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

Author(s): Julia A. Hendon

Reviewed work(s):
Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 102, No. 1 (Mar., 2000), pp. 42-53
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/683537 .
Accessed: 18/11/2011 15:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org
JULIAA. HENDON
of SociologyandAnthropology
Department
Gettysburg
College
PA 17325
Gettysburg,

Having and Holding:

Storage, Memory, Knowledge, and Social Relations
fromGiddens'
Starting s conceptof mutualknowledge, inthisarticleI argueforanexpanded of storageas a situ-
definition
atedpracticethroughwhichgroupsconstructidentity,remember, andcontrolknowledgeas partof a moraleconomy.
Drawingonethnographic andarchaeological examplesfroma rangeof societies,includingthoseof theTrobriand Islands,
NeolithicEurope,andMesoamerica, householdstorage.Manyof
I considerthespatialandsocialmeaningof utilitarian,
thesocialmeanings storagearefoundto alsoinformotherkindsof storage,especiallythosecatego-
embodiedin utilitarian
rized as burials and votive offerings, or caches. [storage, mutual knowledge, social memory, inalienable wealth,
Mesoamerica]

Storage, Surplus, and Social Complexity
The role of storagehas become part of archaeology's
"mutualknowledge"(Giddens1993:105-106).We cannot
always easily see storageitself in our archaeologicalre-
cord, whetherwe thinkof it as an activityor as a location.
We find it difficultto quantifythe amountof surpluspro-
ducedannuallyexceptthroughsimulationsbasedon many
assumptions.Despite these impediments,productionof
surplusand its storageover the long termbecome actions
thatwe as archaeologistsalmosttake for grantedin build-
ing models of the developmentof social complexity(see
Halperin1994; Smyth 1991; Tringhamin press).Storage
becomes one of those actions that both solves a problem
for sedentarysocietiesand opens up new possibilities.We
are willing to infer its existence from evidence of settled
life, farming,populationgrowth,craft specialization,so-
cial hierarchies,monumentalarchitecture,or othersigns of
developing complexity because we assume that surplus
food createsthe foundationfor materialwealth.
But if storage is part of our archaeologicalmutual
knowledge,how much more so would it have been a part
their mutual knowledge--of the people who produced,
used, reliedon, transactedfor, worriedabout,gloatedover,
in short,thoughtand talkedaboutwhat was being stored?
If mutualknowledgeis thatbody of informationthatpeo-
ple, as membersof a group, assume they share, then it
makes communicationand social interactionpossibleand
thus defines social competency.Since it is throughcom-
municationandpeople's actionsthatmutualknowledgeis
displayed,it is subjectto constantreaffirmation,modifica-
tion, and subversion. The dynamic interplay between
knowledge and action makes mutualknowledgesimulta-
neously partof the backgroundand the foregroundof so-
cial interaction.Is it possiblethatconsideringstorageas a
componentof mutualknowledgemay help us understand
the interactionbetween,on the one hand,materialculture
and constructedspace (Bourdieu [1972]1977; Giddens
1993;Rapoport1990),and,on the otherhand,social inter-
actionand moralauthority?It is these questionsthatI ex-
plore in this paper.I startwith the more common archae-
ological definitionof storageas an activity involving the
placementof usefulmaterialresourcesin specificphysical
locations against future need (Halperin1994:167). This
kind of storageis a practicethatrequirescontainers,both
portable(e.g., jars or boxes) and fixed (e.g., buildingsor
pits). Suchphysicalobjects,of course,arewhatgive the ar-
chaeologistevidence with which to understandstorageas
an element of the grammarof space (Giddens 1993; see
also Hodder 1986). I first considerethnographicand ar-
chaeologicalexamplesof storagepracticesin orderto ar-
gue thatif storageis indeedan elementof mutualknowl-
edge, it is then also part of the spoken and unspoken
dialogue throughwhich people constructand challengea
moralorder.Sucha moralorderbecomesa basisfor power
and authorityand for validatingor contestingdifferences
betweenpeople.Exploringthe connectionbetweenstorage
and moral authorityleads me to ask what we may learn
from extendingour utilitariandefinitionof storageto in-
clude otherkindsof materialremainsconventionallyseen
(by archaeologists)as different,such as burialsand votive
offerings.Throughthis discussion,I suggest a furtherex-
tension of our ideas of storage to include memory and
knowledge,an extensionthatwouldhavebeen evidentand

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


reasonableto thepeoplewe study.Throughout,I tryto bal-
ance "our" mutual knowledge against "their"mutual
knowledge.
Storage as Situated Practice
Studiesof modem domestic architecturehave contrib-
uted to the development of an archaeological body of
mutualknowledgethat has been applied to the study of
ancientsocieties(see, e.g., Smyth 1991; Vogt 1969;Wau-
chope 1938).RobertWauchope(1938), for example,sur-
veyed contemporary Mayahouse lots in Mexico andGua-
temalain the 1930s. His plans and descriptionsbecamea
fundamentalpart of discussions of PrecolumbianMeso-
americandomesticspace.In his plans,Wauchopeshowed
thatfamily space was parceledout into discretekinds of
open or enclosed spaces, many identifiedwith particular
activitiesor functions.Thereis the house (the "dwelling"),
beehives,chickenhouses,a storehouse,a pile of marl(lime
for construction),a place to cook, open ground,treespro-
vidingfruitandshade,and so on, all surroundedby a neat
stonewall (Figure1).
Similarideas aboutthe use of space seem to have ani-
mated Mesoamericancommunitiesmuch earlierin their
history. Winter's "FormativePeriod household cluster"
, C)
:?@?!l
,?
f jrrea: 1.7
Y't(?)Dwellingl
7 0
,. •-- -j,
-Qj
SChicken
houses
....
.J.Beehiiveshelter
Figure 1. An exampleof a contemporaryMaya houselot (Chankom
[Yucatan])recordedby RobertWauchope(1938:Fig. 47).
HENDON / HAVING AND HOLDING 43
providesan example(Winter1972, 1976).Basedon his re-
searchin the OaxacaValley of Mexico, Winterproposes
the household cluster as a common form of household
space duringthe Formativeperiod (ca. 1500 B.C.-A.D.
200). The constantelementsin Winter'shouseholdcluster
arethe dwelling(thewalled,roofedstructurewherepeople
sleep) andbell-shapedpits dug into the groundaroundthe
house. Otherelementspresentmay includeotherkinds of
pits, outdoor ovens, trash heaps (middens), drainage
ditches,or graves(Figure2). The abilityof pits to endure
makesthememblematicof the houseor residentialareato
us even when the house itself is not preserved.Winter
identifiestwo kindsof depositsin his pits:trashandstores.
He (1972:137-138, 154-158) arguesthat the bell-shaped
pits were originally intendedfor storage based on the
higherfrequencyof maize pollen from samplesfrom the
pits,as comparedto samplesfromothercontexts;the pres-
ence of large slabs of rock in the bottomsof the pits;and
the occurrenceof bits of maize (kernelsandcobs), beans,
avocados,berries,and legumes. He suggests that people
also used them to keep safe otherkindsof useful or valu-
able materials.Amongthe itemsfoundthathe interpretsas
storedmaterials,ratherthantrash,are bone tools (needles
and handles) and unworkeddeer bones that were being
saved for laterworking;partof a turtleshell drum;wing
bones from a macaw;grindingstones;jars; and an object
madeout of organicmaterialthatmayhave originallybeen
a bundle of sticks or a mat (Winter1972:138-139, 150,
163-164, 1976:31).WhileWinter'sspecificcontextualin-
terpretationsmay be debated,it is neverthelessthe case
thatotherstudiesof pits,sometimesbell-shapedandsome-
times not, at Mesoamericansites have continuedto see
them as a way of concentratingand preservingresources
such as water or particularkinds of foods (e.g., Flannery
1976;McAnany1990;Miksicek1991;Puleston1977).
