Land Tenure Systems at the Ancient Maya Site of Actuncan ...anthropology.ua.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/LeCount...sugerir la herencia transgeneracional de los derechos de la propiedad

ARTICLE

Land Tenure Systems at the Ancient Maya Site of Actuncan, Belize

Lisa J. LeCount, Chester P. Walker, John H. Blitz and Ted C. Nelson

A common property regime was established at the founding of the Maya site of Actuncan, Belize, in the Terminal Preclassicperiod (175 BC–AD 300), which governed access to land until the Terminal Classic period (AD 780–1000). This interpretationis based on urban settlement patterns documented through household excavation and remote-sensing programs. Excavationsof all visible patio-focused groups in the urban core provided data to reconstruct residential histories, and a 60,621 m2 gradi-ometer survey resulted in a magnetic gradient map that was used to document buried constructions. Twenty ground-truth test-pits correlated types of magnetic signatures to buried patio-focused groups and smaller constructions, including walled plotsin agricultural field systems that were later exposed more fully through large-scale excavations. Combined, these methods pro-vided data to reconstruct four correlates of land tenure systems: (1) the spatial proximity of residential units to land andresources, (2) diachronic changes in community settlement patterns, (3) land subdivision and improvements, and (4) publicgoods. Spatial analyses documented that houselots did not cluster through time, but instead became gradually improved, lend-ing evidence to suggest the transgenerational inheritance of property rights in the Late and Terminal Classic periods.

Keywords: Maya, land tenure, settlement patterns, remote sensing, household archaeology

Presentamos evidencia de un régimen de propiedad común, que se estableció en la fundación del sitio Maya de Actuncan,Belice, en el periodo Preclásico terminal (175 aC. – 300 dC), el cual fijó el valor de la tierra hasta el periodo Clásico terminal(780–1000 dC.). Esta interpretación se basa en patrones de asentamiento urbano documentados a través de excavaciones deviviendas y programas de percepción remota. Las excavaciones de los grupos de patios visibles en el centro urbano otorgandatos que permiten reconstruir la historia de las residencias. Igualmente, una medición de gradiómetro de 60.621 m2 propor-ciona un mapa de gradiente magnético utilizado para documentar construcciones enterradas. A través de veinte sondeos secorrelacionan los tipos de firmas magnéticas con grupos de patios enterrados y otras construcciones pequeñas, incluyendoparcelas amuralladas en sistemas de campos agrícolas. Estos métodos proporcionan datos para reconstruir los sistemasde tenencia de tierra, incluyendo 1) proximidad espacial de las unidades residenciales a la tierra y a los recursos, 2) cambiosdiacrónicos en los patrones de asentamiento de la comunidad, 3) subdivisión de la tierra y su mejoramiento y 4) bienes púb-licos. El análisis espacial documenta que los lotes no se agruparon a través del tiempo, sino que se mejoraron, lo que permitesugerir la herencia transgeneracional de los derechos de la propiedad en los periodos Clásico tardío y terminal.

Palabras clave: Maya, tenencia de tierra, patrón de asentamiento, teledetección, arqueología del hogar

How people come to “own” land is funda-mental in shaping social relationships,because property determines exclusive

rights to things (Earle 2000). Although groupsand individuals can own land through originalpossession, inheritance, conquest, or otherways, here we focus on the establishment ofland tenure systems that define the terms on

which property is held, the ways it can be used,and how rights to land are transferred (Hunt1998). Given that these relationships revolvearound privileges and duties, a salient aspect ofland tenure systems is the governance of propertyrights by institutions. This article reviews currentideas about the nature of property rights in theprecapitalist world, identifies archaeological

Lisa J. LeCount ▪ Department of Anthropology, 19 ten Hoor Hall, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA([email protected], corresponding author)Chester P. Walker ▪ Archaeo-Geophysical Associates, LLC, 5209 Acacia Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814, USAJohn H. Blitz ▪ Department of Anthropology, 19 ten Hoor Hall, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USATed C. Nelson ▪ Department of Anthropology, 19 ten Hoor Hall, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA

Latin American Antiquity, pp. 1–21Copyright © 2019 by the Society for American Archaeology

doi:10.1017/laq.2019.16

1

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2019.16Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 99.42.135.84, on 17 Apr 2019 at 13:22:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2019.16

https://www.cambridge.org/core

correlates for them, and questions why they aroseand changed through time at the Maya site ofActuncan in Belize.

