Smyth 1989 Domestic Storage

Domestic Storage Behavior in Mesoamerica: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach
Author(s): Michael P. Smyth

Source: Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1 (1989), pp. 89-138
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20170198 .
Accessed: 16/06/2014 16:32
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.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Archaeological Method and
Theory.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:32:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
3 Domestic Storage Behavior
in Mesoamerica
An Ethnoarchaeological Approach
MICHAEL P. SMYTH
Food storage has been a topic of considerable interest in

the field of archaeology. This interest has mainly centered on the
ability of past societiesto produce and maintain a surplus, a key

feature in developmental models of social complexity (Adams 1966;
Childe 1950; Sanders and Price 1968). Yet, despite the importance
of storage and surplus, our knowledge and understanding of this
phenomenon is limited. This is particularly true at the domestic
level of analysis. Much of the problem lies in the inability of archae
ologists to recognize remains associated with past storage strategies,

and this in turn has inhibited explorations into storage behavior.
In this paper I discuss storage from several different perspectives
to illustrateits relevance for understanding many aspects of cultural
complexity. Mesoamerica is the regional focus of this presentation,
but my treatment of storage transcends ethnic boundaries and has
more general
implications for archaeological method and theory.
First, I discuss
the theoretical issues concerning the role of storage
and surplus in the rise and functioning of complex societies. Then, I
examine two major viewpoints regarding the development of politi
cal complexity in Mesoamerica and suggest how an understanding
of storage behavior may be helpful in resolving some of these issues.
Next, I review pertinent Mesoamerican storage studies and discuss
their relevance to our current knowledge of storage behavior. Finally,
I present ethnoarchaeological research into domestic storage among
the Yucatec Maya as an example of how we can learn about past
storage behavior from modern situations.
89

90 Michael P. Smyth
Theoretical Issues
Storage is defined here as the technological and behavioral

systems for preserving water and agricultural food surpluses beyond
their normal period of availability. By surplus Imean food products
that are not produced for immediate needs and are intended for some
future use. In respect to the rise of agriculture, surplus and storage
are important issues. Their significant role in societal development
has been recognized by many archaeologists. Barbara Stark has noted
that "at present the full labor costs of subsistence options are ex
tremely poorly specified, in part because of the inattention to proces
sing, preservation, and storage efforts" (1986:298). In developmental

schemes for the explanation of social complexity, the preservation
and utilization of agricultural surpluses play a vital role (e.g., Childe
1950, 1951; Sanders and Price 1968). What is being stored, how and
where stores are housed, and who controls access to storage facilities
are crucial questions for understanding complexity. Storage technol
ogy enables large, densely aggregated sedentary populations to exist
in places where the growing season is not year round. Under these
conditions, storage can provide the social and economic means for
class differentiation and
agricultural intensification (Cohen 1977;
Sanders and Price 1968). Storage behavior can thus be directly linked
to research problems concerning the rise and functioning of cultural
complexity.
Traditionally, storage has been viewed from two different perspec
tives of "surplus." The first envisions the acquisition of a surplus by
overproduction under conditions of subsistence abundance. Surplus
is controlled and utilized to develop, maintain, and enhance the
socioeconomic position of an advantaged elite class. These elite use
and encourage surplus production to fund building projects, finance
trade and exchange, and support warrior and merchant classes.
Through people's investment in cultural institutions, a productive
surplus can provide the economic means for the development of
complex societies (Adams 1966; Childe 1950; Cohen 1977; Sahlins

1958; Sanders and Price
1968).
The second view
emphasizes productive "stress" resulting in sub
sistence shortage brought on by any number of conditions including
overpopulation, warfare, and agricultural disasters (Carneiro 1970;
Earle 1977, 1978). These conditions may produce socially sanctioned

Domestic Storage Behavior 91
status differences. In many pre-state societies abundant surplus is

often burned off ceremonially and kinship relations are expanded to
include wider social interactions (Binford 1983; Peebles and Kus
1977). Under the stressful conditions of food shortages, however,
ceremonial activity is often limited, kinship relations are con
tracted, and food sharing is reduced. Those groups or individuals who
control access to stored surplus can assume highly advantageous so
cial and economic by reneging on their social obligations
positions
with impunity. By restricting access to stored surplus, groups or indi
viduals gain an advantageous economic position in the society,
thereby developing the basis for social inequality. These conditions
may produce the beginnings of class differentiation and cultural
complexity (Binford 1983; Earle 1978; Peebles and Kus 1977).
Storage Systems
Based on ethnographical, ethnohistorical, and archaeological infor

mation, three distinct storage systems can be differentiated: (a) cen
tral, (b) community, and (c) domestic storage. The specification of
how these systems operate and interact may provide us with impor
tant insights into systemic process; that is, cultural changes can be
monitored by documenting shifts in storage behavior. The variability
and structure of each storage system are reflective of the political
and socioeconomic organization of a given society and, therefore,
should provide insights for understanding complexity.
Central Storage
Central storage refers to a system in which foodstuffs are centrally

housed, controlled, and administrated by high ranking government
officials (Anders 1981; Day 1982; Morris and Thompson 1985).
Surplus is extracted
in several ways, either by taxation/tribute, labor
service, trade, or combinations thereof. Because inputs into central
stores are in bulk and come from many segments of society, facilities
or granaries are often large substantial structures. A good New World
example of central storage is Inca state granaries which are massive
constructions designed to house large quantities of foodstuffs and
other goods (DAltroy and Earle 1985; DAltroy and Hastorf 1982;
Earle and DAltroy 1982; Morris and Thompson 1985).

92 Michael P. Smyth
Community Storage
Community storage provides local populations with the technologi
cal means for handling the surplus required for external tax obliga
tions and for insurance in the event of an agricultural famine. Evi
dence for this level of storage organization among the pre-Conquest
Maya is derived from ethnohistorical and colonial documentation of
Northern Yucatan. For instance, the halach uinic was the territorial
or provincial ruler, with many towns and districts under his domain.
The batab was the local head of a town who was often related and
subject to the halach uinic. One of the batab's principal respon
sibilities and obligations to the overlord was the collection of tribute,
mainly foodstuffs, from the
local populace (Roys 1929, 1933, 1939,
1957; Tozzer 1941). Furthermore, references also indicate that this
tribute system remained intact, with only the top levels being re
placed by the Spanish, well into the Colonial period (Relaciones de
Yucat?n 1898-1900; Tasaciones 1941). Even though references to
community storage are mostly indirect, it undoubtedly existed be
cause ethnohistorical sources state that surplus goods were pro
duced, collected, and controlled at the local level. In this respect,
community storage must have provided an important holding area
for tribute as well as a basis for regional and local elite power.
Community or group storage of surplus also served the local needs
of residents, resembling a kind of community chest. In this regard,
cofrad?as Were introduced by the Spanish shortly after the Conquest
and were quickly adopted by the native populations throughout
Mesoamerica. The cofrad?a was a religious institution designed to
support the social and economic needs of the parish community.

Indian cofrad?as quickly developed into institutions that were more
akin to pre-Conquest community organization than the Spanish sys
tem (Chamberlain 1951; Foster 1953; Gibson 1964). In Yucatan dur
ing the Colonial period, Indian cofrad?as became surplus-generating

institutions that provided revenue to support fiestas, the sick and
aged, the community during famine or plague, and the local ruling
elite. Thus community or group storage played an important local
role by enabling cofrad?as as well as earlier Mayan institutions to
meet important community obligations (Farriss 1984).
Domestic Storage
Domestic storage provides the household with a technique for pre
serving food for short and long periods of time. InMesoamerica there

are many types of contemporary domestic maize storage structures

that probably had their origins in antiquity (Hernandez 1949). Stor
age structures can extend the shelf-life of maize for a number of
years, thus buffering families from food shortage in the event of crop
failure.
Domestic storage was and remains extremely important to the
Mesoamerican household. It is argued here that domestic stores were
probably fundamental sources for state surplus generation in Meso
america. On
the other hand, past households undoubtedly benefited
from community and central stores during periods of famine when
government officials met their public obligations by emptying state
stores to feed the hungry. More often than not, state stores are as
sumed to have supported and maintained governmental institutions,
funded building projects, financed trade, and generally enhanced
elite power.
Incan versus Mesoamerican Storage Systems
InMesoamerican civilization, storage at the household level played

a vital role in the generation of surplus. In contrast, by controlling
work forces and the byproducts of their labor, the Inca were able to
produce surplus without relying on domestic storage. Unfortunately,
the importance of domestic storage as a surplus generating mechan
ism in Mesoamerica has not been fully explored.
The structure of political power within a society should be related
to the organization of storage systems. Since the production and ac
quisition of material wealth or surplus is widely seen as a fundamen
tal basis for status differences, the control and maintenance of
surplus over extended time periods requires storage technology. The
types of storage systems that a given society uses to collect, distri
bute, and house surplus should be reflective of that society's political
power base.
In comparing Mesoamerican and Incan two types of poli
societies
ticalpower bases can be distinguished, corporate and autocratic.
Ethnohistorical research suggests that ruling power and decision
making in Mesoamerica were often vested in confederacies or fami
lial groups (Bernai 1966; Duran 1964; Hassig 1985). In those power
based systems, political or ruling power was shared between groups
and decision making was often by corporate agreement. In this re
gard, Mesoamerican political systems probably did not exercise the

94 Michael P. Smyth
same of control
level over the populace as did more autocratic
societies. In contrast, ruling power in autocratic societies is vested
in individuals and many aspects of everyday life are regulated, di
rected, and controlled by a state bureaucracy that is an extension of
an individual ruler's power.
Political power can be inferred from the nature
activity. of market
Kolata (1983) has investigated and compared the structure and or
ganization of both Incan and Mesoamerican markets. For instance,
the Imperial Inca had an autocratic, power-based system, an interpre
tation suggested by the nature of Incan market activity. Those mar
kets were tightly regulated by the ruling Incan king directly or by his
bureaucratic apparatus. Incan markets were developed and main
tained for purposes of the Incan ruler or the state, which were one
and the same. Conversely, the presence of open or free markets
throughout prehistoric Mesoamerica supports the idea that ruling
power was not completely autocratic because many different groups
participated and even competed in market activity, something not
permitted in the Incan system. Ruling factions undoubtedly partici
pated in and extracted taxes from markets but probably did not con
trol all aspects of market activity characteristic of autocratic
societies (Blanton et al. 1981:227; Hassig 1985).
The material foundation of elite power among the Imperial Inca
was based on the control of large corv?e labor forces. This labor force
worked on state lands and industries to produce surplus goods used
to sustain and
enhance elite power (Conrad 1981; Morris 1972;
Murra 1982; Rowe 1946). Among the prehistoric Maya and perhaps
many other Mesoamerican societies, elite power was based primarily
on the acquisition of goods extracted from the populace through tax
ation or tribute and from the control
of periodically used corv?e
labor forces (Chamberlain 1948; Farriss 1984; Tozzer 1941). Because
political control over the populace was considerably weaker inMeso
america, less direct methods of surplus extraction, mainly in the
form of taxation or tribute, had to be employed.
The methods of agricultural surplus extraction and generation
should be related to the systems for storing agricultural surplus. In
societies based on corv?e labor, centralized stores or state granaries
should be well developed, in order to house and handle large
surpluses produced from expansive tracts of state-owned land. Con
versely, domestic stores should play a minor role in state surplus
generation because farmers either lack sufficient time to generate

