Chiapas.Cambridge,MA:BelknapPress,HarvardUniver-

sityPress.

Wauchope,Robert

1938 ModemMayaHouses:A Studyof theirArchaeologicalSignificance. ublication02.Washington,DC:Carnegien-stitution fWashington.

Webster,David,WilliamL.Fash,andElliotM. Abrams1986 Excavaciones n elConjunto N-8, PatioA (Operaci6

VIII). In ProyectoarqueologicoCopan segundafase: Ex

cavaciones n el areaurbana eCopan,Tomo 1. WilliamT

Sanders, d.Pp.157-391.Tegucigalpa: ecretariaeEstad

en elDespachodeCultura Turismo,nstitutoHondurefio

AntropologiaHistoria.

Weiner,AnnetteB.1976 WomenofValue,MenofRenown:NewPerspectivesn

Trobriandxchange.Austin:University f TexasPress.1992 InalienablePossessions: The Paradox of Keeping

While-Giving.Berkeley:University fCalifornia ress.

Winter,MarcusC.1972 TierrasLargas:A FormativeCommunityn theValle

of Oaxaca,Mexico. Ph.D.dissertation,Department f An

thropology,University f Arizona.AnnArbor,MI: Univer

sityMicrofilms.1976 TheArchaeologicalHouseholdCluster n theValleyo

Oaxaca. n TheEarlyMesoamerican illage.KentV. Flan

nery, d.Pp.25-31. New York:AcademicPress.

Xenophon1923 Oeconomicus.E. C.Marchant,rans.LoebClassicalLi

brary, 68.Cambridge: arvard niversityPress.

having and holding

Documents