Specifically, we present evidence for the pres-ence of land tenure rights in the form of a com-mon property regime in an urban settlementzone at Actuncan. We build this interpretationbased on diachronic settlement and land-usagepatterns in the core of the site reconstructedthrough excavation and remote-sensing pro-grams. Combined, these data provide a morecomplete understanding of how the founding ofActuncan’s Terminal Preclassic (175 BC–AD300) center set in motion common property insti-tutions that governed houselot placements andagricultural improvements through the TerminalClassic period (AD 780–1000). The presenceof agricultural field systems between com-moners’ residences indicates that rights becameinherited social entitlements in the Late Classicperiod.

Land Tenure Systems

It is important to define the three major forms ofproperty—common, private, and state—in gen-eral anthropological terms (Hunt 1998) beforeturning to the specifics of the debate amongMaya scholars. Here, we focus on land ratherthan movable property. Rights to private prop-erty are vested in a jural individual, or a groupbehaving as one, who has legal authority overproperty, particularly the right to sell it as a com-modity within a market economy. State propertyis land owned by governments, which have avested interest in land or its products becausethey are sources of taxes (Blanton and Fargher2008). In many cases, ruling elites allocatedlands within their realms to individuals, groups,and institutions (such as a church or temple)and established land tenure systems that gov-erned use rights to property in exchange fortaxes or tribute (Earle 1998). Common propertyis defined as resources and valuables held in usu-fruct by a corporate group that owns rights in acommon-pool resource (Hunt 1998). The groupcan exclude nonmembers from accessing prop-erty and can regulate the use of resources by itsown members. In each of these forms, land ten-ure is best understood as a set of relationships

among people with respect to land and whatcan be done with it (Hunt 1998).

While these definitions sound clear, in prac-tice they are not. First, property rights exist asbundles of privileges because multiple indivi-duals and groups may claim rights to land. Forexample, Adler (1996) reports several levels ofrights regarding the use and transfer of commonproperty among the Watiata of Kenya. All adultresidents of the village reportedly controlled cul-tivated lands; however, heads of householdscould transfer use rights to sons, wives, orother villagers. In medieval Anglo-Saxon soci-ety, individuals who had authority over the com-munity claimed rights to lands. ConqueringGermanic-speaking kings were said to own allthe land, but granted property to the church andnobles, who in turn leased land to tenants(Oosthuizen 2013a). This practice resulted in ahierarchy of tenure in which rights holders ateach level acknowledged their duties to providegoods and services in return for access to land.Second, property rights are never purely com-mon or private; they exist along a continuum(Hunt 1998). In both the Watiata and Anglo-Saxon cases, the intergenerational transfer ofuse rights to particular plots of common landindicates individual social entitlements, but notfull (exclusive) private ownership. Accordingto Hann (1998), investments in property legiti-mized these entitlements, and over time theycould create inequalities similar to those in soci-eties with private property. Finally, more thanone property regime can operate simultaneously,resulting in complex accommodations concern-ing property rights. In medieval England, therights of Anglo-Saxon nobles were qualified byindigenous kin groups, who claimed ownershipover the common lands of their ancestors whowere living there before the conquerors (Oosthui-zen 2013a). Indeed, before the advent of writtenlaw, land tenure systems were palimpsests ofproperty relations consisting of long-held tradi-tions passed down by community membersthrough oral narratives and daily practices, aswell as evolving governmental rules and regula-tions (Johnston 2005).

As these case examples illustrate, propertyrights are mediated through overlapping institu-tions ranging from state courts to households.