personal food surpluses due to the demands of state labor obligations

or do not have access to sufficient amounts of cultivatable land.
Under these conditions farmers must subsist largely on food redis
tributed from state granaries.
Agricultural production at the household level in Mesoamerica
must have been instrumental in generating a state surplus. In trib
ute-based societies farmers produce much of their own food and part
of their surplus is used to support elites. The extraction of portions
of domestic stores provided important sources of
surplus. state
Whether farmers were to overproduce
forced or if overproduction was
voluntary is not altogether clear. The result, however, was the same.
Under those conditions, storage systems would have been arranged
along a continuum where household stores supplied the initial foun
dation for generating state surplus and community and central stor
age constituted additional systems for surplus housing and control.
The preceding discussion was designed to illustrate the role of
domestic storage in Mesoamerican and Incan civilizations. Why
Incan granaries (archaeologically very visible) were often such mas
sive monumental constructions is related to the political organiza
tion. An autocratic society that generates state surplus by control
ling large labor forces logistically requires a well organized central
storage system (DAltroy and Earle 1985; DAltroy and Hastorf 1984;
Earle and D'Altroy 1982; Morris and Thompson 1985). Conversely,
large Mesoamerican centers like Teotihuacan have furnished little
evidence of state granaries or central storage of any kind even though
this great center probably had a resident population as large as
200,000 (Mill?n 1970:1079-1080). The lack of both ethnohistorical
and archaeological evidence of Inca-type state granaries in Meso
america may be indicative of organizational differences in the politi
cal structure. Under these conditions, societal surplus may have
been housed, managed, and controlled by utilizing several distinct
storage systems: central, community, and domestic storage.
Political Complexity in Mesoamerica
In this section I discuss the development of political complexity in

Mesoamerica from two major viewpoints, cultural ecology and infor
mation control. With regard to these viewpoints, three major Classic
period (A.D. 300-900) archaeological sites, representative of the
Valley of Mexico, the Valley of Oaxaca, and the Maya Lowlands are

96 Michael P. Smyth
examined from a storage perspective. It is argued that the structure

and organization of storage systems may be indicative of a given
society's political power base and therefore may provide insights for
evaluating many important aspects of complex societies. In this way
an understanding of variability in storage systems may have implica
tions for resolving many issues raised over attempts to explain the
development of political complexity in Mesoamerica.
Cultural ecologists see the interaction
of population pressure and
subsistence technology as the primary forces in the development of
political complexity in Mesoamerica (Logan and Sanders 1976; San
ders and Price 1968; Sanders et al. 1976; Sanders et al. 1979; Sanders
and Santley 1978, 1983; Santley 1980, 1984). A major assumption is
that population growth is a "normal condition" that creates compe
tition over limited resources and eventually results in social stratifi
cation and political centralization. Local stratified political institu
tions arose to suppress disputes over finite amounts of high quality
agricultural land as well as to channel competitive energies against
neighboring groups (Santley 1980). Regionally, the largest demo
graphic group emerged as the dominant political institution by con

trolling the most productive agricultural support base and outcom
peting neighboring political factions (Sanders and Santley 1983;

Santley 1980).
The "informationalists" oppose the population pressure view and
see population growth as a result of sociopolitical evolution rather
than as a cause (Blanton 1976a, 1976b, 1978, 1980a, 1980b, 1984;
Blanton et al. 1981; Flannery 1968, 1972). As societies become more
complex and diversified, the demand for labor increases. To meet
this demand, population growth is encouraged by societal adminis
trators. In this regard, decision making or internal cultural processes
induce the conditions for change within the society,- that is, man
makes himself. Stratified
political institutions and cultural complex
ity develop because
of the symbiotic relationships between human
groups or the control of information or ideology (Blanton 1976b). A
major vehicle for information control is trade and exchange of exotic
goods. The value of these sumptuary items is based not only on the
raw materials and time and craftmanship in their production but
also on their symbolic qualities and ability to transfer information.
Those who control this information or ideology can dominate trade
and exchange networks, a major first step in the development of
political complexity.

Table 3.1 presents some

general archaeological expectations of
how storage systems may appear under diverse state surplus generat
ing mechanisms. This heuristic exercise is somewhat hypothetical,
mainly due to the severe limitations of archaeological data pertain
ing to storage. The generalizations drawn here are designed to illus
trate the potential relationships between three important compo
nents of political complexity: centralization, surplus generation, and
storage systems. Centralization refers to the level of political control
that governmental institutions can exercise over the populace, par
ticularly in regard to how surplus goods are amassed by the state.
Surplus generation is assumed to be directly related to the amount
of centralized control. The methods of surplus generation considered
here are taxation or tribute, labor service, and trade. The degree of
centralization and the method of surplus generation should have
implications for the structure and organization of storage systems
required to handle state surplus.
Located within the Basin of Mexico, Teotihuacan was one of the
largest and most

populated pre-industrial urban centers in the New
World. The Teotihuacan economy was undoubtedly based on agricul
ture but craft production and long distance exchange, particularly of
obsidian products, were also major factors (Sanders and Santley
1983; Santley 1984; Spence 1981). The cultural ecologists argue for
strong centralized governmental control at Teotihuacan (Sanders and
Santley 1983:265-266). However, it appears that state control was
organized more in terms of political/economic regulation rather
than direct control of all aspects of socioeconomic organization
characteristic of Inca centralization. Teotihuacan elites stood to gain
more surplus by allowing producers some control of production
levels, thus significantly reducing administrative costs. Simply col
lecting surplus by taxation or tribute eliminates a great deal of the
expensive bureaucratic apparatus required to control large labor
forces. To facilitate taxation or tribute collection from many seg
ments of the society, the full range of storage systems should play a
major role in the logistics of state surplus generation (Table 3.1).
Monte Alban was a large prehispanic site in the Valley of Oaxaca.
Blanton (1976a, 1978, 1980) has argued that Monte Alban was a "dis
embedded capital." To reduce economic stresses on competing com
mercial centers in the Valley of Oaxaca, a political capital divorced
from urban economic activities was founded at a neutral site to
facilitate regional decision making. This scenario is based on Monte

98 Michael P. Smyth
Table 3.1.
General archaeological expectations of storage systems
given methods of state surplus generation.
TAXATION/TRIBUTE
Domestic
1. Substantial storage feature( s )
2. Redundancy in form of storage3
Community
1. Large storage feature) s )
2. Bulking: low diversity in form of storage
3. Associated with local/public architecture
Central
1. Very large and/or many substantial storage features
2. Warehousing: moderate diversity in form of storage
3. Associated with major civic/governmental architecture
LABOR SERVICE
Domestic
1. No substantial investment in facilities: short-term storage
2. Redundancy in form of storage
Community
1. Large storage feature(s)
2. Bulking: low diversity in form of storage
3. Associated with local/public architecture
Central
1. Massive feature/building
2. Warehousing: moderate diversity in form of storage
3. Part of major central/state governmental architecture or
located in some other strategic location
Alban's location atop a steep mountain in the center of the valley,

the lack of nearby quality agricultural land, the absence of high
levels of craft specialization, and no evidence of a central market
place (Blanton 1976a:256; Kirkby 1973).

Table 3.1. (Continued)
TRADE/EXCHANGE
Domestic
1. No substantial investment in facilities: short-term storage
2. Low redundancy in form of storage
Community
1. Substantial features
2. Bulking: diversity in form of storage
3. Associated with local market
Central
1. Larger than community
2. High diversity in form of storage
3. Associated with a central marketplace and/or governmental
architecture
Note: a. Form of storage refers to the content, design, and shape of storage facilities.
Given the above scenario, political control must have been highly
centralized at Monte Alban. To support a city that includes a dispro
portionate number of decision makers required strong government
control and heavy investment in food production at hinterland ag
ricultural zones (Blanton 1976, 1980:146-147; Blanton et al.
1981:48-49). This interpretation suggests that the control of labor
service and the by-products produced therefrom may have played a
major role in state surplus generation. Storage systems at the state
and community levels would have been required to handle and
house this state surplus. Because elites are divorced from production
combined with
the high cost of transportation (foot power), the logis
tics of supplying the subsistence needs of Monte Alban would entail
the cultivation of regional state lands, the production and bulking of
surplus at outlier communities, and large central storehouses for
long-term consumption needs of urban residents (Table 3.1).

Tikal was an important Classic Maya center located in the tropical
lowlands of modern day Guatemala.
Many Maya archaeologists
would agree that political authority at Tikal and perhaps in the Clas
sic Maya Lowlands in general was not strongly centralized (Culbert

100 Michael P. Smyth
1974, 1977; Marcus 1973; Rathje 1970; Rathje et al. 1978; Willey
1974). Blanton et al. (1981:199-201) see the lack of strong political

centralization as due to the state's to intensify
inabilityagricultural
production to produce surpluses of staple crops on a regional scale.
Instead, the diverse resources characteristic of tropical ecosystems
were redistributed by local and long distance trade. In this way, elites
generated surplus, wealth, and weak political control over regions by

participating in and controlling vital information necessary for coor
dinating exchange networks (Blanton et al. 1981:204-205). In this
regard, domestic storage should play no role in state surplus genera

tion. State and community storage systems should be located in pri
mary and secondary centers respectively to house and handle
surplus used in and generated from long distance
local and trade.
Furthermore, storage technologies should vary widely both locally
and regionally in response to the type of resources produced in each
individual area (Table 3.1).
In contrast, the cultural ecologists argue that the lack of strong
central government at Tikal is related to the inability of tropical
environments to support large, densely aggregated populations (San
ders 1973; Santley et al. 1986). To support centralized political insti
tutions and dense populations, large surpluses have to be produced
from and monocrop agriculture. In tropical
long-term large-scale
ecosystems, however, intensified agriculture can cause serious long

term environmental degradation (Santley et al. 1986:125). At Tikal
and in the Maya Lowlands in general, large surpluses necessary to
support strong centralized institutions could not have been ex

tracted on a regular basis without also inflicting serious hardships
upon the populace. In this light, moderate taxation or tribute policies
may have been an effective means of supporting the state by dis
tributing surplus extraction throughout the society and keeping ad

ministrative costs to a minimum. Under these conditions, one
would expect the complete range of storage systems, but on a smaller
scale (Table 3.1).
This exercise was designed to illustrate the potential relationships
between political centralization, surplus generating mechanisms,
and storage systems in Mesoamerica. Unfortunately, the archaeolo
data needed to adequately evaluate these generalizations are
gical
currently unavailable. As noted in Table 3.1, the contribution that
domestic storage makes in support of the state may indicate how
societal surplus is extracted. To specify this relationship more pre

cisely requires a great deal of further archaeological and contempo

rary research into domestic storage behavior. Clearly, an understand
ing of storage behavior in general and how storage systems operate
and interrelate in particular may hold great promise for resolving
many important issues of cultural complexity.
Mesoamerican Storage Studies
Current archaeological understanding of agricultural stor