As noted earlier,houses are far less durableat many
Formativeperiod sites than their associatedpits, ovens,
and graves.Houses built of wood and roofedwith thatch
would be prey to normalprocessesof decay thatdestroy
Storage Burial
pit Burial Storage pit (might
contain
maize,
turtle
Storage pit shell, macaw or deer
reused as a Oven bones)
grave __ _
Storage
B
pit
--
BurialDwelling
------
----lNn g
Figure 2. A generalizedversionof Winter'sFormativePeriodhouse-
hold cluster.
44 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 1 * MARCH 2000
most organicmaterialsat Mesoamericansites. But natural
decompositionexplainsthe disappearanceof houses only
in part.Houses were also burned,sometimesdeliberately
(Winter1972:130-137,207-208). Whileburningassistsin
the destructionof wood andthatch,it firesthe clay used to
line walls andfloors,creatinglumpsof daub,which,as ar-
chaeologistsknow, preservevery well (Stevanovid1997).
Theimplicationsof deliberateburningof individualhouses
have been exploredmorefully in Tringham's(1991, 1995,
in press) and Stevanovid's (1997) work on Neolithic
(7th-4th millenniumB.C.) communitiesof Southeastern
Europewhere the practiceis so common that archaeolo-
gists havelabeledthe time periodthe "BurnedHouseHori-
zon" (Tringhamin press). Tringhamargues that people
burnedtheirhouses regularlyandrepeatedlybeforebuild-
ing a new house nearbyas partof a cycle of social and
physicalrenewal.Burningthus was determinedby factors
affectingindividualhouseholdsratherthanthe community
as a whole. Herstudyof the site of Opovo,Yugoslavia,re-
veals thatafterremarkablycompletedestruction,resulting
fromfireshot enoughto vitrifythe clay (Stevanovid1997),
the debriswas often depositedinto wells and pits associ-
ated with the house (Tringham1995, in press; see also
Winter1972).A new house was thenbuiltnearor overlap-
ping the remainsof the old house (Tringham1995). The
idea thathouse and pits have a connectedmeaningto the
people who built and used them is suggestedby whatelse
archaeologiststypically find in pits-refuse or human
burials.The accumulationof waste materialsin these pits
resultsfrom a deliberatedecisionon the partof the house-
hold to reorientthe pits' purposeto a differentkindof stor-
age and,eventually,to close down the pit as a functioning
repository.
Pits are not the only way thatpeople solve the problem
of storage,however.The containersin which storedmate-
rialsareplacedmay be keptin separatebuildings,in rooms
set asideinsidehouses,or in specialspaces,suchas closets
or shelves (Halperin 1994; McGaw 1996; Xenophon
1923). A high statusresidentialzone at the Maya site of
Copan,Honduras,occupiedfromca. A.D. 650-1000, pro-
vides an interestingcase in point (Hendon 1987, 1991).
People lived here in boundedcompoundsmadeup of sev-
eral dwellings facing inward onto a common courtyard.
Storage areas, identified by a preponderanceof storage
containers,have two differentlocations. In a compound
occupiedby peopleof veryhigh statusandpoliticalimpor-
tance, dwellings have a single entranceleadingto a main
room containinga built-inbench for sleepingand sitting.
Most storeditems were placedin small,narrowroomsoff
the main one and which only could be enteredfrom that
main room. Individualresidences,therefore,includedin
theirinteriorspaceareasfor storageas well as for sleeping,
working,and eating. People of more middlingstatusand
less politicalpowerreliedmoreon smallbuildingsbuilton
platformslocatednext to or behindtheirdwellings.These
dwellingshavemainroomswithbenchesbuttypicallylack
the small side rooms. It seems that the kind of storage
space changesin concertwith the statusof the people liv-
ing in theresidentialcompounds.
The Copanexamplesagreewell with,andareamplified
by, datafromthe contemporarysite of Cerenin El Salva-
dor, buried by a volcanic eruption in about A.D. 600
(Sheetset al. 1990).Excavationof severalhouselots occu-
pied by prosperousfarmersshows thatthe use of separate
storehousescontinuesas one moves down the social scale
of Maya society (Sheets 1992).' Ceren storehouses,like
those at Copan,containmanyjars, butthe betterpreserva-
tion atthe formerrevealsa mix of mundane,valuable,utili-
tarian,andspecialobjectsor materialsplacedtogetherin a
single structure.Storagejars holdingbeans, maize, or ca-
cao share space with strings of chile peppers,lumps of
wood ash, gourds,baskets,polychromeeatingandserving
vessels, small vessels full of red paint,jade beads,green-
stone celts, figurines,spindle whorls, needles, pieces of
cloth, mats,portablefences, incense burners,andobsidian
tools. Some items sit on the floor, otherson shelves,some
hang from the ceiling, or, as in the case of the obsidian
knives and scrapers,are tuckedinto the thatchof the roof
itself. These differencesin the location of storageareas
raisethe issue of the significanceof mutualanddifferential
knowledgein socialrelationswithrespectto theapparently
utilitarianactivity of householdstorage.Decisions about
the locationof mundaneactivities,the form of buildings,
and even the disposalof refuse may all be informedwith
symbolic meaningthatconstructsand reflectssocial rela-
tions(Moore1996).
Mutual Knowledge and Place
Physical space acquiresmeaningbecauseit is one way
of embodyingmutualknowledge.Storageis a situatedand
localized practice (Bourdieu [1972]1977) that informs
constructedspaceswith social meaningbasedon the con-
nectionspeoplemakebetweenthe act of storageandsocial
relations.Storageis thus partof the complex relationship
betweenhumanactorswithina landscapethatthey create
and inhabit.It is understoodas partof specific locales, to
whichit gives meaningandfromwhichit derivesmeaning
(Giddens1985).Throughthe formandplacementof build-
ings in that landscape,people inscribemarkersof certain
relationshipsor identities on it (Joyce and Hendon in
press).Mutualknowledgedevelops in the contextof par-
ticular settings. Constructedspace becomes a dynamic
containerfor structuringsocial interaction.It is not a fixed
and inert backdropor a constrainingframe.Just as "the
spatial [is] socially produced.. . social life ... is always
spatially dependent (ratherthan spatially determined)"
(Pred1990:10).
The mutual knowledge about Mesoamericanstorage
sharedby contemporaryarchaeologiststakes the domain

of the family or householdas extendingbeyondthe dwell-
ing to include formal storagefeatures.Two implications
fromthis mutualknowledgemay shedlightmoregenerally
on the way that storagepracticesinform social relations
and in turnare shapedby them. First,the use of pits dug
intothe ground,of platformsbuiltnextto houses,or of side
rooms gives us a sense of how residents viewed their
useableandsociallycontrolledspace.
Second, the repetitiveand differentiatednatureof stor-
age spaces must have been as obvious to theirusers as to
us, theirexcavators.The OaxacaValley people studiedby
Winter,who lived in a fairlyhomogenouscommunitywith
few apparentsocial distinctions,placed their valued re-
sourcesoutsidebutbelow ground,in pitscoveredwithlids.