2 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY





Household rights to common property are oftenregulated on a daily basis by regimes that governcommon-pool resources. According to Östrom(1990:30), common-pool resources are a “naturalor man-made resource system that is sufficientlylarge as to make it costly to exclude potentialbeneficiaries from obtaining benefits from itsuse”; they include such things as high mountainmeadows in Switzerland, irrigation systems inthe Philippines, and fisheries in Turkey. Oosthui-zen (2013a) makes an argument for commonproperty regimes in the governance of arableand pasture lands within Anglo-Saxon king-doms. These scholars document how individualsor groups engage in collective action to instituterules of use and administer common-pooledresources. Although rules can be enforced byofficeholders (Östrom 1990), often they hingeon informal social mechanisms, including reci-procity, reputation, retribution, and rewards,which are effective in small groups (Carballo2013). Nonetheless, Östrom (1990) suggeststhat successful common property regimes mixinternal and external forms of institutionalauthority.

Where land tenure systems served as the basisof the tax-tribute economy, institutions above thecommunity level add layers of oversight to com-mon property. In ancient Hawaii, lower-levelchiefs or land managers oversaw day-to-dayresponsibilities, including the collection oftaxes, management of irrigation systems, andthe mobilization of corvée labor (Earle 1998).Among the imperial Aztec, calpolli (ward) landwas governed by community councils, but indi-vidual plots could be inherited informally. Userights to individual plots could be sold, but theland remained under the jurisdiction of the cal-polli council, the noble who resided in theward, and ultimately the tlatoani (king), whoadjudicated disputes assisted by a council ofnobles, bureaucrats, and judges (Smith 2003).

Operationalizing Common Property Regimes inthe Archaeological Record

Although the only direct correlates for propertyrights are legal records, it is possible to determinethe degree of exclusivity to land rights througharchaeological research.

Settlement patterns can reflect land tenureregimes because they demonstrate how residen-tial groups associate with and restrict access toresources across the landscape (Earle 2000).Nevertheless, these patterns are influenced by avariety of factors, particularly at the regionallevel, and by themselves, they do not defineproperty regimes. Diachronic studies more con-clusively document property rights becausesocial transformations play out over access toland and other resources. A dramatic illustrationis provided by the agrarian reforms of the lateprehispanic and colonial periods in Mexico.Morehart (2016) documents transformations inthe relationships among people, land, and waterafter the Aztec and Spanish Empires underminedindigenous communal tenure and instituted indi-vidualized and privatized holdings of lands thatsupported wetland agriculture.

The spatial proximity of residential units toland, resources, and property improvements atthe community level yields more specific expec-tations about property regimes. According toJohnston (2005), land tenure is fundamentallyrooted in the occupancy of the house andembodied in the places where people work. Pri-vate property is often set apart in blocks ofland, but within common property, houses areinterspersed among fields or pasture (Oosthuizen2013a). The public nature of common propertyallows cooperation between community mem-bers, but necessitates regulation to prevent orrespond to infractions. Although both privateand common property can be subdivided, com-mon property is partitioned into units relativelyequal in extent and regular in form to allow forthe transparent allocation of land, whereas pri-vate property need not be (Oosthuizen 2013b).Any subdivision or improvement should notrestrict access to community land, resources,and public goods such as water systems, shrines,or meeting facilities. Special-use buildings serveas places where rights are collectively legiti-mated, maintained, and monitored (Östrom1990).

Investments in property are a measure of her-itable use rights. In general, small farmers do notimprove land unless they have some assurance oflong-term tenure (Brookfield 1984). Earle (2000)notes that improvements entail future planning

[LeCount et al.] 3LAND TENURE SYSTEMS AT THE ANCIENT MAYA SITE OF ACTUNCAN, BELIZE





and negotiation by households to obtain userights for individual plots and intergenerationaltransfer. Through time, plots become physicallylinked to houses by small-scale walls, buildings,and other features (Johnston 2005). Although itis tempting to claim that walls and other bound-ary markers signal private property, they definecollective rights as easily as private rights(Oosthuizen 2013b). Adler (1996) notes thatfacilities and larger-scale improvements are aconsistent feature of common property becausethey require the pooled labor of multiple house-holds to construct.