age behavior in Mesoamerica, although limited, has benefited from
a combination of ethnoarchaeological, ethnographical, ethnohistori
cal, and experimental research. An ethnoarchaeological study focus
ing on the effects of climatic factors on above-ground storage facili
ties has been undertaken in the Maya
Highlands. The
study (Gotthilf
1982:109-110) questions the assumption that long-term maize stor
age took place in large bell-shaped pits, suggesting instead that pit
storage may have been a past strategy for hiding maize. Ethnoarchae
ological research into modern refuse disposal behavior has also
Maya
begun to document some
types of material patterning associated
with storage facilities (Deal 1985; Hayden and Cannon 1983). "Provi
sional discard" or refuse that may be reused in the future is often
stowed alongside of domestic
buildings, often near storage structures
(Deal 1985:253-259; Hayden and Cannon 1983:131-138; Smyth
1988) (see below). Wieser (1982) has examined the interrelationships
among food processing, preservation, and storage as crucial elements
in the development of agrarian economies.
Important Maya ethnographies have noted the different types of
modern storage facilities (Gann 1918; Redfield and Rojas 1934; Steg
gerda 1941; Thompson 1930; Wauchope 1938). Ethnohistorical ac
counts indicate that present domestic storage structures have their
roots in antiquity and that maize storage was an integral part of the
Mesoamerican economy (Borhegyi 1971:99; Duran 1964:143-148;
Hernandez 1949; Relaciones de Yucat?n 1898-1900:vol. 2:322; Toz
zer 1941:60, 96, 195). Experimental research has been directed at arti
ficial cisterns or chultuns suggesting the possible use of certain
forms of chultuns for food storage (ramon nuts) or fermenting rather
than for water capture (Dahlin and Litzinger 1986; Miksicek et al.
1981; Puleston 1971). These investigations have all provided use
ful insights into storage behavior. However, these have not been

comprehensive studies of storage behavior from an archaeological
perspective.
Agricultural Research into Storage
Agricultural engineers have been studying the principles

of food storage for many years. A considerable amount of research
has been conducted in Third World countries where refrigeration is
not available or affordable (Cotton 1963: Hall 1977; Munro I960;
Oxley 1948; Pedersen 1978). This information has provided impor
tant analogues for understanding prehistoric storage behavior.
The most important facility requirements for successful long-term
food storage (one year or longer) are control of temperature, humid
ity, light, and vermin. The example presented here will focus on the
storage of maize because it plays such a critical role in past and pres
ent Mesoamerican communities. Maize is undoubtedly the most im
portant Maya food crop that can be stored for long periods of time
and constitutes almost 80 percent of a modern Maya farmer's diet
(e.g., Steggerda 1941). The following section is based upon research
into the physical requirements of maize storage conducted by Patri
cia Gilman (1983) and a host of agricultural engineers.
Successful maize storage is constrained by several variables includ
ing moisture content, temperature, humidity, storage time (Johnson
1957), and the level of fungus present (Christensen and Kaufmann
1969). These factors are all interrelated a
by process called "heating,"
which raises the levels of humidity within the stored maize, thus
creating an atmosphere conducive to fungus growth.
The most effective means of combating fungus growth is by drying
prior to storage (Estler 1979). The reduction of the moisture content

of grain will lower the relative humidity of the air around
the grain,
inhibiting fungus growth (Milton and Jarrett 1969). The control of

ambient temperature and humidity has an effect similar to reducing
the moisture content of the grain.
The storage form of maize?whether on or off the ear?depends
on several factors. Among these are storage time, storage space, and
facilities available. Some researchers contend that insect damage is
less on ear maize (Weatherwax 1954), while have suggested
others
that shelled maize dries better (Leonard 1976). Ear maize requires
twice the storage space and is best stored in cribs that can provide

good ventilation, while shelled maize stores better in bins (Leonard

1976; Shove 1970).
In warm climates a number of factors are important in the design
and placement of storage facilities. The most important factors to
consider are insulation, ventilation, and solar radiation (Ransom
1960). Insulation from the outside
temperature can be achieved by
constructing facilities out of durable materials, but to reduce solar
radiation formal properties have tp be considered. For example, ex
terior surfaces should be shaded from the sun while windows and
accessibility should be reduced to minimize heat and the entry of
warm moist air. By elevating facilities off the ground, adequate venti
lationand protection from soil moisture can be achieved. Solar radi
ation can best be reduced by facing the long axis of facilities east
west so surface area exposure to the sun can be lessened. The best
facility shape is a cube or better yet a cylinder so that surface area

can be further reduced (Ransom 1960). Finally, ground level storage
facilities should have watertight openings and floors to insure
against potential flooding.
Archaeological Research into Storage
Research into storage behavior has also been directed at

the archaeological record. Often, archaeological studies of storage in
complex societies have focused on large nucleated or centralized
granaries. Numerous findings of centralized storage structures can be
cited, from Mesopotamia (Hole 1966; Paolo 1981; Redman 1978), the
Indus Valley (Allchin and Allchin 1974;Marshall 1931), the Aegean
(Jones et al. 1986; Renfrew 1972), and Peru (Anders 1981; Day 1982;
Morris and Thompson 1985) to name a few. These structures are gen
erally associated with monumental architecture, are often large and

sometimes massive, and are constructed out of nonperishable mate
rials. The attention paid to this level of storage is predominately due
to its high degree of archaeological visibility.
InMesoamerica archaeological evidence for central storage is ten
tative at best, although ethnohistorical sources indicate that it did
exist (Duran 1964:144; Hernandez 1949; Prescott 1843:319; Tozzer
1941:60). At the Post-Classic (A.D. 1000-1520) Mayan trading center
of Cozumel, central storage is suggested by agglutinated structures
that have been interpreted as warehousing facilities (Freidel and

Sabloff 1984:128, 137). Definitive identifications of central storage

structures at Mesoamerican centers are rare.
Mesoamericanists have generally argued that domestic food stor

age took place in highly visible archaeological features such as bell
shaped pits that occur sitesat many
throughout Mesoamerica
(Borhegyi 1965a, 1965b; Flannery and Winter 1976; Reina and Hill
1980; Shook 1951; Winter 1976). Recent ethnoarchaeological re
search into pit function, however, casts doubt on this assumption
(Gotthilf 1982). In tropical regions, the storage environment within
pits has been shown to be detrimental for regular use in food preser
vation due to high temperature and humidity levels. Also, in the
Maya area most contemporary household storage facilities designed
for long-term food preservation are above-ground and constructed of
perishable materials. If prehistoric domestic storage facilities were
also made of perishable materials then archaeological identification
of storage activities becomes more difficult. Clearly, archaeologists
need to clarify and improve upon the criteria currently employed to
detect and interpret domestic storage.
Household Research
Analysis at the household level has become an important objective

of archaeologists investigating cultural complexity (Ashmore 1981;
Flannery 1976; Sabloff 1983;Tourtellot 1983;Wilk and Rathje 1982).
Researchers have realized that to understand the process of social
complexity, elite and non-elite organization must be investigated.
Most attention has been directed towards investigating elite com
ponents of
complex systems. The support populations not only
sustained elites but were vital segments of cultural systems that
often leave numerous archaeological remains. Additionally, studies
of contemporary households can provide valuable information about
the structure and organization of peasant societies as well as en
lighten archaeologists about many cultural aspects of past non-elite
populations.
Modern Storage Behavior
The following discussion draws on ethnoarchaeological

storage data from traditional Maya subsistence farmers residing in

Figure 3.1. The Yucatan Peninsula, showing location of Puuc hills region.
the Puuc hills region of Northern Yucatan (Fig. 3.1). As stated previ
ously, domestic storage is potentially a critical component of politi
cal complexity in Mesoamerica. In this regard, an improved under
standing of domestic storage behavior is warranted. To address this

Table 3.2.
Other important storage related studies
Reference Year Type of Study Region
Aschero 1979 Archaeological Peru

Batten 1987 Archaeological General
Binford 1978 Ethnoarchaeological Alaska
Bonavia and Grobman 1979 Archaeological Peru
Bowen 1967 Archaeological Europe
Bowen and Wood 1968 Experimental Europe
Chaddick and Leek 1971 Archaeological Africa
Cross 1987 Archaeological Southwest
Fenton 1983 Experimental Europe
Gilman 1983 Ethnographical Southwest
Gilman 1987 Ethnographical Southwest
Halstead and O'Shea 1982 Archaeological None
Harris 1959 Theoretical None
Hayden and Nelson 1981 Ethnoarchaeological Mesoamerica
Hitchcock 1987 Ethnoarchaeological Africa
Hugo 1985 Archaeological Peru
Hunter-Anderson 1977 Theoretical None
Ingold 1983 Ethnographical None

Kamp 1982 Ethnoarchaeological Near East
objective, I shall present information on three facets of domestic stor

age behavior and site structure: (a) the variable use and placement
of storage facilities both inside and outside of domestic buildings;
(b) the use of permanent versus temporary storage structures; and
(c) the size and volume of facilities in relation to the storage system.
The spatial variability and site structure of storage systems at the
household level
provide information for a model based on facility/
structure usage and storage activities that can be used as a framework
for identifying and interpreting the material remnants of storage.
Ethnoarchaeology, the study of modern communities from the
material-oriented perspective of the archaeologist, has received in
creased attention over the last ten years (Binford 1978a, 1978b;

Table 3.2. Continued
Reference Year Type of Study Region
Lacey 1972 Agricultural Europe

Lethwaite 1969 Geographical General
Manning 1975 Historical Europe

McGuire and Schiffer 1983 Theoretical None
Mendelsshon 1974 Historical Africa
Morris 1967 Archaeological Peru
Morris 1981 Archaeological Peru
Ordish 1964 Agricultural Mesoamerica
Panowski 1985 Ethnographical N.W Coast
Pearson 1957 Theoretical None
Quilter and Stocker 1983 Archaeological Peru
Richman 1971 Archaeological Italy
Schiffer 1973 Theoretical None
Sinha 1973 Agricultural None
Smith 1964 Archaeological Europe
Testart 1982 Ethnographical General
Valladeres 1957 Ethnographical Mesoamerica
Weinstein 1973 Ethnographical Near East
Werge 1977 Agricultural Peru

Wilk 1983 Ethnographical Mesoamerica
Gould 1978; Kent 1984, 1987; Kramer 1979, 1982; Yellen 1977).
Ethnoarchaeology attempts to "systematically define relationships
between behavior and material culture ... and to ascertain how cer
tain features of observable behavior may be reflected in the remains
which archaeologists can find"
(Kramer 1979:1). Through a process
of observation and experimentation, ethnoarchaeology has been used
to build an inferential base for improving interpretations of the ar
chaeological record from known contemporary activities (Binford
1977; Sabloff et al. 1987).
Site structure analysis is a second area of investigation that has
received increased attention. Site structure refers to "the spatial dis
tributions of artifacts, features, and fauna on archaeological sites"