Althoughthe pits themselvesareinvisible,the lids become
markersof theirnumberandlocation,evidentto anyonein
the householdarea.In the case of the moresocially differ-
entiatedMaya society,the lowerto middleechelonsof so-
ciety, as representedat CopanandCeren,continuedto put
the bulkof theirstoredresourcesoutsideof theirdwellings
but above groundin more visible buildings.Higherstatus
Maya at Copan preferredto keep their resourcesinside
theirdwellingswherethey wouldhave been muchless ob-
vious to people not inside the house itself. I arguethatthe
differencein more andless visible formalstoragespacein
the cases discussedhererelatesto differencesin the appli-
cationof an ethic of storagethatvariesin conjunctionwith
the needto defineandvalidatesocial status,reflectinghow
people in differentkinds of society interpretsocial rela-
tions and enact social values. The occurrenceof such
spaces, their number,and their location would be some-
thingthatwould be well knownto the residentsof a com-
munity.People would know thatotherpeople have things
storedup. Morethanthat,I would suggestthatthis knowl-
edge would enterinto theirinteractionswith others,either
overtlyor as backgroundknowledge.
But they would not all know the samethingor have ac-
cess to the same knowledgeequally.Throughthe type of
fixed storagecontainerused, people createdifferencesin
visibility. While politicallypowerfulelite groupsworked
to make certainkinds of places or actionsless visible by
controllingmovementand observationthroughthe kinds
of physical and symbolic barriersthey constructed(Love
1999), less exaltedmembersof societyputon displaytheir
materialresourcesby makingtheirlocation,albeitnottheir
quantityor type, obvious,reflectingthe greaterconcernof
those not-on-topwith socially appropriatedisplay(Rathje
andMurphy1992).The desireto drawattentionto the stor-
age locationsmayexplainwhy the ones excavatedat Ceren
have frontwalls thataremuchmorecarefullybuiltthanthe
back and sides (Sheets 1992).But by makingtheirstorage
more visible, lower-rankingmembersof society give to
higherstatusgroupsa kindof knowledgethatis not recip-
HENDON / HAVING AND HOLDING 45
rocatedunlessa moreintimateacquaintancewith the inte-
riorsof high statusdwellingsis achieved.
Storage, Social Memory, and Moral Authority
The moralaspectsof economicrelationsis an enduring
topic in anthropologicalresearch(see Bloch and Parry
1989; Firth 1963; Godelier [1996]1999; Gudeman1986,
1998; Miller 1998; Weiner 1976, 1992). Figuringout the
culturallyconstructed"localmodel"(Gudeman1986)with
which societiesjudge certainkindsof relations,objects,or
transactionsas rightor good, andothersas wrong,has led
to arguethat"economicrelationsrestupon
anthropologists
moral foundations"(Firth 1963:144) and that "values
[give] meaningto the economic system"(1963:154).Dis-
cussions of production,exchange,and consumption(see
Gudeman1998) have putlittle emphasison storageexcept
as a requiredpartof the exchangeprocess,wherethe focus
is primarilyon the surplus presumedto be in storage
(Halperin1994). Models that look to the relationshipbe-
tween politicalpower and institutionalizedgenerosity,for
example,take the existence of a controllablesurplusas a
necessary precondition-"the constructionof coalitions
requirestheproductionof surpluswealthwhichcanunder-
writegift exchange"(Brumfiel1994:11;see also Clarkand
Blake 1994;HaydenandGargett1990). Storageis merely
a utilitarianactthatallows,butdoes not affect,a set of eco-
nomic interactionsthatintersectwith issues of powerand
control. If we follow Halperin'ssuggestion (1994:167),
however,that we uncouplethe study of storagefrom the
conceptof surplusproduction,we thenclearthe groundfor
a considerationof the moralimplicationsof storageitself.
Storageacquiresa moraldimensionbecauseit is partof
the processconnectingresourceswith people's needs and
desires, and because the social evaluationof people or
groupsmay takeinto accounttheirconnectionto the prac-
tice of storage.Trobriandmen buildyam housesneartheir
houses but displayonly certainyams in them.Food yams
are kept in the house and used as needed.Yams to be ex-
changedareputin the yam houseswheretheymaybe seen
and commentedon as evidence of a man's wealthandso-
cial networks.Throughits decoration,qualityof construc-
tion,permanence,andprominence,a man'syamhousesig-
nals his adult status and skill in exchange relationships
(Weiner1976:138-143,214-215). Trobriandwomenhave
their own form of wealth,bundles of bananaleaves and
grass skirts, which are displayed and exchangedduring
mortuaryceremonies.A woman's statusis builtprimarily
throughthese publicexchangesand her wealthis not dis-
played except duringthe ceremonies.However, "When
largebasketsof bundlesandpiles of skirtsarestoredin the
recesses of houses, women have reputationsas 'strong
women'"(Weiner 1976:91).Furthermore, becausea hus-
banduses his wealth(yams)to aidhis wife in acquiringthe
materialswith which to make her wealth,the yam house
46 AMERICAN * VOL. 102, No. 1 * MARCH2000
ANTHROPOLOGIST
display makes visible the potentialfor achieving wealth
not actuallypresent.Women provide some of the yams
displayed because each wife gives her husbandgifts of
yams producedfor her by her brotherin a specialgarden.
The yam displayandthe displayof leaf bundlesandgrass
skirtsexpressactualandpotentialwealth,skill in exchange
relationships,and the interactionbetween husbandand
wife (Weiner1976:138-143,210-215).
One way the Tzotzil-speakingMayaof Mexico definea
domesticgroupis as a set of "kinsmen,living togetherin a
house compoundandsharinga single maizesupply"(Vogt
1969:127).An importantelementin theirunderstanding of
whatconstitutesa familyis not only the socialties andeco-
nomicinterdependency thatcreatereasonsto sharebutalso
the physical embodimentof those ties, the maize storage
container(a raisedbin locatedoutside,in a storehouse,or
in the house [see Miksicek 1991; Sheets 1992:83;Smyth
1991;Wauchope1938]). The morallychargedconnection
betweenpeopleand storagefeaturesbecomeseven clearer
in Bernardinode collection of Aztec wisdom
Sahagtin's
and knowledge,The FlorentineCodex(1953-1982). One
section describescategoriesof people based on age, gen-
der, social status,and occupation.These normativemoral
judgementscontrastthe "good"person,who displaysthe
positive attributesassociatedwith his or her type, with the
"bad."A good father(who is not a memberof the nobility)
is one who "storesup for himself;he storesup for others.
He caresfor his assets;he saves for others... he saves for
the future"(Sahagtn 1953-1982, 10:1).Manysuchfathers
were farmersand we are told, the good farmer"fills the
maizebin"(Sahag6in1953-1982, 10:42).
While social normsfor lower-classAztec men empha-
size theirrole as saversandstorersof materialgoods,those
for women in the same social class focus on theirroles as
wise users of resourcesfor the benefit of theirhousehold
(e.g., Sahagtin1953-1982, 10:2--12).Despite the fact that
they do not, in this normativescheme, put stuff into stor-
age, women arestill symbolicallylinkedto the contentsof
storagecontainers.A riddleasks, "Whatis thatwhichis an
old woman with hair of straw standingat the house en-
trance?"(Sahagtin1953-1982, 6:238). The answer,"the
maize bin," connects people who are old (and therefore
worthyof respect)and female (andthereforethe manager
of storedresources)with the food thatis the sacredsource
of life. These differencesin responsibilitytowardstored
goods, and especially food, situatethe Aztecs within the
largerMesoamericanideal of the householdeconomy in
which genderprovidesa complementarydivisionof labor,
throughwhich men produceand women transform(Burk-
hart 1992; Hendon 1997, 1999). The wise conservation
anduse of resourceswithinthe householdcontinuethe as-
sociationof differentroles and responsibilitieswith each
gender.2
The connectionbetweenthe family and storageextends
to children.Aztec childrenwho die in infancy shouldbe
"buriedin front of the maize bin, for this signifieththat
they go to a good place,a fine place, becausethey arestill
as precious green stones, still as precious bracelets;still
pure, they become as precious turquoises"(Sahagiin
1953-1982, 4:116). Babies have not had time to be con-
taminatedby the realities of living on earth (Burkhart
1989); they are like the preciousmaterials,jade and tur-
quoise,andthusareburiedas close to the containerholding
the most valuedand symbolicallysignificantfood, maize.