Based on these studies, four archaeologicalcorrelates of common property regimes areapplied to Actuncan data: (1) spatial proximityof residential units to land and resources, (2) dia-chronic changes in community settlement pat-terns, (3) the arrangement of land subdivisionand improvements, and (4) the presence of publicgoods in community land. Specifically, if landwere common property, residential units shouldhave unrestricted access to it, as well as to otherresources. Over time, any subdivision of landshould be equitable across members of the com-munity; therefore, houselots should maintainconsistent spatial patterning. Agricultural plotsshould be interspersed between houses, andimprovements to them should signal inheritedentitlements. Finally, community facilities shouldbe present within common land.

Maya Land Tenure

Colonial-era documents include property con-cepts that likely had been in use for a consider-able time among the Maya (Farriss 1984).Although these documents cannot be applied dir-ectly to prehispanic land relations, they providedetails about the relationship between Maya peo-ples and land. In colonial Yucatan, the Mayaorganized their lives and activities around theircommunity (cah) and the patronym group(Restall 1997). The cah consisted of a residentialcore and its cultivated (col) and forested (kax)lands. Land was divided into two kinds: cahland, which was allocated by the cabildo (towncouncil) to community members, and privateland that could be sold. The cabildo presidedover all land transfers. The smallest community

unit, cuchteel, comprised inalienable land andthe households that lived and farmed on ittogether. They were represented in the court ofthe batab (local ruler) in the noh cah (greattown) by ah cuch cabob, a title translated as“bearer of the land” (McAnany 1995:92). Ahcuch cabob received tribute and services inexchange for overseeing civic activities, includ-ing the adjudication of disputes (Freidel 1983).According to Roys (1962:65), lands were heldin common and administered by institutionsthat partitioned “holdings by the setting of land-marks on the property.”

Colonial-era home sites and fields may havebeen inherited entitlements or possibly privateproperty. Entitlements are documented in landtitles from Ebtun dated to AD 1561 and 1721,in which petitioners claimed tracts of forestthrough relationships with their ancestors (Roys1943). In an often-cited Pox document from theDocumentos de Tabi, Juan Pox was said tohave marked the borders of his ancestral forestbefore witnesses, including Antonio Chi, anobleman, and other prominent men, but “itwas not his forest here. It was only given by con-cession for him to release what was granted to hisfather” (Roys 1927:1–3). Farriss suggests thatcommoners also held individual ownership ofassets that could be transferred to direct descen-dants, except for milpa land. Even among nobles,“one owned what was worth owning, which wasnot the land itself but any improvements to it”(Farriss 1984:274). Although rights to milpacould be sold by the eighteenth century, whatthe buyer was paying for was the labor to preparea field, not the land itself. Nonetheless, there issome evidence for private property. Roys(1943) suggests that nobles owned private estatesworked by slaves, and Freidel (1983:54) assertsthat ah cuch cabob owned private land similarto nobles; however, these claims of dual com-mon–private property regimes rest on the vagar-ies of property terms used in colonial documentsand cannot be taken literally.

In the scant literature on ancientMaya land ten-ure systems, archaeologists use both colonial-eradocuments and archaeological remains to recon-struct property rights and the institutions thatoversaw them. McAnany (1995) suggests thatrights to land, water, kaxob, and other resources






were inherited entitlements enacted throughceremonies linking living members of house-holds to ancestors. She projects land tenure sys-tems back into the Preclassic period based onthe presence of practices surrounding ancestorworship, but it is unclear if land or solely house-hold assets were inherited given the precedingdiscussion.