(Binford 1983:144). A site structure approach can provide informa

tion on spatial usage involved with different activities and focuses
on the relationships between the organizational framework of be
havior and associated remains found in the archaeological record.
The Puuc is a hilly region of limestone outcrops that represents
the only major topographic relief on the northern peninsula of Yuca
tan (West 1964:70-71). The Puuc is a semi-arid tropical region where
thin soils and well defined wet and dry periods limit the growing
season as well as the production levels of slash and burn or milpa
agriculture. Despite many changes brought on by modern agricul

tural technology, traditional maize production and storage are still
important household subsistence activities to many Maya agricul
turalists within this region.
The Puuc household or solar is the basic organizational unit where
most domestic social and economic activities take place. The solar
is generally bounded by a stone wall enclosing an area ranging from
400 to 20,000 square meters: the average area is 2,291 square meters.
The basic solar consists of a living residence, a kitchen, amaize store
house, and several animal structures. Most buildings are of wattle
and daub construction, often with thatched roofs and stone-lined
foundations. Other characteristic features include house altars,
wells, water storage tanks [pilas], kitchen and outside hearths, ele
vated gardens, clothes washing tubs, and sometimes outdoor maize
granaries.
During the 1986 fall-winter harvest period, 35 households were

visited at 15 different communities within the Puuc region of Yuca
tan, Mexico (Fig. 3.2). A core sample of 27 households at 9 com
munities was taken in the heart of the Puuc region. An additional 8
households were visited at 6 peripheral communities, to sample for
regional variation. At each household all buildings, facilities, and

activity areas particularly related to storage behavior were precisely
mapped. In addition, a detailed questionnaire covering storage prac
tices, agricultural production, economic wealth, and general house
hold information was administered.
In the Puuc region, maize storage is the only form of storage that
requires elaborate facilities and regular activity scheduling. Beans
and squash are rarely stored for long periods of time. Beans are gener
ally purchased at the market as needed while squash is only season
ally available, does not store well, and is frequently used as fodder.
When beans and dried squash seeds are preserved, they are stored in

Figure 3.2. The Puuc region study area.
Opichen
rZ?,
Muna
'r.
r<
rl
r^
Ticul
Oxkutzcab
Santa Elena
'
nr
Kabah
San Simor
Xculoc
Sayil ,Labr
.
Chuncedroy
San Antonio
Santa Rita Xul
Yaxche
kobenjaltun T
Yaxachen N
,Bolonchen
0 kilometers *0
Archaeological Site Modern Community [
burlap or nylon sacks. Maize storage and its associated activities are
among the most important factors that affect
spatial organization
within the household by structuring and delimiting available work
space.

An important distinction should be made between storehouses

and storage facilities. Maize is always stored in a storage facility, but
the facility is not always in a storehouse. Storehouses are indepen
dent buildings that can be either former residences or buildings con
structed especially to contain maize storage facilities. Because store
houses play such an important role in the household economy, they
are often built, repaired, and maintained as carefully as residences.
Walls are meticulously sealed with daub in order to create a stable
and secure interior storage environment. On the other hand, maize
storage facilities are either cribs or bins (trojes) both of which are
elevated rectangular structures constructed from wood poles. The
only difference is that bin interiors are generally lined with guano
leaves while crib walls are open to allow for air circulation.
Even though crib and bin facilities are structurally similar, the
storage techniques for maize stored in them
directly affect storage
duration, which in turn, influences storage location, permanence,
volume, and site structure at the houselot. Maize is stored within
facilities in one of three basic ways, each technique corresponding to
a different length of preservation: (1) husked or on the ear without
maize leaves for ca. six months);
(lasting (2) shelled (ca. one year); or
(3) packed vertically on the ear with maize leaves (over 3 years).
Packed ear maize is stored exclusively within crib facilities. When
packed ear maize
is not required for daily food, it can be used as a
banking strategy to guard against crop failure or as seed corn. Shelled
and husked ear maize are exclusively stored in bins and serve the
daily consumption needs of the household.
Location of Storage Structures
Storage facilities can be placed either inside or outside of buildings.

The most common location of maize facilities is within storehouses
(Fig. 3.3).Special storehouses are preferred storage locations because
they provide a secure environment for long-term storage and contain
the space necessary for several facilities used to house large quan
tities of maize. Facilities inside of residences are less common but
can provide substantial space for maize
storage.
Storage facilities, at times, are located outside of buildings, either
within the houselot or out in the milpa. These exterior facilities are
always roofed cribs that contain only packed ear maize. Because bins
are designed for shelled or ear maize, they cannot provide sufficient

Figure 3.3. Location of maize facilities.
Storehouse Residence Patio Milpa

INSIDE OUTSIDE
outdoor protection from vermin or the elements and therefore are

never located outside. Crib facilities are much more secure and can
maintain a stable outdoor storage environment.
The location of exterior storage facilities is determined by two
spatial conditions at the household: (1) the amount of interior space
and (2) the distances to milpas. Facilities are located outside build
ings where household population densities are high relative to the

amount of interior space. Under these conditions, storage facilities
had to be placed outdoors within the houselot. In addition, distance
to milpa and field accessibility also contribute to facility location.
Occasionally, maize cribs are situated out in the milpas. These par
ticular milpas were several kilometers from the houselot and were
located long distancesfrom any road; access to milpa land was by
narrow footpaths only. Given the relatively small labor pool within
these households, the most efficient means to transport the maize
harvest is to store it in the milpa and bring portions to the houselot
as need dictates.

Permanence of Storage Structures
The permanence of storage is another aspect of activity organization

that conditions site structure. Permanence refers to storage struc
tures that have a minimum use-life of one year. Storehouses are per
manent structures while storage facilities are more temporary; they
have differing implications for the organization of storage related
activities.
Storehouses are permanent fixtures that have lifespans as long as
any structure within the house compound. In terms of size and con
struction, storehouses are practically identical to residences. Indeed,
if this pattern is archaeologically applicable, some population esti
mates based and room counts
on house in the Maya area may have
to be adjusted (e.g., Tourtellot et al. 1988; see Smyth 1988). Cribs
located within storehouses can be permanent particularly when har
vests are large enough to last through the next growing season. The
surplus maize is kept either as insurance against shortage, bought by

market middlemen, or sold to unfortunate neighbors in the event of
an agricultural disaster. Households with outside facilities always
have at least two cribs: one or more temporary cribs for daily con
sumption needs and another, more permanent, facility for seed and
surplus corn. The permanent facility is only emptied under stressful
conditions during poor harvests.
All bins and some cribs can be characterized as temporary facili
ties. These facilities are emptied and dismantled on a seasonal basis
and are reconstructed and refilled in the same locations during the
next harvest season. When these facilities are not present, they cease
to affect the household
activity structure. Conversely, storehouses
and permanent cribs are often large structures that take up valuable
domestic space. Because of their size, presence, and importance to
long and short-term subsistence, these structures need to be inte

grated into and strongly affect the household activity structure.
Storehouses are not only important to maize storage but are also an
important component of the daily maize processing system.
Wealth and age are the two primary factors responsible for storage
permanence. Wealth refers to those individuals who possess and can
dispose of income. Farmers with storehouses regularly produce large
harvests and are generally economically advantaged. Large harvests
result from either putting more land under cultivation, locating
milpas within good soils that receive abundant rainfall, or by inten

sifying agricultural production. Under these conditions, storehouses

and permanent facilities are needed to handle and preserve surplus.
Conversely, less fortunate farmers may not invest in storehouses
because of low production levels. Because of limited economic re
sources, the inability to invest additional labor inputs beyond their
own, and restricted access to prime agricultural land, poor farmers?
who are often young?are unable to generate high production out
puts. Puuc land tenure systems favor those individuals who have
lived in the community for the longest time or those who are most
closely related to local ejido leaders. The ejido system is a federal
institution responsible for land redistribution that was implemented
by the Mexican government after the Revolution of 1910. Local ejido
leadership positions change yearly but are often confined within cer
tain families. Newcomers are frequently young families with few
kinship ties within the community, which results in their receiving
marginal cultivation areas. Due to the politics of ejido membership,
the most established residents generally have access to the most de
sirable land.
As of local tenure rules, old farmers generally have access
a result
to large tracts of fertile land, but because of their age, they are unable
to maintain high productive levels. In the absence of large maize
harvests, their maize stores are expended and facilities dismantled
before the next agricultural cycle can be completed. Because of the
age and economic constraints that result in small maize harvests,
young and old farmers are either unable or unwilling to construct
permanent storehouses.
Middle-aged farmers are well established community members

and frequently produce the most maize. Due to their social position,
these farmers have access to large tracts of high quality land and are
often economically advantaged. Larger agricultural outputs are possi
ble because middle-aged farmers generally have the resources to in
crease the amount of land under cultivation. With increased har
vests, farmers can amass more surplus that can be preserved and
used for their social and economic benefit. To handle increased sur
pluses, storehouses and permanent storage facilities are necessary.
Volume of Storage Structures
Storage volume refers to both the capacity and size of maize

facilities. The two major factors that condition storage volume in

the household are storage techniques and daily maize consumption.

These two factors combine to affect the size, duration, and location
of maize facilities. In this
regard, the volume of storage has distinct
structural for activity
implications organization in the houselot.
Different storage techniques not only correspond to storage dura
tion but also condition facility volume. For housing equal amounts
of grain, ear maize requires twice the storage volume of shelled
maize. In this regard, shelled maize is the most spatially efficient
way to storelarge quantities of maize for up to one year. Husked
maize on the ear tossed haphazardly into bins requires the most stor
age space and preserves for no more than six months. Packed ear
maize is moderately efficient in regard to spatial usage and can last
for over three years.
With respect to long-term storage, packed ear maize is the most
frequently utilized storage technique because it can provide
maximum preservability combined with moderately efficient use of
storage space (Fig. 3.4). In this case storage duration is of prime im
portance. Conversely, under short-term storage conditions, accessi
bility becomes as important as preservability. Due to spatial con
straints at the houselot, storing shelled maize within facilities that
are volumetrically efficient may be necessary. However, when stor
age space is not at a premium, facilities containing husked ear maize
will be placed at the most accessible storage location so shelling can
be undertaken without
interfering with other household activities.
The quality of facility construction is also important to storage
volume. Shelled and husked ear maize are always stored indoors
whereas packed ear maize can be stored either indoors or outdoors.
This dual locational distinction of packed ear maize is related not
only to household
spatial pressures and milpa distance but also to
storage volume. On average, the volume of outside packed ear maize
facilities are smaller than similar inside facilities. The difference in
mean volume (2.21 cubic meters) is behaviorally, although not statis
tically, significant. Consequently, cribs, on
average, house can
enough additional maize to feed a family of five and animals for a

period of 2.5 months (e.g., Benedict and Steggerda 1936; Steggerda
1941). This difference in volume is due to the demands of quality of
construction. Outdoor require high quality construction
facilities to
provide a secure and stable storage environment. Cribs are designed
to allow for air circulation and must be strong enough to support the
weight of stored maize for long periods of time. Because the construe

Figure 3.4. Histogram of storage techniques.
25'
c/)
<
<
o
H
(/)
U.
O
H
LU
?
UJ
?.
Shelled Husked Packed

STORAGE TECHNIQUE
tion of large outdoor storage facilities is difficultgiven the kinds of

available building materials (i.e., wooden poles), individual facilities
are usually small, and several cribs may be needed. In contrast, in
door stores are protected by the surrounding structure. In addition,
interior cribs are usually built into the surrounding structures,
which provide support for larger, heavier packed ear maize facilities
as well as other varieties of maize storage. The quality of construc
tion of maize facilities and household structures used for maize stor
age are closely related to storage volume.
Daily maize consumption by human and animal populations in
the solar is another important factor that contributes to storage vol
ume. Common small household animals such as turkeys, chickens,
and pigeons are regularly fed shelled maize while pigs, horses, and
cattle consume ear maize. two feeding
These strategies are directly
related to storage form and volume. Because large animals require

Figure 3.5. Comparison of household population size and

maize storage facilities.
1 [^ Range
20
X Mean
~s Standard
Deviation
UJ
N
3> 15-1
2
O
H
<
2O 10
Husked Shelled Packed
STORAGE TECHNIQUE
large amounts of ear maize, storage facilities must be voluminous.