Thus,the good Aztec farmerfills the maizebin thatguards
the graves of his infant childrenand which is identified
with the respectedfemale membersof his family. Maize
bins, like Trobriandyam houses, are symbols of gender,
householdrelations,andthe future.
Food is of courseperishableand cannotstay in storage
indefinitely.Maize will be at restin the maizebin only for
a while (albeit a ratherlong while since properlystored
maize may keep up to three years [Smyth 1991:25]),in-
volving the farmerin a constantprocess of puttingin so
thathis wife may takeout food for daily meals, weddings,
funerals, and other events requiringfood. Since Aztec
farmerslived in a stratifiedsociety with political power
concentratedin thehandsof a centralized,aristocraticgov-
ernment,they also drewon theirmaizebins to satisfysome
of the state'stributedemands.Yamscanbe kepton display
for six monthsat mostbeforethey becomeunusable(We-
iner 1976:138).Taro,anotherimportantcropin Melanesia,
rots much more quickly and cannot become part of the
kind of exchange relationshipthat yams embody. The
memoryof taro,however,maybe conservedby remember-
ing the genealogiesof particularplants(Weiner1992:38).
The jade beads and greenstonecelt in one Cerenstore-
house, and the incense burnersfound in several of those
describedby Sheets, show us that storageis about more
thanfood (whethersurplusor not) or, morebroadly,useful
items.They speakto us aboutboththe issue of inalienable
wealth and the role of memory(Weiner 1992). Exchange
economies are as much about holding onto as they are
about giving away. Weiner'sparadoxof "keeping-while-
giving"shows us thatgenerosityis only one way thatpeo-
ple enmeshedin competitivegift-givingrelationshipscan
bindothersto them.Peoplenot only wish to give, theyalso
wish to retainvaluedobjects,to keep them "transcendent
andout of circulationin the face of all the pressuresto give
them to others"(Weiner 1992:7). Such objects acquire
theirvaluefromtheirhistory,theirassociationwith valued
people, andtheirinalienability.Possessionof such objects
redoundsback on the possessor, who acquiresprestige
throughownershipof not just the object itself but of the
history and memory the object incarnates.While seven
jade beads may seem a ratherpicayuneset of inalienable
possessions when comparedto the feathercloaks of the
Maori, the fine mats of the Samoans,the coppersof the
Kwakiutl,or thejadebodyornamentsof the Mayanobility,
their presencein one farmingfamily's storehouseargues

thatthe desireto retainvaluedobjectsaroundwhich mem-
ory accruesis not restrictedto one particularsocial class or
centeredon only one kind of object.These beads,like the
Yurokheirloomsdiscussedby Joyce (in press),may have
servedas embodimentsof family and house history.Their
possession servedto set thatfamily apartfromthe others.
When archaeologistsfind a storagearea,we have founda
partof the social landscapethat,to the people who used it
andto the peoplewho saw it or talkedaboutit, hadthe po-
tentialto hold the entirespectrumof objectsthatsymbol-
ized a household'scoherenceand identity.Throughstor-
age, past household labor is preserved,the potentialof
future labor embodied,and the different(and differently
valued)contributionsof womenandmen actualized.
Imagining the Hidden Dimensions of Social and
Physical Space
Given the ability of formal storagecontainersto sym-
bolize positive values, why, then, are storage locations
sometimesmade less visible, as in the case of the highest
statusCopanresidences?Earlier,I suggestedthatone way
for the elite to reinforcetheirpower is throughrestriction
andcontrol.Love (1999) showshow the designof "public"
space channelsmovementand restrictswhat can be ob-
served as politicalpower becomes more centralized.The
hiddenstoragein dwellingsappliesthe same principlesto
the residentialcompound.Such spatial secrecy and con-
tainmentvisible at a Mayasite finds a parallelin normsof
Aztec elite behaviorand attitude.Admiredqualitiesin the
noble men and women include leadership,care for one's
subordinates,andpiety.But self-effacement,stoicism,and
strictcontrolin publicalso are lauded."Theone of noble
lineage wishes no praise; [he is] one who magnifies,
praises,exalts,commends[others].... The badone of no-
ble lineage ... bragsof his noble lineage, ... boastsof his
noble estate, . .. belittles others"(Sahagtin 1953-1982,
10:21).Youngmen andwomenof the elite areexpectedto
dress modestlyandkeep frombeing noticedin public(Sa-
hagtin 1953-1982, 6:87-126). Storing goods inside the
dwellingresonateswiththe Mesoamericanidealof elite re-
straintwhile also giving morecontrolto its residentsover
what kind of informationthey give out about what they
possess. Knowledgeitself becomes a way of differentiat-
ing people.
Sheets(1992) arguesthatobsidianknivesandbladesare
hidden in the thatchof the roof of storehouses(and the
dwelling)becausethey arevaluable(obsidianbeingan im-
portedmaterial)anddangerous,especiallyto childrenwho
mightcut themselveson the sharpedges. Concealedwithin
this pragmaticinterpretation, however, are the seeds of a
greaterunderstanding of the roleof the hiddenin bothfam-
ily and communitylife. Hidingaway sharptools shows us
that not all membersof a householdknow where every-
thing is storedor whatthe householdpossesses. The need
HENDON / HAVING AND HOLDING 47
to protectsome family membersfrom objects that could
endangerthem extendsto knowledgeitself. In the Popol
Vuh, a sixteenth-centuryQuich6 (Maya) document, the
young protagonists,the HeroTwins, learnfrom a rat3that
theirfather'sballgameequipmenthas been in theirgrand-
mother'shouse wherethey have lived all theirlives (Ted-
lock 1996:111-112). The equipmentwas stored out of
sight in the raftersof the house. Their grandmotherand
motherdeliberatelyconcealedthe equipmentfromthemto
protectthe boys. The dangerinherentin possessingandus-
ing the equipmentcomes not fromthe objectsthemselves
or the natureof the game,butfromthe possibilityof anger-
ing the Lordsof the Underworld,who have alreadysacri-
ficed the twins' fatheranduncle for losing a game played
againstthesedeities.In orderto retrievethe equipment,the
twins must hide theiractionsfrom theirgrandmotherand
mother, and thus deprive them, at least briefly, of the
knowledgethatthe objectshavebeentakenout of storage.4
Deposits whose contentsare intentionallyhiddenfrom
view and whose locationmay or may not be markedare
not limited to household goods (Figure 3). Two other
formsof storageareroutinelyfoundby archaeologistsand
forman importantpartof ourmutualknowledgeaboutthe
past: burialsand caches. Some of these deposits, like the
coin and metalhoardsof Europeanprehistory,have been
interpretedas a kind of utilitarianstorage,eitherto safe-
guardvaluablesor to preservequantitiesof materialsfor
lateruse (Bradley1990,who arguesthathoardsmaynotbe
as utilitarianas often assumed).However,many deposits
are clearlynot designedfor easy retrieval,such as the ob-
jects foundin Europeanriversandlakesor the ones buried
inside buildingsduringconstructionin Mesoamerica.Such
offerings, often referredto as votive offerings or caches,
display a considerablematerialand conceptualoverlap
withburials(Becker1992;Bradley1990;ChaseandChase
1998). For my purposes,they may be discussedtogether
becausecaches andburialsbothserveas a kind of storage
thatfocuses memoryand practicewithina particularspa-
tial framework.Like storage containerssuch as store-
houses or pits, burialsand caches are spots on the land-
scape that are remembered.Their presence informs a
localewith meaning.