Particularly pertinent to the study of Mayaproperty rights is the houselot, which consistsof four concentric zones: a residential core, aclear area, a toft area where trash is discarded,and a garden (in-field) area (Killion 1990,1992). At some sites, such as Chunchucmil,houselots were walled, making them easily vis-ible (Hutson et al. 2007); however, this is notthe case for most sites. Lacking walls, houselotshave been reconstructed based on the spatial dis-tribution of artifacts and soil residues (Robin1999). The most frequent improvements to prop-erty were the rebuilding of houses and terracingin the form of embankments and stone walls. Inthe hilly uplands, terracing is common in bothcontinuously cropped (and manured) in-fieldsand longer-fallowed, distant out-fields (Dunningand Beach 1994; Healy et al. 1983; Killion 1992;Wyatt 2008). These data link individual socialentitlements to either common property or pri-vate property, but more specific archaeologicalevidence is required to test hypotheses.

Actuncan: A Long-Lived Mopan RiverValley Center

Actuncan is situated on a ridgetop overlookingthe Mopan River Valley near the present-dayborders of Belize and Guatemala (Figure 1).The site comprises two architectural groups—Actuncan South, the triadic complex centeredon Plaza A, and Actuncan North, a set of civicmonuments, elite residences, and a commonersettlement zone—linked by a wide causeway(Figure 2). The site experienced three periodsof growth: early (Middle to Late Preclassicphases from 1000–300 BC), middle (TerminalPreclassic to Early Classic phases from 175BC–AD 300), and late (Terminal Classic phasefrom AD 780–1000).

Historical Development

Evidence for the earliest occupation is found onthe eastern edge of Actuncan. Deep excavationsunder Structure 41 revealed six plaza floors, theearliest of which is burnt marl. On this floor, adedicatory deposit was found consisting of frag-ments of a Cunil-age colander, and a large cer-amic jar rim was used as a brazier. Nearby,three courses of uncut limestone blocks withsoft marl mortar may have been the foundationfor an early platform. Another similar founda-tional cache was found under the E-group. Asof yet, no domestic structures have been foundthat date to this time nor to the Middle Preclassicperiod, although Jenny Creek materials consist-ently occur in the fill of later structures. The earli-est evidence of house platforms comes fromthree Late Preclassic structures under Group1. One was faced with a single course of coloredstones and large artifacts and filled with yellowclay, whereas the other two were composed ofcobble fill overlain with marl surfaces (Rothen-berg 2012). Late Preclassic civic constructionshave been found underneath the ballcourt andStructures 19 and 34. By far, the largest Late Pre-classic civic construction was the triadic complexin Plaza A (McGovern 2004).

In the Terminal Preclassic period, civicbuildings were substantially enlarged duringActuncan’s rise to prominence. Hallmarks ofPreclassic kingship include the addition of red-painted stucco masks to the front of Structure 5of the triadic group, the building of a ballcourtand the erection of a carved stela in Plaza A(cf. Estrada-Belli 2011). Structure 19, the largestand most centrally located range structure, satprominently at the north end of the sacbe facingthe triadic complex and the ballcourt. It likelyfunctioned as the locus of kingly administrativepractices, whereas the triadic complex served asthe ritual center (Mixter 2016). Geochemicalresidues on the Preclassic summit of Structure19 document continuously distributed, high-phosphorous signatures indicative of feastingand cooking (LeCount et al. 2016). Importantly,earlier domestic structures were buried, and newresidential units were built over the buried struc-tures. Late Preclassic structures under Group 1were covered by thick layers of sterile clay fills,






abovewhich were built new platforms oriented ina different direction (Figure 3). At Structure 41, abuilding platform was constructed on top of2.6 m of earlier plaza floors. The new housewas dedicated by sacrificing a child, smashingceramic artifacts, and scattering human bone infront of the building.

By the fifth century AD, civic monumentsceased to be built and elite residences were aban-doned. Structure 73, an elite house, was rituallyterminated (Simova et al. 2015), and Structure19 fell into disrepair (Mixter et al. 2013) as Bue-navista del Cayo and later Xunantunich solidifiedcontrol over sites in the region. In the Late Clas-sic period, Structure 19 at Actuncan was reno-vated, and Group 8 was appended to it to housea noble family, probably vassals to rulers atXunantunich. As Xunantunich’s power beganto wane in the ninth century, Actuncan embarkedon a new round of civic building and ritualresignification of old monuments (Mixter 2017;

Simova et al. 2015), but the center did nothold. Populations gradually dispersed in thePostclassic period sometime after AD 1000.