Similarly, the number of household fowl will affect the volume and
size of shelled maize facilities. In this
regard, the animal type, num
ber, and feeding strategy are factors in household maize consumption
and therefore, are conditioning elements of storage volume.
Household population size is directly related to maize consump
tion, which in turn affects storage techniques. Figure 3.5 shows the
relationships between storage techniques and household population.

Households that use shelled maize facilities on average have low
population sizes. In contrast, the average population size of house

holds that rely on husked ear maize is considerably higher. These
data suggest that as population size and maize consumption increase
amore short-term storage strategy results. This strategy also requires
larger facilities. When maize stores are consumed before the next

agricultural harvest, long-term storage is not needed. Frequently,

domestic animals are sold off to provide funds to purchase grain.
However, long-term storage strategies are characterized by low popu
lation size (Fig. 3.5). Furthermore, this relationship is not strongly
affected by the number of animals, large or small, at the solar (Smyth
1988). Due to low consumption rates, these households can store
surplus maize either to be sold off later or kept as insurance against

agricultural failure.
The Storage Model
Storage permanence, location, and volume have distinct

effects on the spatial organization of household activities. These
three interrelated factors contribute to the spatial organization and
activity structure in the Maya houselot. A principal focus of the
model is to help identify and interpret the material fallout associated
with storage behavior.
In this section I develop amodel based on the organizational struc
ture of storage behavior as reflected by space and facility usage, activ
ity scheduling, and refuse disposal patterns in the sample of Puuc

households. First, I describe maize processing as part of the storage
activity structure. Then, I discuss the organizational relationships

between storage permanence, location, and volume and the use of
domestic space.
The storage model is based on the spatial relationship between
storage-related structures and maize processing activities. Maize
cooking and washing are two important behavioral activities related
to storage that strongly structure the usage of space within the
houselot. The maize cooking areas are either inside the kitchen or at
outside hearths within the patio in close proximity to the kitchen.
Maize washing areas are located near wells or more often adjacent to
water tanks. Because maize
washing often creates muddy areas,
washing areas are near patio peripheries
located or locations that
receive little traffic but are still near the cooking areas.
An important preservative used in all forms of maize storage is
powdered lime. When added to stored maize it acts as a drying agent
and helps discourage rodent, insect, and bird infestations. Research
ers have also noted the critical importance of lime/alkali processing
of maize. Without lime/alkali processing, maize is not nutritionally

beneficial as a major dietary staple (Bressani and Scrimshaw 1958;

Katz et al. 1974). In Yucatan today, lime is used in heavy concentra
tions on maize within facilities, and it is also applied to the interior
surface of storehouse walls.
Lime is an important component of the daily maize processing
system. To begin processing, maize mustbe shelled, if necessary,
and then soaked overnight in an alkali (lime) solution. Afterwards,
the maize is cooked by boiling for 30 minutes to one hour (depending
upon the amount) to soften the hard kernels. The next step is to
wash the maize thoroughly to remove the excess lime. After wash
ing, the excess water is drained off (again in low traffic areas). Finally,
the maize is brought into the kitchen or taken to the local general
store to be ground into a dough for the daily preparation of tortillas.
The kitchen, storage, and water sources are all focal points in
maize processing. Because these places contain essential facilities,
maize processing activities are located close to them. As a result,
these locations act as central nodes affecting the spatial structure of
food processing activities.
Maize cooking can be classified as a "low-participatory" activity
(e.g., Arnold 1987). By low-participatory, mean
I an activity that does
not necessitate constant uninterrupted involvement by an indi
vidual. Maize cooking as part of the processing system requires few
materials (a hearth and a durable container) and only occasional at
tention. Once a fire has
been started and cooking has begun, the
activity only needs to be monitored periodically. Because maize
cooking is almost exclusively a female activity and many female
tasks center around the kitchen, maize cooking areas must be within
line of sight of the kitchen. If spatial pressures at the houselot are
severe enough, maize cooking will be undertaken within the
kitchen. The
general pattern is to locate maize cooking in the patio
far enough away so as not to interfere with the other household ac
tivities but also close enough to be monitored at a glance.
Figure 3.6 illustrates the spatial relationship of linear distance
between maize cooking and washing areas and the kitchen, water
sources, and storage locations. The general pattern suggests that all
three structure locations or poles, although somewhat unequally,
affect the placement of maize processing areas exhibited by the clus
tering of data points near the center of the triangular grid. The pur
pose of this graph is to show the patterned relationships among three

Figure 3.6. Triangular co-ordinate plot
of maize processing areas and water,
kitchen, and storage places. Distances
are expressed as percentages of the total
distance between each example of an

area and the water, kitchen, and storage
place in its houselot.
/wc\ / \ C -Cooking Area

/ \ W - Maize Washing Area
c
# \
L w so A
/-? \ W 60 / ?\
/*/ \ W C / V^
?>/ \w w c /W
W
??
/\
S \w\ 40// % -\
/\
w c c W
/ A
33*/--JL-_-\33X
/ ti/ o / \ <\
/ \ *\
W wW
/ / 20 y \
-A
^ Wc\ <?
*A /
k?/ / W \ V
/ / \ v
**
/ / \ \
_\/ /d> v c_y \_\?_A
water STORAGE *l kitchen

points. Distances are expressed in terms of percentages of total dis

tance measured from each of three poles located on the midline for
each side of the triangle. Points that fall within the 33 percent zone
from each pole designate a strong spatial relationship.
Cooking areas tend to be located closest to household kitchens

partly so cooking can be easily monitored and because the kitchen is
the final point in food processing. Storage and water also play an
important role in determining the placement of cooking areas be
cause they contain the necessary ingredients of maize cooking and
must be conveniently located and readily accessible on a daily basis.
In this regard, the
spatial relationships among maize cooking, the
kitchen, water, and storage are significant factors that condition site
structure at the houselot.
Maize washing is a "high-participatory activity" that requires the
complete attention of the laborer. Since water is the critical ingredi
ent, water sources strongly influence the location and spatial organi
zation of maize washing. The task of maize washing requires a lot of
water, which is heavy and difficult to transport. Another important
consideration that affects the distances from all three spatial nodes
to activity loci is to keep washing areas on patio peripheries to avoid
producing muddy areas near high traffic locations. Even though

water accessibility strongly affects the location of maize washing, the
kitchen and storage also contribute to washing activity placement
because they are an intrinsic part of the maize processing system.
The location, permanence, and volume of maize facilities and
storehouses contribute to the spatial arrangement of maize proces
sing activities and are important elements of the storage model.
Storehouses, residences that contain maize facilities, kitchens, and
water tanks together are regularly oriented to enclose the patio space
of the houselot. The location, permanence, and size/volume of these
structures constrains and restricts maize processing areas. Under
these spatial constraints, processing activities become entrenched
and increasingly segregated to avoid interference with other house
hold chores. The result is a more rigid and repetitive use of work
space. In addition, storehouses are part of daily maize processing
activities and occupy large amounts of space. Their presence acts to
delimit and structure patio area by reducing available workspace. In
this regard, the size and location of fixed storehouses forces a more
repetitive and segregated activity structure within maize processing
areas.

Temporary maize facilities can also structure maize processing ac

tivity space. As interior facilities are emptied and dismantled, the
area is given over to more general household use. Outside facilities
are rarely taken down completely; the foundation posts as well as
some floor poles are often left. In the absence of facilities, storage
has a reduced effect on the spatial organization of activities. Maize
processing shifts closer to and becomes
dominated by the kitchen,
as a result, the activity structure can change in terms of where the
maize is washed and cooked. Even water tanks and cooking hearths
may be relocated closer to or within the kitchen when storage facili
ties are removed. In this way, temporary facilities are intrinsically
related to maize processing activities.
Storage volume and associated maize shelling behavior also have
implications for spatial
usage at the houselot. The shelling of an
entire harvest requires intensive use of houselot space over short
durations, which may only marginally affect the household activity
structure. Under these conditions, facility volume and its impact is
also reduced because shelled maize
takes up less storage space. Con
versely, in conjunction with larger ear maize facilities, the necessity
for daily shelling can restructure domestic activity areas by forcing a
more constrictive and repetitive use of workspace. By understanding
the spatial requirements of variable shelling/storage behavior, stor
age volume can provide insights into domestic site structure.
Archaeological Implications
When either outdoor facilities are intact or storehouses

are present, the area underneath or around the structure becomes
space for items that are provisionally stored (see Deal 1985). These
items are intended for some future use and often consist of large
broken pottery vessels, building materials, and other miscellaneous
objects. In contrast, when exterior facilities are dismantled, even par
tially, the space becomes a toss zone for household refuse. The mate
rial fallout associated with provisional storage and household dis
posal behavior, found together, may be an archaeological indicator of
temporary outdoor storage. Conversely, material remains that
suggest only provisional storage found in association with stone
foundations may imply a storehouse location.
Based on excavation data from modern households, several differ

ferent sources of archaeological patterning are potentially associated

with and indicative of storage. Soil lime/calcium levels are much
higher than normal within storage and maize washing contexts. Sev
eral features, including posthole configurations, crib/bin elevation
support boulders, and stone and compacted earthen floors are com
monly associated with storage facilities. Artifact classes and densi

ties are often distributed differentially inside and outside of storage
structures. Analyses of pollen and macro-botanical samples suggest
that percentages of organic remains are higher inside storage areas.
These data suggest that several lines of evidence for storage are
retrievable and could facilitate archaeological identification of stor
age (Smyth 1988). However, in the absence of an understanding of
the organizational structure of storage and related activity areas that
the storage model provides, these material patterns, in and by them
selves, are by no means adequate criteria for recognizing maize stor
age. The organizational framework of storage at the domestic level is

essential for making meaningful archaeological pattern recognition
possible. This characteristic is one of the great strengths of ethno
archaeological research, the ability to witness and explain variability

and regularity in the organizational framework of behavior and its
material correlates (Binford 1978a, 1978b; O'Connell 1987; Kent
1987; Killion 1987). These multiple lines of evidence are only mean
ingful when understood within the spatial structure of storage and
related activity areas. In this way, a reliable framework for storage
identification can be developed.
Discussion
in maize storage location, permanence, and volume can