As a form of storage,burialsand caches combine the
materialwith the moral.They are like storehousesin that
they areloci whereitems,andsometimespeople,of mate-
rial and symbolic value are depositedand guarded.Al-
thougharchaeologicalmutualknowledgetakes a burialto
be symptomaticof thedeceased'sstatuswhile alive,the act
of buryingsomeoneis as muchaboutthe attitudesandde-
cisions of the living, reflectingwhatthey wish to do about
a person's death and how they wish to remember it
(Bradley1990:39,94, 197-198).
Burialof people in storagepits makes the most literal
connection between storage and burial. Although we
48 AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 1
. Burial
o Cache
* Storage
Figure 3. Mutualknowledge made visible in two high statusresidentialcompoundsat Copan,Honduras.
sometimes assume such a burial location results from
chanceor convenience,suchan assumptionmaybe impos-
ing our own notionsof what constitutesa properlocation.
Moore (1996) has shown that people attach symbolic
meaningto all aspectsof theirspatialworld,includingre-
fuse (see also Rathje and Murphy 1992). Bradley
(1990:161-166) arguesthatburialsin grainbins found at
some Iron Age Europeansites representdeliberatedeci-
sions by people to associate a person with the locus of
groupsustenance.Burialsarea commonenoughfeatureof
pits in some areasfor archaeologiststo questionwhatwas
the original use-storage receptacle or grave? Hunter-
Tate's (1994) small but consistentsample from Caracol,
Belize, for example,containsat least one burialin every
chultun(large,often multi-chambered pits found at many
Maya sites) investigated,leadingher to arguethatthe pits
werecreatedto be graves,at leastduringtheearlyperiodof
occupationof the site, ratherthanas storagecontainersas
others have argued(Miksicek 1991; Puleston 1977). On
the otherhand,the presenceof rectangular,shallowgraves
* MARCH 2000
,....
U
SIHO
-
I
"?,U
U
as the more commonmode of burialin Winter'sOaxaca
research,coupledwiththe pollenandartifactdatafromthe
bell-shapedpits, suggesta conversion.In fact,ourinability
to determinewhich is the "real"or "primary"functionof
pits containingburialsmaynotbe only due to a lackof data
but may reflecta realconflationof meaningby theircrea-
tors.
Caches may be associatedwith naturalor constructed
featuresof the landscape,such as lakes,caves, temples,or
houses(Bradley1990;ChaseandChase1998;Joyce 1992;
Hendon 1991). They may be placed when a building is
built or when it is renovatedor destroyed(Garber1983).
They often contain"wealth,"such as metalin Europeand
jade in Mesoamerica.But theircontentsalso have a rich
symbolismthatmay,forexample,createrepresentations of
how the cosmos is structured(Joyce 1992). Sequestering
valuablesin caches has been interpretedas an attemptto
remove such wealthfrom circulationin orderto diminish
supplyin the face of a steadyor increasingdemand(Gar-
ber 1983). Putting valuables in this sort of religiously

charged storage does remove them from exchange, al-
thoughnot, as Joyce (1992) has argued,fromcontinuingto
be partof ritualevents carriedout aftertheirdeposition.If
they are remembered,objectsin caches are not out of cir-
culation,they are inalienable.One way to solve Weiner's
paradoxis to transformwealthinto ritualobjects(Weiner
1992;see also Godelier[1996]1999;Joycein press).
Knowledgeof the presenceof caches,burials,andstores
of useful or valuablecommoditiesinside rooms or store-
housesrepresentsknowledgeof a hiddendimensionof so-
cial andphysicalspace.It is mutualknowledgethatpeople
sharebut not equally-some people know morethanoth-
ers, or have more precise knowledge.Burials,like store-
houses,may be moreor less visible, andthe degreeof this
overtvisibilityrelateslikewise to power.In Mesoamerica,
the locationof certainburialsis often madeobviousby the
constructionof a large structureover or around them
(McAnany1998). Justas informationaboutthe actionsof
only certainpeople are recordedin the hieroglyphictexts
on Maya public monuments(Marcus1992), so are only
certaingraves (and often of the same people). But other
membersof societyalso rememberedandmarkedthe loca-
tionsof burialsandcachesof significanceto them.
In one high statuscompoundat Copan,a doubleburial
was placedbelow the patiofloor with two rock slabscov-
eringthe bodies.Insteadof repavingthe patio,the mourn-
ers left the slabs exposed so that wheneverone looked at
thatcomer of the patio one would see the evidence of the
burial(Hendonet al. 1990).Probablythe most famousex-
amples of reinforcingmemory through visual cues in
Mesoamericaknown to archaeologistsis thatof Offering
No. 4 fromLa Venta,an Olmec site in Mexico (Druckeret
al. 1959:152-161). Sixteen stone figurinesand six celts
were arrangedto form a tableaurepresentingsome sortof
ritualaction.This tableauwas coveredwith sandand hid-
den fromview by a floor.At a laterpointin the occupation
of the site,the floor was cut throughandthe fill removedto
exposejust the tops of the figures.Thenthe hole was filled
backin andthe floor repaired.The accurateplacementand
sizing of the hole arguesthat the diggershad an idea not
only of the cache's existence but also of its approximate
location.
Burials and caches can be dynamic deposits. The prac-
tice of reopening graves to put new bodies in, or take bod-
ies out, is found at a number of ancient Old and New
World settlements (Chesson 1999; Kuijt 1996; McAnany
1998). In the same high status residential compound at Co-
pan where the exposed burial was found, the residents
placed a formal tomb inside a building that they then cov-
ered over with a new version of the dwelling. Later, before
constructing a third version, someone uncovered the tomb,
opened it, removed the body and any contents, filled the
tomb with dirt, resealed it, placed an offering of poly-
chrome vessels on top of the capstones, and then proceeded
HENDON / HAVING AND HOLDING 49
with the constructionof the new version of the building
(Hendonet al. 1990). Tombs are often designedto facili-
tate this movementin and out (Chase and Chase 1998;
Smith 1962), a movementthatparallelsthe mostbasic ac-
tion associatedwiththe storehouse.
The acts of adding,removing,or viewing integratesthe
burialor cache into the ongoing constructionand renewal
of memorythroughwhich prestigeis createdand power
validated.The existenceof inalienablewealth,the connec-
tion of the living to the valueddead,andthe abilityto con-
trol thatknowledgedifferentiategroupswithina commu-
nity. Burials, caches, and storehouses are part of the
creationof social memoryby groups.The processof crea-
tion occurs at many levels, includingthat of the human
body itself, objects,and places. Body ornamentationand
markinginscribeidentityandrelationson the humanbody.
The visibilityof thesemodificationsopenthemup to social
comment,creatinghistoriesvital to the productionof so-
cial memory(Joyce 1998). Objectsacquirevalue because
they embody memory and knowledge (Weiner 1992:
56-60). Theyarea way to ensurethe continuationof mem-
ory aboutpeopleandrelationshipsthat,unlikebody mark-
ing, is separablefrom the person. Prestige is not only
markedby the possessionand use of valuedobjects,espe-
cially inalienablewealth, but is created and negotiated
throughthe knowledgeandmemorytied up in the objects.