Residential Units

The Actuncan Archaeological Project has exca-vated all residential units visible on the groundsurface: six commoner patio-focused groups(Groups 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7), three elite houses (Struc-tures 29, 41, 73), and the palace complex (Struc-ture 19 and Group 8). Axial trenching revealedconstruction stages that were dated by correlatingdiagnostic ceramic artifacts and radiocarbondates (Figure 4).

The three elite houses at Actuncan (Structures29, 41, and 73) are Type VI “sites” in the Xunan-tunich Settlement Survey (XSS) typology (Yae-ger 2010:Table II.4). These residential units arecharacterized by a large pyramidal substructuregreater than 2 m in height surrounded by low ter-races and, in some cases, other mounds. During

Figure 1. Selected sites in the Maya lowlands mentioned in the text (After Leventhal et al. 2010:Figure 1.1).






the Terminal Preclassic period, substructuressupported limestone-block masonry summitsuperstructures, all of which display facades

with apron moldings covered in stucco andpainted red. Given that no Preclassic palace ortombs have been found, early leadership may

Figure 2. The site of Actuncan (Modified from LeCount et al. 2016:Figure 2).






Figure 3. Profile of Structure 61 showing buried floors and structures (Drawing by Kara Fulton).

8LATIN

AMERICAN

ANTIQ

UITY

https://ww

w.cam

bridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2019.16

Dow

nloaded from https://w

ww

.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 99.42.135.84, on 17 Apr 2019 at 13:22:38, subject to the Cam

bridge Core terms of use, available at




have been corporately organized, with authorityrotating across elite houses. It was not until theLate Classic period that Structure 19 was modi-fied to house nobility and serve as the seat ofadministrative activities.

Actuncan’s commoner settlement is locatedat the north end of the site and consists of sixorthogonally or informally arranged patio-focusedgroups and seven low platforms correspondingto XSS Types I, II, and III. In the TerminalPreclassic period, platforms were faced withcut-limestone blocks, which, after renovations,were built with river cobbles in the TerminalClassic period. These platforms supported per-ishable superstructures made of waddle anddaub, and in some cases, stone piers acted asfoundations for perishable buildings. Over time,household modifications created large residentialgroups made up of the remains of earlier plat-forms, perishable superstructures, and residuesof domestic activities.

Urban Settlement Patterns

At the founding of the Terminal Preclassic cen-ter, both elite and commoner residential unitswere built surrounding the civic core. The oldestcommoner residential units (Groups 1, 5, and 7)were strategically positioned near the aguada.Groups 1 and 5 were less than 100 m from Struc-ture 19, the central range structure. At Group 1,stone-lined crypts (Burials 1 and 4) containedhighly decorated pottery including two Aguacate

Orange vessels (a Z-angled tetrapod dish and an“Old God” effigy chocolate pot) and a polishedparrot effigy lid (LeCount 2010). Crypt burialshave not been found elsewhere, although simi-larly decorated pottery can be found at theother Preclassic patio groups. These data suggestthat Group 1 served as the house of a leadingfamily, possibly an early form of ah cuch cab,and other commoner families prospered.

In the Classic period, Groups 2, 3, and 6 wereestablished to the north and east of foundingcommoner residential units. These groups weresmaller and diverged in important ways fromtheir long-established neighbors (Mixter et al.2014). Group 1 maintained its privileged status,as indicated by the fact that its eastern structureserved as a focal point for sequential burials,but later burials were interred in poorly definedpits and most lacked grave goods (Freiwald2015). Terminal Classic architectural modifica-tions were limited and crudely executed usinglarge river cobbles, rather than cut-limestoneblocks for platform facades. In contrast, Group 5,a neighbor of Group 1, expanded continuouslythroughout the Classic period, and its architec-ture displays some of the best-dressed stone-work at Actuncan. Group 7 grew haphazardlyaround a wide patio, indicating that its structureswere either distinctly different in function orwere the homes of incongruent social entities.Group 6 may have functioned as a Late Classicspecial-function building (Fulton 2015). Unlike

Figure 4. Occupation histories of residential units at Actuncan.






other nearby patio-focused groups, it was con-structed predominantly of perishable materials,and little plaster was found on platform floors.Artifacts associated with domestic activitiessuch as food preparation or lithic productionwere sparse, whereas there was a higher thanexpected amount of ritual items. Further, soilchemistry of the area off the platforms found ele-vated concentrations of elements associated withthe use of ochre and hematite.