Variability
be attributed to a combination of the formal properties of storing
maize as well as socioeconomic, demographic, and spatial condi
tions at the household level. As discussed earlier, storage facilities
are designed with the formal properties of maize storage techniques
in mind, and the resulting variable durations of storage can also have
an impact on the location, permanence and volume of the storage
structures. The reasons for differential storage behavior are a func
tion of producer age, economic advantage, population size and den
sities, and limited interior residential space.
Location, permanence, and volume of storage facilities are closely
interrelated with a set of maize processing activities that are part of

the daily routine of every Yucatecan household. The location and

orientation of kitchens and water sources also play a role in the spa
tial structure of maize processing. These variable elements of the
storage model that contribute to the spatial organization, the activ
ity structure, and, ultimately, the associated material in domestic
contexts can provide an improved framework for understanding stor
age behavior and for the behavioral interpretation of archaeological
deposits.
Conclusions
Since storage is a critical

but poorly understood compo
nent of complex societies, a great deal of additional research atten
tion is necessary. Future research should proceed in a variety of dif
ferent directions. Further studies into domestic storage behavior
could be undertaken in societies that have contrasting cultural,
environmental, and subsistence bases. There are many places in the
world that still rely on traditional agricultural and storage practices.
Because cultures operate under diverse environmental conditions,
societies that produce staple crops such as rice, potatoes, or millet
require an array of agricultural strategies. Storage systems are intrin
sically related to agricultural strategies,- both are constrained by
sociocultural and environmental conditions. These conditions can
affect processing
techniques, storage technology, and the storability
of staple crops; all fundamental elements for successful long-term
food preservation. These factors are important to subsistence and
storage systems and require further investigation.
Storage models derived from contemporary behavior should be
applied to archaeological contexts to demonstrate their utility for
identifying and interpreting past storage behavior. Understanding
the systemic interaction between different storage systems in terms
of how surplus is manipulated and maintained may provide insights
into past political organization. In this light, differential storage be
havior may be an indicator of status or wealth and could have signifi
cant implications for monitoring social stratification and agricul
tural production intensity.
This paper has addressed some of the central theoretical issues
concerning the role of storage and surplus in the development of
cultural complexity. It is argued that storage can be used as a frame

of reference to monitor different components of political organiza

tion. The background information derived from different sources em
phasizes the limitations and current state of our knowledge about
storage. The ethnoarchaeological discussion emphasized three as
pects of storage behavior?location, permanence, and volume. These
data, collected from the Puuc region, suggest that storage location,
permanence, and volume play an important role in the spatial organi
zation and site structure of Yucatecan Maya households. This study
not only provides an initial step for identifying storage archaeologi
cally but taken further may provide a means for resolving some of
the issues addressed earlier by specifying how storage relates to
economic differences, agricultural production, and the development
of political complexity.
Acknowledgments
Iwish to thank Philip Arnold, Susan Kent, Ronald Knee

bone, Jerry Sabloff, Mike Schiffer, Gair Tourtellot, and a host of
anonymous reviewers whose critical comments have greatly im
proved this paper. Any shortcomings in the manuscript are solely
my own. Funding for this research was by the National
provided
Science Foundation Grant Number BNS8711440, the Organization
of American States, a Tinker grant from the Latin American Institute
at the University of New Mexico, Sigma Xi, and the Student Re
search Allocations Committee of the University of New Mexico.
REFERENCES
Adams, R. M.
1966 The Evolution of Urban Society: Early Mesopotamia and Pre

Hispanic Mexico. Aldine, Chicago.
Allchin, B., and R. Allchin
1974 The Indus Civilization and The Aryan Invasions. In The Rise and
Fall of Civilizations: Modern Archaeological Approaches to
Ancient Cultures. Selected Readings, pp. 316-331, edited by J.A.
Sabloff and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky. Cummings, California.
Anders, M. B.
1981 Investigation of State Storage Facilities in Pampa Grande, Peru.

Journal of Field Archaeology 8:391-404.

Arnold, P. J. Ill
1987 The Household Potters of Los Tuxtlas: An Ethnoarchaeological
Study of Ceramic Production and Site Structure. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Aschero, C. A.
1979 Acer?mico
Un Asentamiento en la Quebrada de Inca Cueva
Informe Preliminar sobre el Sitio Inca Cueva 4. Actas de las
Jornadas de Arqueolog?a del Noroeste Argentino, Antiquitas,
Publicaci?n 2:159-183, Buenos Aires.
Ashmore, W. (editor)
1981 Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns. University of New Mexico
Press, Albuquerque.
Batten, D. C.
1987 Evaluating the Concept of Food Storage "On the Hoof". In

Haliksa'i, pp. 48-64. University of New Mexico Contributions
to Anthropology No. 6, Albuquerque.
Benedict, F. G., and M. Steggerda
1936 The Food of the Present-day Maya Indians of Yucatan. Carnegie
Institution ofWashington, Publication 456, Contribution No. 18.
Washington, D. C.
Bernai, I.
1966 Teotihuacan, Capital de Imperio? Revista Mexicana de Estudios

Antropol?gicos 20:95-110.
Binford, L. R.
1977 General Introduction. In Theory Building in Archaeology, edited

by L. R. Binford, pp. 1-10. Academic Press, New York.
1978a Dimensional Analyses of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning

from an Eskimo Hunting Stand. American Antiquity 43:330
361.
1978b Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.

1983 In Pursuit of the Past. Academic Press, New York.
Blanton, R. E.
1976a Anthropological Studies of Cities. Annual

of Review
Anthropology 5:249-264.
1976b The Role of Symbiosis in Adaptation and Sociocultural Change
in the Valley of Mexico. In The Valley ofMexico: Studies in Pre
Hispanic Ecology and Society, edited by E. R. Wolf, pp. 181-202,
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
1978 Monte Alban: Settlement Patterns at the Ancient Zapotee
Capital. Academic Press, New York.
1980 Cultural Ecology Reconsidered. American Antiquity 45:145-151.
1981 The Rise of Cities. In Supplement to the Handbook ofMiddle

American Indians, Vol. 1, edited by J.A. Sabloff, pp. 392-400.

University of Texas Press, Austin.
1984 The Mesoamerican World System. American Anthropologist

86:673-682.
Blanton, R. E., S. Kowalewski, G. Feinman, and J.Appel
1981 Ancient Mesoamerica. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bonavia, D., and A. Grobman
1979 Sistema de Dep?sitos y Almacenamiento Durante el Per?odo

Preceramico en la Costa del Per?. Journal de la Soci?t? des
Am?ricanistes 66:21-45.
Borhegyi, S. F.
1965a Archaeological Synthesis of the Guatemalan Highlands. In
Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 2, edited by
R. Wauchope and G R. Willey, pp. 3-58. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
1965b Settlement patterns of the Gu Highlands. InHandbook of

Middle American Indians, vol. 2, edited by R. Wauchope and
G. R. Willey, pp. 59-75. University of Texas Press, Austin.
1971 Pre-Columbian Contacts?Dryland Approach: The Impact and
Influence of Teotihuacan Cultures on the Pre-Columbian
Civilizations of Mesoamerica. InMan Across the Sea: Problems
in Pre-Columbian Contacts, edited by C. L. Riley, J.C. Kelley,
C. W. Pennington, R. L. Rands, pp. 79-105. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
Bowen, H. C.
1967 Corn Storage in Antiquity. Antiquity 41:214-215.
Bowen, H. C, and P. D. Wood
1968 Experimental Storage of Corn Underground and its Implications

for Iron Age Settlements. Bulletin of the Institute for
Archaeology 7:1-14.
Bressani, R., and N. S. Scrimshaw
1958 Effect of Lime Treatment on the in vitro Availability of Essential

Amino Acids and Solubility of Protein Fractions in Corn. Journal
of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 6:774-778.
Carneiro, R. L.
1970 ATheory of the Origin of the State. Science 169:733-738.

Chaddick, P. R., and F. F. Leek
1971 Further Specimens of Stored Product Insects Found in Ancient
Egyptian Tombs. Journal of Stored Product Research 7:83-85.
Chamberlain, R. S.
1948 The Conquest and Colonization of Yucatan, 1517-1550.

Carnegie Institution Publications No. 582, Washington, D. C.
1951 The Pre-Conquest Tribute and Service System of the Maya as

Preparation for the Spanish Repartimiento-Encomienda in

Yucatan. University of Miami Hispanic-American Studies,
No. 10. Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press.
Childe, G V.
1950 The Urban Revolution. Town Planning Review 21:3-17.
1951 Social Evolution. Watts, London.
Christensen, C M., and H. H. Kaufman
1969 Grain Storage: The Role of Fungi in Quality Loss. University of

Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Cohen, M. N.
1977 The Food Crisis in Prehistory. Yale University Press,

New Haven.
Conrad, G W.
1981 Cultural Materialism, Split Inheritance, and the Expansion of

Ancient Peruvian Empires. American Antiquity 46:3-26.
Cotton, R. T.
1963 Pests of Stored Grain and Grain Products. Burgess, Minneapolis.

Cross, G T.
1987 Anasazi Storage Facilities in the Dolores Region, Colorado: A.D.

600-920. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Culbert, T. P.
1974 The Maya Downfall at Tikal. In The Classic Maya Collapse,

edited by T. P. Culbert, pp. 63-92. University of New Mexico
Press, Albuquerque.
1977 Maya Development and Collapse: An Economic Perspective. In
Social Process inMaya Prehistory: Studies in Honor of Sir Eric
Thompson, edited by N. Hammond, pp. 509-530. Academic
Press, London.
Dahlin, B.H, andW. J.Litzinger

1986 Old Bottle, New Wine: The Function of Chultuns in the Maya
Lowlands. American Antiquity 51:721-736.
DAltroy, T. H, andT. K. Earle
1985 Staple Finance, Wealth Finance, and Storage in the Inka Political
Economy. Current Anthropology 26:187-206.
DAltroy, T. H, and C. A. Hastorf
1984 The Distribution and Contents of Inca State Storehouses in the

Xauxa Region of Peru. American Antiquity 49:334-349.
Day, K. C.
1982 Storage and Labor Service: A Production and Management

Design for the Andean Area. In Chan Chan: Andean Desert City,
edited by M. Moseley, pp. 333-349. School of American
Research, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Deal, M.
1985 Household in the Maya Highlands: An

Pottery Disposal
Ethnoarchaeological Interpretation. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 4:243-291.
Duran, D.
1964 The Aztecs: The History of the Indies of New Spain. Translated,
with notes, by D. Hey den and F.Horcasitas, Orion Press, New
York.
Earle, T. K.
1977 A Reappraisal of Redistribution: Complex Hawaiian Chiefdoms.