In orderto manufacturehistories,others need to notice,
commenton, andinterpret.RosmanandRubel(1971:178)
arguethatthe NorthwestCoastpotlatchhas no meaningif
not observedby witnesses.Witnessesneedto agreethatthe
event was successfulin orderfor it to be known and re-
memberedas a such."An unavoidabletension exists be-
tween the desireto preservesecrecy, which may promote
authority(Weiner 1992:106), and sharing information,
whichauthenticatesactionsandintent.
While Weiner's argumentfocuses on the object as
memorymade visible, sometimesmemoryand objectare
separated,with memoryitself becominga formof cultural
capital.Malanganareobjectsproducedin severalNew Ire-
land Islandsocieties for funerals.They featurea rich im-
agery and are well representedin Westernart museums.
Despite their visual elaboration and aesthetic appeal,
malanganare meantto be ephemeral.They must be de-
stroyed (or sold to outsiders) shortly after a funeral cere-
mony is completed. Because they are not preserved,
knowledge of how to create and decorate a new malangan
comes only throughthe memory, memory that is valid only
if coming from people who stand in a particularkinship re-
lationship to the dead (Kiichler 1987, 1988). People be-
come repositories of knowledge just as storehouses are re-
positories of the objects that embody memory. "The good
weaver of designs is skilled... a person of good memory"
(Sahagin 1953-1982, 10:51). "The physician [is] a knower
of herbs, of roots, of trees, of stones, she is experienced in
50 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 1 * MARCH 2000
these ... she is a woman of experience" (Sahagiin
1953-1982, 10:53).As a sourceof livelihood,prestige,and
power, such knowledge is something to be guarded,
shared,or hidden.Those at the centerof politicalcontrol
may privilegecertainknowledgeover others.Only certain
actionsby certainpeople may be writtendown or remem-
bered through officially sanctioned oral histories. But
every farmer,every weaver, every goldsmith,every di-
viner,andevery midwife is privyto some body of knowl-
edge thatis not accessibleto othersunlessshared(Hendon
1999; Tedlock 1982). Because knowledge of this sort is
often entirely stored in memory, it is subject to loss
(Kiichler1987) butalso to "strategicrememberingandde-
liberateforgetting"(MelionandKiichler1991:30).
Places, like people and objects,also incarnate,fix, and
reiteratesocial memory.By creatingandmodifyinga land-
scapeof naturalandbuiltforms,groupsconstructa setting
thatgives concrete,permanentexpressionto relationships
andidentities(JoyceandHendonin press).Such spacesare
given meaningthroughtheirformandthe actionthattakes
place in them (Bourdieu [1972]1977; Giddens 1993;
Moore 1996; Pred 1990). Because not all action is ob-
servedby all, at leastpartof whatcomprisesa group'smu-
tual knowledgeis imagined.Anderson(1991:6) has writ-
ten, "all communities are imagined."That imagination
coalescesaroundandis given shapeby places,objects,and
systemsof knowledge(Anderson1991:ch.10). Storagear-
eas, burials,and caches provideone set of featuresto be
imagined,remembered,and discussed.The people at Co-
pan who left the gravevisible, at Cerenwho enhancedthe
front walls of their storehouses,and at Opovo who sited
new housesto overlapwith old ones, sharea concernwith
ensuringthe persistenceof certainmemoriesand manag-
ing theircontributionto mutualknowledge.Archaeologi-
cal mutualknowledgehas typicallyseen the kindsof stor-
age discussed here as belonging to separatespheres of
society, but such a separationdoes not adequatelyreflect
the perspectiveof the peoplethemselves.Storage,whether
"utilitarian" or "ritual,"raises issues of secrecy, memory,
prestige,andknowledgethathelp constructthe moralsys-
tem withinwhichpeople live.
Notes
Acknowledgments.This article is an expandedand revised
version of a paperpresentedat the 64th AnnualMeeting of the
Society for American Archaeology, Chicago, in the session
The Social Context of Food Storage.I would like to thankthe
organizerof the session, Ian Kuijt,for the invitationto partici-
pate. The comments of GailAnn Rickertand RosemaryJoyce
on earlierdraftsof the articleare much appreciated.Responsi-
bility for the ideas expressed in the final version rests entirely
with the author.
1. The Cerendataalso providea more dynamicsense of the
process of storing, showing it to be, as we would expect but
have had difficulty demonstratingfrom less complete archae-
ological remains,a process of puttingstuff in and takingstuff
out constantly(see Xenophon 1923). Storageat Ceren is not
restrictedto the formal space built for it but also occurs in the
dwellings and kitchens. Nor is the storehouseonly a passive
space designed to hold materials.Maize grinding,for exam-
ple, took place in at least one storehousestudied.
2. Moore's (1996:116-118) discussion of how the Endo of
Kenya attributedifferent attitudes toward resources to men
and women was influentialin my looking at gender and stor-
age in this way. The Endo see women as producingand con-
suming resources for their own ends whereas men produce
and use resources for the good of larger groups of kin. Al-
though this reflects the realities of the mode of productionin
their society, and women are expected to be responsible for
farming for their own family, nevertheless this charac-
terizationcarriesa negative connotation.A more complemen-
tary, although also more hierarchical (unlike household
economies in Mesoamerica),view of the genderedroles is ex-
pressedby a dialogue between a Greekgentlemanandhis wife
on estatemanagement:
"It would surpriseme," answeredmy wife, "if the leader's
activitiesdid not concernyou more thanme. For my care of
the goods indoors and my managementwould look rather
ridiculous ... if you did not see that somethingis gathered
in from outside."
"And my ingatheringwould look ridiculous,"I countered,
"if there were not someone to keep what is gatheredin."
[Xenophon1923:427]
3. The rat was caughtraidingthe boys' garden.It offers to
tell the boys a secret if they will let him go. Once the secret is
revealed, the rat is rewardedby being given permissionto eat
from the family's (and by extension, all farmers')stores:" 'If
anything... is storedor gets wasted, then gnaw away,' the rat
was told by [the twins]"(Tedlock 1996:111).
4. It is interestingto note that several pieces of ceremonial
regalia associatedwith the ballgame found in one of the high-
est status compounds at Copan appearto have fallen from a
storageplace in the roof when the buildingcollapsed(Webster
et al. 1986).
5. The film Man WithoutPigs (1990, Ronin Films) illus-
trates vividly the dependence of a feast-giver on the assess-
ment of his guests and assistants.
References Cited
Anderson,Benedict
1991 ImaginedCommunities:Reflectionson the Originand
Spreadof Nationalism.Revisededition.London:Verso.
Becker,MarshallJ.
1992 Burialsas Caches,Cachesas Burials:A New Interpreta-
tionof theMeaningof RitualDepositsamongtheClassicPe-
riodLowlandMaya.In New Theorieson the AncientMaya.
Elin C. DanienandRobertJ. Sharer,eds. Pp. 185-196. Uni-
versityMuseumMonograph,77. Philadelphia:The Univer-
sityMuseum,Universityof Pennsylvania.
Bloch, Maurice,andJonathanParry
1989 Introduction:Moneyand the Moralityof Exchange.In
Money and the Moralityof Exchange.JonathanParryand

MauriceBloch, eds. Pp. 1-32. Cambridge:CambridgeUni-
versityPress.
Bourdieu,Pierre
[1972]1977 Outlineof a Theoryof Practice.RichardNice,
trans.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Bradley,Richard
1990 The Passageof Arms:An ArchaeologicalAnalysis of
PrehistoricHoardsand Votive Deposits.Cambridge:Cam-
bridgeUniversityPress.
