In studies,1 a recently burgeoning approach has emphasized?sometimes ad nauseam?the role of in relation to material objects, to extent that and materiality have become inseparable concepts (Radley 1990; Rowlands 1993; Ash 1996; Debray 1997; Hoskins 1998; Kwint, Brewart, and Aynsley 1999). By virtue of their resistance, are seen as somehow linked to notions of permanence, memory, and transmission. Where else should be of memory, if not in 'loci' made visible in figures of cultural monuments such as Giotto's Virtues and Vices in Arena Capella in Padue? asks K?chler (1999:53). Are not all tangible and concrete artifacts suited to be aide-memoires (Rowlands 1993:144) or lieux de m?moires (to use concept of Nora)? In other words, do not put past in place as they are primary source of its concrete implacement in (Casey 2000:206)? Once ascribed biographical meanings, material objects, not unlike famous Madeleine cake of Proust, can indeed trigger powerful mnemonic responses (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1989). Hallam and Hockey (2001) reveal importance of material (such as photographs, flowers, and residual funerary sculptures) in experiences of grief, mourning, and memorializing. Others have analyzed commemorative practices and highlighted role of monuments, buildings, ruins, and memorials as that bear and articulate (Young 1986; Gillis 1994; Werbner 1998). In situations of survival, David Parkin (1999) describes role of these tiny objects-mementos that become for refugees the dormant bearers of recessive culture . . . encoding continuity between and across generations. Objects can indeed maintain, store, and steer specific cultural memories. For Luba (in Congo-Kinshasa), for example, Mary Nooter Roberts and Allen Roberts show how objects and performances generate for historical documentation, political negotiation, and everyday problem-solving (Roberts and Roberts 1996:18). They describe how visual forms . . . encode and stimulate mnemonic processes (ibid.:33), such as in case of lukasa, a wooden object used to teach neophytes sacred lore about culture heroes, clan migrations, and introduction of sacred rule (ibid.:37). In same vein, museum studies have produced a huge corpus of literature dealing with objectification (or materialization) of (Healy 1994; Crane 2000). The museum is seen by many scholars as an institution which, through its material collections, stores memories (Crane 2000:3). But theories of objectified have even invaded field of archeology. Can even stones remember and forget? A symposium recently held at Columbia University, Excavating Memories: The Archeology of Remembering and Forgetting (2003, Barnard College), addressed materiality of world through concept of memory. This text is based on fieldwork carried out between January 1998 and May 2001 in Bulongic country, where I stayed for majority of time in village of Monchon. My fieldwork was generously funded by Barbier-Mueller Museum (Geneva) and by Belgian National Foundation of Scientific Research (FNRS). I would like to thank all those who have helped me so much in Guinea; in particular, Herv? C?mara, Momodoub? Bangoura, Abdou Bangoura, and Abou Soumah. I am very grateful to David Parkin, Peter Geschiere, Philippe Jespers, Pierre Petit, Rita Astuti, Michael Lambek, and Filip de Boeck for their insightful comments on my work. My special gratitude goes to Ramon Sarro who has constantly shared with me his advanced knowledge of different Baga subgroups. This piece was written at Harvard University, during my post doctor fellowship from Belgian American Educational Foundation. For hospitality and good conversation that aided this reflection, I am very thankful to Randy Matory, Michael Herzfeld, Fred Lamp, and Suzanne Preston Blier. I also thank Francesco Pellizzi and two anonymous readers for their perceptive comments on my essay. Finally, I owe a special word of thanks to Roxana Popescu for reading manuscript and making valuable editorial comments. 1. Today memory is a key concept in humanities (Olick and Robbins 1998; Lambek 1996; Klein 2000). I have written more fully on uses and abuses of this notion by anthropologists (Berliner 2005a). In anthropology in particular, introduction of concept of was critical as contributed to recognition of the historical dynamism of other people as well as their of it (Price 1989:67). It gave scholars opportunity to consider persistence of their of study?that is, reproduction of societies through time despite dramatic changes in context.