In Exchange Systems in Prehistory, edited by T. K. Earle and J.E.
Ericson, pp. 213-232. Academic Press, New York.
1978 Economic and Social Organization of a Complex Chiefdom: the
Haleka District, Kaua'i, Hawaii. Museum of Anthropology,
University of Michigan, Anthropological Papers No. 63, Ann
Arbor.
Earle, T. K., and T. N. DAltroy

1982 Storage Facilities and State Finance in the Upper Mantaro Valley,
Peru. In Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange, edited by J.E.
Ericson and T. K. Earle, pp. 265-290. Academic Press, New York.
Estler, M.
1979 Harvesting and Storage of Maize. InMaize: CIBA-GEIGY

Agrochemical Technological Monograph, pp. 82-89. CIBA
GEIGY, Basel, Switzerland.
Farriss, N. M.
1984 Maya Society Under Colonial Rule: The Collective Enterprise of

Survival. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Fenton, A.
1983 Grain Storage Pits: Experiment and Fact. In From the Stone Age
to the Forty-five, edited by A. O'Conner and D. V. Clarke. John
Donald, Edinburgh.
Flannery, K. V
1968 The Olmec and the Valley of Oaxaca: aModel for Inter-Regional
Interaction in Formative Times. InDumbarton Oaks
Conference on the Olmec, edited by E. P. Benson, pp. 79-110.
Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D. C.
1972 The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations. Annual Review of

Ecology and Systematics 3:399-426.
1976 The Early Formative Household Cluster in the Guatemalan
Pacific Coast. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, edited by
K. V Flannery, pp. 31-34. Academic Press, New York.
Flannery, K. V, and M. Winter
1976 Analyzing Household Activities. In The Early Mesoamerican

Village, edited by K. V Flannery, pp. 34-35. Academic Press,

New York.
Foster, G M.
1953Cofrad?a and Compadrazgo in Spain and Spanish America.

Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 9:1-28.
Freidel, D. A., and A.
J. Sabloff
1984 Cozumel: Late Maya Settlement Patterns. Academic Press,
New York.
Gann, T. W. E
1918 The MayaIndians of Southern Yucatan and Northern British

Honduras.Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 6,
Washington, D. C
Gibson, C.
1964 The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule. Stanford University Press,

Stanford.
Gilman, P. A.
1983 Changing Architectural Forms in the Prehistoric Southwest.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
1987 Architecture as Artifact: Pit Structures and Pueblos in the
American Southwest. American Antiquity 52:538-564.
Gotthilf, V
1982 Maize Storage Strategies: An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective.
Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon
Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.
Gould, R. A. (editor)
1978 New Directions in Ethnoarchaeology. University of New Mexico
Press, Albuquerque.
Hall, D. W.
1977 Grain Storage. In Food Crops of the Lowland Tropics, edited by

C. L. A. Leakey and J.B.Wills, pp. 255-271. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Halstead, P., and J.O'Shea

1982 A Friend in Need is a Friend Indeed: Social Storage and the
Origin of Social Ranking. In Ranking, Resource, and Exchange,
edited by C. Renfrew and S. Shennan, pp. 92-99. Cambridge
University Press, London.
Harris, M.
1959 The Economy of No Surplus? American Anthropologist 61:189

199.
Harrison, P. D., and B. L. Turner II
1978 Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture. University of New Mexico

Press, Albuquerque.

Hassig, R.
1985 Trade Tribute and Transportation: The Sixteenth-Century

Political Economy of the Valley of Mexico. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Hayden, B., and A. Cannon
1983 Where the Garbage Goes: Refuse Disposal in the Maya

Highlands. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2:117-163.
Hayden, B., and M. Nelson
1981 The Use of Chipped Lithic Material in the Contemporary Maya

Highlands. American Antiquity 46:885-898.
Hernandez, S. E.
1949 Maize Granaries inMexico. Botanical Museum Leaflets, Harvard

University.
Hitchcock, R. K.
1987 Sedentism and Site Structure: Organizational Changes in
Kalahari Basarwa Residential Locations. InMethod and Theory
for Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach,
edited by S. Kent, pp. 374-432. Columbia University Press,
New York.
Hole, F.
1966 Investigating the Origins of Mesopotamian Civilization. Science

153:605-611.
Hugo, D. Y
1985 Almacenamiento y Adaptaci?n en el Precer?mico Andino.
RUNA. Archivo para las Ciencias del Hombre 15:117-131.
Hunter-Anderson, R. L.
1977 A Theoretical Approach to the Study of House Form. In Theory

Building in Archaeology, edited by L. R. Binford, pp. 287-315.
Academic Press, New York.
Ingold, T.
1983 The Significance of Storage in Hunting Societies. Man 18:553
571.
Johnson, H. K.
1957 Cooling Stored Grain by Aeration. Agricultural Engineering

38:238-241.
Jones, G, K.Wardle, D. Halstead, and D. Wardle
1986 Crop Storage at Assiros. Scientific American 254:96-104.
Kamp, K. A.
1982 Architectural Indices of Socio-Economic Variability: An

Ethnoarchaeological Case Study from Syria. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
Arizona.

Katz, S. H., M. L. Hediger, and L. A. Valleroy
1974 Traditional Maize Processing Techniques in the New World.

Science 184:765-773.
Kent, S.
1984 Analyzing Activity Areas: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of the

Use of Space. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Kent, S. (editor)
1987 Method and Theory for Activity Area Research: An
Ethnoarchaeological Approach. Columbia University Press,
New York.
Killion, T. W.
1987 Agricultural and Residential Site Structure among Campesinos

in Southern Veracruz Mexico: Building a Foundation for
Archaeological Inference. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque.
Kirkby, A. V. T.
1973 The Use of Land andWater Resources in the Past and Present
Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. The University ofMichigan Museum
of Anthropology Memoirs 5.
Kolata, A. L.
1983 Chan Chan and Cuzco: On the Nature of the Ancient Andean
City. In Civilization in the Ancient Americas: Essays in Honor
of Gordon R. Willey, edited by R. Leventhal and A. L. Kolata, pp.
345-371. University of New Mexico Press.
Kramer, C
1979 An Archaeological View of a Contemporary Kurdish Village:
Domestic Architecture, Household Size, andWealth. In
Ethnoarchaeological Implications of Ethnography for
Archaeology, edited by C. Kramer, pp. 139-163. Columbia
University, New York.
1982 Village Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnology for
Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Lacy, J.
1972 The Microbiology of Grain Stored Underground in Iron Age Type
Pits. Journal of Stored Products Research 8:151-154.
Leonard, D.
1976 Improved Practices in Corn Production: A Guide for Peace

Corps Volunteers. Action/Peace Corps, Washington, D. C.
Lewthwaite, G R.
1969 A Plea for Storage Geography. The Professional Geographer

21:1-4.

Logan, M. H., and W. T. Sanders
1976 The Model.In The Valley of Mexico: Studies in Pre-Hispanic

Ecology and Society, edited by E. R. Wolf, pp. 101-161. University
of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
McGuire, R. H, and M. B. Schiffer
1983 A Theory of Architectural Design. Journal of Anthropological
Manning, W. H.
1975 Roman Military Timber Granaries in Britain. Saaiburg Fahrb

32:105-129.
Marcus, J.
1973 Territorial Organization of the Lowland Classic Maya. Science
180:911-916.
Marshall, J.
1931 Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Civilization. Probsthian, London.
Mendelssohn, K.
1974 The Riddle of the Pyramids. Praeger, New York.

Miksicek, C. H, K. L. Elsesser, I. A. Wuebber, K. O. Bruhns,
and N. Hammond
1981 Rethinking Ramon: A Comment on Reina and Hill's Lowland

Maya Subsistence. American Antiquity 46:916-919.
Mill?n, R. F.
1970 Teotihuacan: Completion of Map of Giant Ancient City in

Valley of Mexico. Science 170:1077-1082.
Milton, R. E, and K. L. Jarrett
1969 Storage and Transport of Maize- 1 ;Temperature, Humidity, and
Microbiological Spoilage. World Crops 21:356-357.
Morris, C.
1967 Storage in Tawantinsuyu. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago. University
Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
1972 Reconstructing Patterns of Non-agricultural Production in the
Inca Economy. In Reconstructing Complex Societies, edited by
C. B. Moore, pp. 49-68. American School of Oriental Research,
Chicago.
1981 Tecnolog?a y Organizaci?n Inca del Almacenamiento de V?veres
en la Sierra. In La Tecnolog?a en el Mundo Andino, edited
by H. Lechtmanmand and A. M. Soldi, pp. 327-357. UNAM,
Mexico City.
Morris, C, and D. E. Thompson
1985 Huanuco Pampa: An Inca City and Its Hinterland. Thames and
Hudson, London.

Munro, J.W.
1966 Pests of Stored Products. Hutchinson, London.
Murra, J.V
1982 The Mit'a Obligations of Ethnic Groups to the Inka State. In The
Inca and Aztec States 1400-1800: Anthropology and History,
edited by G C. Collier, R. I. Rosaldo, and J.D. Wirth, pp. 237
262. Academic Press, New York.
O'Connell, J. F.
1987 Alyawara Site Structure and its Archaeological Implications.
American Antiquity 52:74-108.
Ordish, G
1964 Man, Crops, and Pests in Central America. Pergamon Press,
London.
Oxley, T. A.
1948 The Scientific Principles of Grain Storage. Northern, Liverpool.

Panowski, E. T.
1985 Analyzing Hunter-Gatherers: Population Pressure, Subsistence,

Social Structure, Northwest Coast Societies, and Slavery.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Paolo, M.
1981 Elba: An Empire Rediscovered. Doubleday and Company,

Garden City, New York.
Pearson, H. W.
1957 The Economy Has No Surplus: Critique of a Theory of

Development. In Trade and Market in the Early Empires, edited
by K. Polanyi, C. M. Arensberg, and H. W. Pearson, pp. 320-341.
The Free Press, New York.
Pedersen, J. R.
1978 Post-Harvest Food Losses: The Need for Reliable Data. InWorld
Food, Pest Losses, and the Environment, edited by D. Pimentel,
pp. 95-108. A A AS Selected Symposium No. 13,Westview,
Boulder, Colorado.
Peebles, C. S., and S. M. Kus
1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies. American

Antiquity 42:421-448.
Prescott, W. H.
1843 History of the Conquest of Mexico. Harper, New York.

Puleston, D. E.
1971 An Experimental Approach to the Function of Maya Chultuns.

American Antiquity 36:322-334.

Quinter, J., and T. Stocker
1983 Subsistence Economies and the Origins of the Andean Complex

Societies. American Anthropologist 85:545-561.
Ransom, W. H.
1960 Buildings for Storage of Crops in Warm Climates. Tropical

Building Studies No. 2, Department of Scientific and Industrial
Research, Building Research Station, and Her Majesty's
Stationary Office, London.
Rathje, W. L.
1970 The Origin and Development of Lowland Classic Maya

Civilization. American Antiquity 36:275-285.
Rathje, W. L., D. A. Gregory, and F.M. Wiseman
1978 Trade Models and Archaeological Problems: Classic Maya

Examples. In Mesoamerican Communication Routes and
Cultural Contacts, edited by T. A. Lee and C. Navarete, pp. 147

176. New York Archaeological Foundation Papers No. 40,
Brigham Young University, Provo.
Redfield, R., and A. Villa Rojas
1934 Chan Kom. Carnegie Institution ofWashington, Publication
No. 448, Washington, D. C.
Redman, C.
1978 Mesopotamian Urban Ecology,- The Systemic Content of the

Emergence of Urbanism. In Social Archaeology: Beyond
Subsistence and Dating, edited by C. Redman, M. J. Berman,
E. V Curtin, W. T. Langhorne, Jr., N. M. Versaggi, J. C. Wander,
pp. 329-348. Academic Press, New York.
Reina, R. E., and R. M. Hill, II
1980 Lowland Maya Subsistence: Notes from Ethnohistory and

Ethnography. American Antiquity 45:74-79.
Relaciones de Yucat?n
1898- In Colecci?n de documentos in?ditos relativos al 1900
1900 descubrimiento, conquista y organizaci?n de las antiguas
posesiones espa?olas de ultramar. 2a. ser., vols. 11 and 13,
Madrid.
Renfrew, C.
1972 The Emergence of Civilization: The Cyclades and the Aegean in

the Third Millennium B. C. Methuen and Company, London.
Richman, G
1971 Roman Granaries and Store Building. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Rowe, J.H.
1946 Inca Culture at the Time of the Spanish Conquest. InHandbook

of South American Indians, Vol. 2, edited by J.H. Steward, pp.