Brumfiel,ElizabethM.
1994 FactionalCompetitionandPoliticalDevelopmentin the
New World:An Introduction. In FactionalCompetitionand
Political Development in the New World. Elizabeth M.
BrumfielandJohnW. Fox, eds. Pp. 3-13. Cambridge:Cam-
bridgeUniversityPress.
Burkhart,Louise M.
1989 TheSlipperyEarth:Nahua-Christian MoralDialoguein
Sixteenth-CenturyMexico. Tucson:Universityof Arizona
Press.
1992 Mujeres mexicas en "el frente" del hogar: trabajo
domestico y religi6n en el Mexico azteca. Mesoamerica
23:23-54.
Chase,Diane Z., andArlenF. Chase
1998 TheArchitectural Contextof Caches,Burials,andOther
RitualActivitiesfortheClassicPeriodMaya(as Reflectedat
Caracol,Belize). In FunctionandMeaningin ClassicMaya
Architecture.StephenD. Houston,ed. Pp. 299-332. Wash-
ington,DC:DumbartonOaks.
Chesson, MeredithS.
1999 Librariesof theDead:EarlyBronzeAge CharnelHouses
andSocial Identityat UrbanBabedh-Dhra',Jordan.Journal
of AnthropologicalArchaeology18:137-164.
Clark,JohnE., andMichael Blake
1994 The Powerof Prestige:CompetitiveGenerosityandthe
Emergenceof RankSocietiesin LowlandMesoamerica.In
FactionalCompetitionandPoliticalDevelopmentin theNew
World. ElizabethM. Brumfieland John W. Fox, eds. Pp.
17-30. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Drucker,Philip, RobertF. Heizer,andRobertJ. Squier
1959 Excavationsat La Venta, Tabasco, 1955. Bureauof
AmericanEthnologyBulletin 170. Washington,DC: Gov-
ernmentPrintingOffice.
Firth,Raymond
1963 Elementsof SocialOrganization. Boston:BeaconPress.
Kent V.
Flannery,
1976 The EarlyFormativeHouseholdClusteron the Guate-
malan Pacific Coast. In The EarlyMesoamericanVillage.
KentV. Flannery,ed.Pp.31-34. New York:AcademicPress.
Garber,JamesF.
1983 Patternsof JadeConsumptionand Disposalat Cerros,
NorthernBelize.AmericanAntiquity48:800-807.
Giddens,Anthony
1985 Time, Space, and Regionalisation.In Social Relations
andSpatialStructures. DerekGregoryandJohnUrry,eds.Pp.
265-295. New York:St.Martin'sPress.
1993 The GiddensReader.PhilipCassell,ed. PaloAlto, CA:
StanfordUniversityPress.
HENDON / HAVING AND HOLDING 51
Godelier,Maurice
[1996]1999 The Enigmaof the Gift. NoraScott, trans.Chi-
cago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Gudeman,Stephen
1986 Economicsas Culture:ModelsandMetaphorsof Liveli-
hood.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.
1998 Introduction.In Economic Anthropology. Stephen
Gudeman,ed. Pp.xi-xviii. TheInternational Libraryof Criti-
cal Writingsin Economics, 99. Cheltenham,UK: Edward
ElgarPublishing.
Halperin,RhodaH.
1994 CulturalEconomiesPastandPresent.Austin:University
of TexasPress.
Hayden,Brian,andRob Gargett
1990 Big Man, Big Heart?A MesoamericanView of the
Emergenceof Complex Society. Ancient Mesoamerica1:
3-20.
Hendon,JuliaA.
1987 The Uses of Maya Structures: A Studyof Architecture
and ArtifactDistributionat Sepulturas,Copan,Honduras.
Ph.D. dissertation,Departmentof Anthropology,Harvard
University.AnnArbor,MI:UniversityMicrofilms.
1991 StatusandPowerin ClassicMayaSociety:An Archeo-
logicalStudy.AmericanAnthropologist 93:894-918.
1997 Women'sWork,Women'sSpaceandWomen'sStatus
among the Classic PeriodMayaElite of the CopanValley,
Honduras.In Women in Prehistory:North America and
Mesoamerica.CherylClaassenandRosemaryA. Joyce,eds.
Pp.33-46. Philadelphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress.
1999 MultipleSourcesof Prestigeandthe SocialEvaluation
of Women in PrehispanicMesoamerica.In MaterialSym-
bols:CultureandEconomyin Prehistory.JohnRobb,ed. Pp.
257-276. OccasionalPaper,26. Carbondale: Centerfor Ar-
chaeologicalInvestigations,Southern IllinoisUniversity.
Hendon,JuliaA., RicardoAgurciaF., WilliamL. Fash,Jr.,
andEloisa AguilarP.
1990 Excavaciones en 9N-8, Conjunto del Patio C. In
Proyectoarqueol6gicoCopainsegundafase:Excavacionesen
el direaurbanade Copain,Tomo2. WilliamT.Sanders,ed. Pp.
11-109. Tegucigalpa:Secretarfade Estadoenel Despachode
Culturay Turismo,InstitutoHondurefiode Antropologiae
Historia.
Hodder,Ian
1986 Readingthe Past:CurrentApproachesto Interpretation
in Archaeology.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Hunter-Tate,ClarissaC.
1994 TheChultunsof Caracol.In Studiesin theArchaeology
of Caracol,Belize. DianeZ. ChaseandArlenF. Chase,eds.
Pp.64-75. Pre-Columbian ArtResearchInstituteMonograph
7. SanFrancisco:Pre-Columbian ArtResearchInstitute.
Joyce, RosemaryA.
1992 Ideologyin Action:ClassicMayaRitualPractice.InAn-
cient Images,AncientThought:The Archaeologyof Ideol-
ogy. A. Sean Goldsmith,SandraGarvie,David Selin, and
JeannetteSmith,eds. Pp. 497-506. Proceedingsof the 23rd
AnnualChacmoolConference.Calgary:ArchaeologicalAs-
sociationof theUniversityof Calgary.
1998 Performingthe Body in Pre-HispanicCentralAmerica.
Res:AnthropologyandAesthetics33:147-165.
52 AMERICAN * VOL. 102, No. 1 * MARCH2000
ANTHROPOLOGIST
In press HeirloomsandHouses:MaterialityandSocialMem-
ory. In Beyond Kinship:Social and MaterialProductionin
HouseSocieties.RosemaryA. JoyceandSusanD. Gillespie,
eds.Philadelphia: Universityof PennsylvaniaPress.
Joyce, Rosemary A., and JuliaA. Hendon
Inpress Heterarchy, History,andMaterialReality:"Commu-
nities" in Late Classic Honduras.In The Archaeologyof
Communities:A New WorldPerspective.Marcello-Andrea
CanutoandJasonYaeger,eds.London:Routledge.
Kiichler,Susanne
1987 Malangan:Art and Memoryin a MelanesianSociety.
Man22:238-255.
1988 Malangan:Objects, Sacrifice and the Productionof
Memory.AmericanEthnologist15:625-637.
Kuijt,Ian
1996 NegotiatingEqualitythroughRitual:A Consideration of
Late Natufianand PrepotteryNeolithicA PeriodMortuary
Practices. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 15:
313-336.
Love, Michael
1999 Ideology,MaterialCulture,and Daily Practicein Pre-
classic Mesoamerica:A PacificCoastPerspective.In Social
Patternsin Pre-ClassicMesoamerica.DavidGroveandRose-
maryA. Joyce,eds.Pp. 127-153. Washington,DC:Dumbar-
tonOaks.