Elite houses at Actuncan experienced moreprofound boom-and-bust cycles of growth, col-lapse, and reorganization than commoner resi-dential units. Structures 29 and 41 are locatedon the eastern edge of the site adjacent to theE-group, while Structure 73 is located near thesacbe that connects the two parts of the site.After their founding in the Terminal Preclassicperiod, all underwent construction hiatusesaround AD 400. Following the termination ofStructure 73, it served as a location of ritualsinvolving periodic interments, the making andscattering of spear points, and feasting well intothe Terminal Classic period (Simova 2015).Structure 29 was not renovated until the TerminalClassic period, when a large and impressivestaircase was added to the south side. Structure41 was remodeled both in the Late and TerminalClassic periods, but later buildings were made ofperishable materials and the substructure wascovered in stuccoed river cobbles, rather thancut-limestone blocks.

In sum, a small cluster of residential units wasarranged in an orderly fashion around Plaza C inthe northern civic center at the founding of theTerminal Preclassic center. Commoners livednear the aguada and the elites in sacred locations.All residents lived relatively equidistant fromStructure 19, a location where the king wouldhave been accessible to community membersduring ceremonies. These spatial arrangementsare indicative of relatively close community tiesand equitable access to public goods and ser-vices. This pattern breaks down in the Classicperiod. Walls were built blocking access to theE-group and Plaza C, and a noble palace com-pound was constructed by enclosing the northside of Structure 19 with a patio group. Althoughmore residences were built, commoners lived indistinctly different ways from each other as

indicated by architectural embellishments andburial patterns. Elites, in contrast, either left thesite or lived in much less luxurious houses.Breaks in the social bonds between groups likelybegan during a collapse of political power in theEarly Classic period and continued into the LateClassic period when the site was subordinate tocenters in the region.

The Actuncan ArchaeogeophysicalProgram

The description of Actuncan’s built environmentin the previous section does not take into accounthouses and features that are buried by urbanrenewal projects or natural processes. Low con-structions in settlement zones can be completelyburied by natural processes in upland tropicalenvironments where soil layers are deep (John-ston 2002). Particularly vulnerable to burial areagricultural terraces, water-management fea-tures, and boundary markers that play an im-portant role in reconstructing land tenuresystems. To more accurately reconstruct the his-torical development of Actuncan’s settlement,we conducted an archaeo-geophysical surveyand ground-truthing program in the commonersettlement zone and adjacent Plaza H where bur-ied structures were most likely to occur. Noattempt was made to survey the elite residentialunits, given their placement on deep plaza fillsand plaster floors that confound remote-sensingsignals.

Two archaeo-geophysical techniques wereused: a gradiometer and ground-penetrating radar(GPR). Unfortunately, the GPR survey did notyield valid results, but the gradiometer surveyproduced an interpretable map. A gradiometersurvey is a non-intrusive technique that measuresslight variations in the magnetic properties ofsoil. It results in a magnetic gradient map thatdisplays localized variations in the magneticfield caused by natural and cultural disturbances.Natural soils disturbed by humans digging andfilling features, such as trenches and pits, aremeasurably different in magnetic strength com-pared to those that have not been disturbed. Mag-netic gradients also derive from thermal activitiesand weakly magnetized objects, such as hearths,kilns, and daub. The size, shape, strength, and






magnetic character of disturbances are the basisfor describing anomaly signatures.