183-330. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 143,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.
Roys, R. L.
1929 Cr?nica de Calkini. Ms. on file at the Latin American Library of
Tulane University, New Orleans.
1933 The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumeyel. Carnegie Institution

ofWashington Publication No. 438, Washington, D. C.
1939 Titles ofEbtun. Carnegie Institution ofWashington Publication
No. 505, Washington, D. C.
1957 The Political Geography of the Yucatan Maya. Carnegie

Institution ofWashington Publication No. 613, Washington, D. C.
Sabloff, J .A.
1983 Patterns: Past Problems, Future
Classic Maya Settlement
Prospects. In Prehistoric
Settlement Pattern Studies: Retrospect
and Prospect, edited by E. Z. Vogt and R. M. Leventhal, pp. 413
422, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Sabloff, J.A., L. R. Binford, and P.A. McAnany
1987 Understanding the Archaeological Record. Antiquity 61:203-209.
Sahlins, M.
1958 Social Stratification in Polynesia. University ofWashington

Press for the American Ethnological Society, Seattle.
Sanders, W. T.
1973 The Cultural Ecology of the Lowland Maya: A R??valuation. In

The Classic Maya Collapse, edited by T. P. Culbert, pp. 325-365.
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Sanders, W. T, J. R. Parsons, and M. H. Logan
1976 Summary and Conclusions. In The Valley of Mexico: Studies in
Pre-Hispanic Ecology and Society, edited by E. R. Wolf, pp. 162
178. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Sanders, W. T., J. R. Parsons, and R. S. Santley
1979 The Basin ofMexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a

Civilization. Academic Press, New York.
Sanders, W. T., and B. J. Price
1968 Mesoamerica: the Evolution of a Civilization. Random House,
New York.
Sanders, W. T., and R. S. Santley
1978 Review Alban by Richard E. Blanton. Science 202:303

of Monte
304.
1983 A Tale of Three Cities: Energetics and Urbanization in Pre
Hispanic Central Mexico. In Civilization in the Ancient
Americas: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey, edited by

R. Leventhal and A. L. Kolata, pp. 243-291. of New

University
Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Santley, R. S.
1980 Disembedded Capitals Reconsidered. American Antiquity

45:132-145.
1984 Obsidian Exchange, Economic Stratification, and the Evolution
of Complex Society in the Basin of Mexico. In Trade and
Exchange in Early Mesoamerica, edited by K. G Hirth, pp.
43-86. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Santley, R. S., T. W. Killion, and M. T. Lycett
1986 On the Maya Collapse. Journal of Anthropological Research
42:123-159.
Schiffer, M. B.
1973 The Relationship Between Access Volume and Content Diversity

of Storage Facilities. American Antiquity 38:114-116.
Shook, E. M.
1951 The PresentStatus of Research on the Pre-Classic Horizons in

Guatemala. In The Civilizations of Ancient America, edited by
Sol Tax, pp. 92-100. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Shove, G C.
1970 Harvesting, Conditioning, and Storage. In Corn: Culture,
Processing, Products, edited by G E. Inglett, pp. 60-72. Avi
Publishing, Westport, Connecticut.
Sinha, R. N.
v
1973 Interrelations of Physical, Chemical, and Biological Variables in
the Deterioration of Stored Grains. In Grain Storage: Part of a
System, edited by R. N. Sinha andW. E.Muir, pp. 15-41. Avi
Publishing, Westport, Connecticut.
Smith, I. F.
1964 Note on the Distribution of Neolithic Storage Pits. Proceedings

of the Prehistoric Society 30:367-381.
Smyth, M. P.
1988 Storage Behavior in the Puuc Region of Yucatan, Mexico: An

Ethnoarchaeological Investigation. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New
Mexico, Albuquerque.
Spence, M. W.
1981 Obsidian Production and the State in Teotihuacan. American

Antiquity 46:769-788.
Stark, B. L.
1986 Origins of Food Production: New World Research in Perspective.

InAmerican Archaeology Past and Future: A Celebration of the

Society for American Archaeology, 1935-1985, edited by

D. J.Meltzer, D. D. Fowler and J.A. Sabloff, pp. 277-321.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.
Steggerda, M.
1941 Maya Indians of Yucatan. Carnegie Institution ofWashington,

Publication No. 531, Washington, D. C
Tasaciones
1941 Tasaciones de los pueblos de la provincia de Yucat?n,

pertenecientes a los encomenderos de la villa de San Francisco
de Campeche, hechos por laAudiencia de Santiago de Guatemala
en el mes de febrero de 1549. Museo Arqueol?gico, Etnogr?fico e
Hist?rico del Estado, Campeche. Ms. on file at the Latin
American Library of Tulane University, New Orleans.
Testart, A.
1982 The Significance of Food Storage Among Hunter- Gatherers:

Residence Patterns, Population Densities, and Social
Inequalities. Current Anthropology 23:523-537.
Thompson, J. E.
1930 Ethnology of the Mayas of Southern and Central British
Honduras. Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropology
Series, Vol. 17, No. 2., Chicago.
Topic, J.
1982 Lower Class Social and Economic Organization. In Chan Chan:
Andean Desert City, edited by M. E.Mosely and K. C. Day, pp.
145-175. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Tourtellot, G
1983 An Assessment of Classic Maya Household Composition. In
Prehistoric Settlement Pattern Studies: Retrospect and Prospect,

edited by E. Z. Vogt and R. M. Leventhal, pp. 35-54. University
of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Tourtellot, G, J.A. Sabloff, and M. P. Smyth
1989 Room Counts and Population Estimation for Terminal Classic
Sayil in the Puuc Region, Yucat?n, Mexico. In Lowland Maya
Demography, edited by T. P. Culbert and D. S. Rice, University of
New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. In press.
Tozzer, A. M. (editor and translator)

1941 Landa's "Relation de las Cosas de Yucatan." Papers of the
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 18.
Harvard University, Cambridge.
Valladeres, L. A.
1957 El Hombre y elMa?z: Etnograf?a y Etnopsicolog?a de

Colotenango. Editorial B. Costa-Amic, Mexico.

Wauchope, R.
1938 Modern Maya Houses. Carnegie Institution Washington,

Publication No. 502, Washington D. C.
Weatherwax, P.
1954 Indian Corn in Old America. Macmillan, New York.

Weinstein, M.
1973 Household Structures and Activities. Anatolian Studies

23:271-276.
Werge,R.W.
1977 Storage Systems in theMantaro Valley Region of Peru.
Potato
International Potato Center, Socioeconomic Unit, Lima.
West, Robert C.
1964 Surface Configuration and Associated Geology of Middle
America. InHandbook ofMiddle American Indians: Natural
Environment and Early Cultures, edited by R. C. West, Vol. 1, pp.
384-412. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Wieser, A. H.
1982 Plant Food Technology in Formative America. Unpublished M. A.

Thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary.
Wilk, R. R.
1983 Little House in the Jungle: The Causes of Variation in House
Size among Modern Kekchi Maya. Journal of Anthropological
Wilk, R. R, and W. R. Rathje (editors)
1982 Archaeology of the Household: Building a Prehistory of
Domestic Life. American Behavioral Scientist 25:6.
Willey, G R.
1974 Precolumbian Urbanism: The Central Mexican Highlands and
The Lowland Maya. In The Rise and Fall of Civilizations:
Modern Archaeological Approaches to Ancient Cultures.
Selected Readings, pp. 134-169, edited by J.A. Sabloff and
C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Cummings, California.
Winter, M. C.
1976 The Archaeological Household Cluster in the Valley of Oaxaca.

In The Early Mesoamerican Village, edited by K. V. Flannery, pp.
25-31. Academic Press, New York.
Yellen, John E.
1977 Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models for
Reconstructing the Past. Academic Press, New York.


Smyth 1989 Domestic Storage

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Smyth 1989 Domestic Storage

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Domestic Storage Behavior in Mesoamerica: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach

Author(s): Michael P. Smyth

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:32:20 PM

Food storage has been a topic of considerable interest in

ability of past societiesto produce and maintain a surplus, a key

ologists to recognize remains associated with past storage strategies,

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:32:20 PM

Storage is defined here as the technological and behavioral

tremely poorly specified, in part because of the inattention to proces

sing, preservation, and storage efforts" (1986:298). In developmental

surplus can provide the economic means for the development of

complex societies (Adams 1966; Childe 1950; Cohen 1977; Sahlins

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:32:20 PM

status differences. In many pre-state societies abundant surplus is

Based on ethnographical, ethnohistorical, and archaeological infor

Central storage refers to a system in which foodstuffs are centrally

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:32:20 PM

support the social and economic needs of the parish community.

ing the Colonial period, Indian cofrad?as became surplus-generating

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:32:20 PM

are many types of contemporary domestic maize storage structures

Incan versus Mesoamerican Storage Systems

InMesoamerican civilization, storage at the household level played

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:32:20 PM

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:32:20 PM

personal food surpluses due to the demands of state labor obligations

Political Complexity in Mesoamerica

In this section I discuss the development of political complexity in

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:32:20 PM

examined from a storage perspective. It is argued that the structure

graphic group emerged as the dominant political institution by con

peting neighboring political factions (Sanders and Santley 1983;

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:32:20 PM

Table 3.1 presents some

largest and most

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:32:20 PM

Alban's location atop a steep mountain in the center of the valley,

place (Blanton 1976a:256; Kirkby 1973).

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:32:20 PM

Table 3.1. (Continued)

long-term consumption needs of urban residents (Table 3.1).

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:32:20 PM

1974). Blanton et al. (1981:199-201) see the lack of strong political

generated surplus, wealth, and weak political control over regions by

regard, domestic storage should play no role in state surplus genera

ecosystems, however, intensified agriculture can cause serious long

support strong centralized institutions could not have been ex

tributing surplus extraction throughout the society and keeping ad

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:32:20 PM

cisely requires a great deal of further archaeological and contempo

Mesoamerican Storage Studies

Current archaeological understanding of agricultural stor

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:32:20 PM

comprehensive studies of storage behavior from an archaeological

Agricultural Research into Storage

Agricultural engineers have been studying the principles

prior to storage (Estler 1979). The reduction of the moisture content

inhibiting fungus growth (Milton and Jarrett 1969). The control of

This content downloaded from 193.54.110.35 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:32:20 PM

good ventilation, while shelled maize stores better in bins (Leonard

facility shape is a cube or better yet a cylinder so that surface area

Archaeological Research into Storage

Research into storage behavior has also been directed at

erally associated with monumental architecture, are often large and