MarcusJoyce
1992 RoyalFamilies,RoyalTexts:ExamplesfromtheZapo-
tec and Maya. In MesoamericanElites:An Archaeological
Assessment.Diane Z. Chase and Arlen F. Chase, eds. Pp.
221-241. Norman:Universityof OklahomaPress.
McAnany,PatriciaA.
1990 WaterStoragein thePuucRegionof theNorthernMaya
Lowlands:A Key to PopulationEstimatesandArchitectural
Variability.In Precolumbian PopulationHistoryin theMaya
Lowlands. T. PatrickCulbertand Don S. Rice, eds. Pp.
263-284. Albuquerque: Universityof New MexicoPress.
1998 Ancestorsandthe ClassicMayaBuiltEnvironment.In
FunctionandMeaningin ClassicMayaArchitecture. Stephen
D. Houston,ed. Pp. 271-298. Washington,DC: Dumbarton
Oaks.
McGaw, JudithA.
1996 ReconceivingTechnology:Why FeminineTechnolo-
gies Matter.In Genderin Archaeology:Essays in Research
andPractice.RitaP.Wright,ed.Pp.52-75. Philadelphia: Uni-
versityof PennsylvaniaPress.
Melion, Walter,andSusanneKuichler
1991 Introduction:Memory,Cognition,and Image Produc-
tion. In Images of Memory:On Rememberingand Repre-
sentation.SusanneKichlerandWalterMelion,eds.Pp. 1-46.
Washington,DC:SmithsonianInstitutionPress.
Miksicek, CharlesH.
1991 The Natural and CulturalLandscape of Preclassic
Cuello.InCuello:An EarlyMayaCommunityinBelize.Nor-
manHammond,ed. Pp.70-84. Cambridge:CambridgeUni-
versityPress.
Miller, Daniel
1998 A Theoryof Shopping.Ithaca,NY: Comrnell University
Press.
Moore,HenriettaL.
1996 Space,Text, andGender:An AnthropologicalStudyof
theMarakwetof Kenya.New York:GuilfordPress.
Pred,Allan
1990 Making Historiesand ConstructingHuman Geogra-
phies:TheLocalTransformation of Practice,PowerRelations
andConsciousness.Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.
Puleston,Dennis E.
1977 An ExperimentalApproachto the Functionof Classic
MayaChultuns.In Experimental Archaeology.DavidInger-
soll, John E. Yellen, and William MacDonald,eds. Pp.
79-102. New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Rapoport,Amos
1990 Systems of Activitiesand Systemsof Settings.In Do-
mestic Architectureand the Use of Space:An Interdiscipli-
nary Cross-CulturalStudy. Susan Kent, ed. Pp. 9-20.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Rathje,William L., andCullenMurphy
1992 Rubbish!TheArchaeologyof Garbage.New York:Har-
perCollins.
Rosman,Abraham,andPaulaG. Rubel
1971 FeastingwithMineEnemy:RankandExchangeamong
NorthwestCoastSocieties.New York:ColumbiaUniversity
Press.
Sahag6in,Bernardinode
1953-1982 FlorentineCodex:GeneralHistoryof the Things
of New Spain.ArthurJ. O. AndersonandCharlesE. Dibble,
trans.Monographsof the Schoolof AmericanResearchand
the Museumof New Mexico, no. 14, parts1-13. SantaFe,
NM andSaltLakeCity:Schoolof AmericanResearchandthe
Universityof Utah.
Sheets, PaysonD.
1992 The CerenSite: A PrehistoricVillage Buriedby Vol-
canicAsh in CentralAmerica.Orlando:Holt,Rinehart,and
Winston.
Sheets,PaysonD., HarrietF. Beaubien,MarilynBeaudry,
AndreaGerstle,BrianMcKee,C. DanMiller,HartmutSpetzler,
andDavid B. Tucker
1990 HouseholdArchaeologyat Cer6n,El Salvador.Ancient
Mesoamerica1:81-90.
Smith,A. Ledyard
1962 Residentialand AssociatedStructuresat Mayapan.In
Mayapan,Yucatan,Mexico.H.E. D. Pollock,RalphL. Roys,
TatianaProskouriakoff,andA. LedyardSmith.Pp. 165-319.
Publication619. Washington,DC: CarnegieInstitutionof
Washington.
Smyth,MichaelP.
1991 Modemrn Maya StorageBehavior:Ethnoarchaeological
CaseExamplesfromthePuucRegionof Yucatan.Memoirsin
Latin AmericanArchaeology,3. Pittsburgh:Universityof
Pittsburgh,Departmentof Anthropology.
Stevanovi6,Mirjana
1997 The Age of Clay:The Social Dynamicsof House De-
struction. Joumrnalof AnthropologicalArchaeology 16:
334-395.
Tedlock,Barbara
1982 Time and the HighlandMaya. Revisededition.Albu-
querque:Universityof New MexicoPress.

Tedlock, Dennis, trans.
1996 PopolVuh:The MayanBook of the Dawnof Life. Re-
visededition.New York:SimonandSchuster.
Tringham,Ruth
1991 HouseholdswithFaces:TheChallengeof GenderinPre-
historicArchitecturalRemains.In EngenderingArchaeol-
ogy: WomenandPrehistory.JoanM. GeroandMargaretW.
Conkey,eds.Pp.93-131. Oxford:BasilBlackwell.
1995 ArchaeologicalHouses, Households,Houseworkand
the Home.In The Home:Words,Interpretations, Meanings,
and Environments.David N. Benjamin,ed. Pp. 79-107.
Aldershot,UK:Avebury.
In press The ContinuousHouse:A View fromthe Deep Past.
In BeyondKinship:SocialandMaterialProductionin House
Societies. RosemaryA. Joyce and SusanD. Gillespie,eds.
Philadelphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress.
Vogt, Evon Z.
1969 Zinacantan:A Maya Communityin the Highlandsof
Chiapas.Cambridge,MA: BelknapPress,HarvardUniver-
sity Press.
Wauchope,Robert
1938 ModemMayaHouses:A Studyof theirArchaeological
Significance.Publication502. Washington,DC:CarnegieIn-
stitutionof Washington.
HENDON / HAVING AND HOLDING 53
Webster,David, WilliamL. Fash,andElliot M. Abrams
1986 Excavacionesen el Conjunto9N-8, PatioA (Operaci6n
VIII). In Proyectoarqueol6gicoCopainsegundafase: Ex-
cavacionesen el aireaurbanade Copin, Tomo 1. WilliamT.
Sanders,ed. Pp. 157-391. Tegucigalpa:Secretarfade Estado
en el Despachode Culturay Turismo,InstitutoHondurefiode
Antropologiae Historia.
Weiner,AnnetteB.
1976 Womenof Value,Menof Renown:New Perspectivesin
Trobriand Exchange.Austin:Universityof TexasPress.
1992 InalienablePossessions: The Paradox of Keeping-
While-Giving.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Winter,MarcusC.
1972 TierrasLargas:A FormativeCommunityin the Valley
of Oaxaca,Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation,Departmentof An-
thropology,Universityof Arizona.Ann Arbor,MI: Univer-
sityMicrofilms.
1976 The ArchaeologicalHouseholdClusterin theValleyof
Oaxaca.In The EarlyMesoamericanVillage. KentV. Flan-
nery,ed. Pp.25-31. New York:AcademicPress.
Xenophon
1923 Oeconomicus.E. C. Marchant,trans.LoebClassicalLi-
brary,168.Cambridge: HarvardUniversityPress.