In regions that have benefited from extensivearchaeo-geophysical surveys, consistently pat-terned anomaly signatures have been correlatedto cultural features with a high degree ofprobability (Gaffney 2008; Kvamme 2006).Interpretive reliability is established throughground-truthing excavation programs thatsystematically test anomaly patterns. Remotesensing in the Maya lowlands, however, is stillin an exploratory stage. Surveys have yieldedmixed results due to water-logged soils, denseforests, and complex site stratigraphy that impedeor confound remote-sensing signals (Cap 2015;Halperin 2007; Sweely 2005).

In the next section we present the results ofthe gradiometer survey and ground-truthing.Our primary objective is to identify anomalypatterns that can be correlated with architecturalfeatures, particularly domestic platforms. Wethen reconstruct the historical develop of Actun-can’s commoner urban settlement patterns bycombining remote-sensing results and excava-tion data described earlier. These data are usedto test correlates of land tenure systems describedin the previous section.

The Actuncan Gradiometer Survey

Walker (2012) surveyed a total of 60,621 m2

(6.06 ha) of land—48,246 m2 in the NorthernSettlement Zone and 12,375 m2 in Plaza H—by carrying a Bartington 601–2 Fluxgate Gradi-ometer along a 1 m traverse interval. Surveyresults were imposed over a GIS-generated mapof the site, thus locating the finds with high pre-cision. The two adjoining areas encompass alarge survey block, although a narrow strip ofland near the center of the block was not sur-veyed because it contains a wire fence separatingthe Juan and Galvez properties. Groups 1 and 2straddle the fence line and therefore were notcompletely surveyed, but Groups 3, 5, 6, and 7and Structures 48, 49, 87, 88, 89, and 90 werecompletely mapped.

The gradiometer data were collected usinggrids measuring 20 x 20 m established on thecardinal directions. This method requires theinstrument to be programmed to collect a setnumber of readings over a number of traverses.

The pace of the surveyor or the rate at whichthe instrument records the data is set to matchthe survey parameters. This results in a re-gularized or gridded dataset with no need foradditional data interpolation before data pro-cessing. The gradiometer data were processedto lessen the effects of background noise andto enhance the quality of the signal (target)in the geophysical data. A destripping zeromedian filter was run to balance the two sensors,and minor destaggering was performed whereneeded. Data were exported from Archaeosur-veyor 2.0 as a geo-referenced raster file intoArcGIS for analysis. All images are geo-referenced to the site grid, established and main-tained by coordinates obtained using a totalstation.

Survey Results

The magnetic gradient of the Actuncan site isquite low (+/− 7 nT with spikes from ferrousmaterial removed). For visualization and analyticpurposes, the data were clipped to =/− 3 nT(Figure 5). Overall, the data are good, but noisyin places where the soil is thinner.

Two consistent anomaly signatures are re-cognizable in the magnetic gradient map ofActuncan. Most obvious are areas of enhancedmagnetism associated with patio-focused groupsvisible on the ground surface today (Figure 6a).From our excavations, we know that these groupsare palimpsests of building and living activities.Stone-faced platforms were cut into the naturalclay and filled with limestone fragments, rivercobbles, and trash stabilized by internal retainingwalls. All these materials make the magnetic sus-ceptibility of platforms strikingly different fromthat of undisturbed clay. As domestic houses,they also contain numerous cut-and-fill pits,burnt features, and magnetized objects that, com-bined with platforms, create a complex cluster ofmagnetic gradients and shapes. We postulate thatareas of enhanced magnetism associated withStructures 48 and 88 are the signatures of resi-dential units that are almost completely buried.A second magnetic pattern is the many large, iso-lated rectangular patterns formed by lineardipoles with weak magnetic centers (Figure 6band c). We postulate that these anomalies are sig-natures of nondomestic constructions. When






tested, they should lack multistage construc-tions and features that give patio-focusedgroups their enhanced magnetism. The vastmajority of signatures are complex dipoles andamorphously shaped anomalies found scatteredacross the survey area. Due to their inconsistentpatterning, they likely represent a wide array ofsmaller cultural and natural features. Ourground-truthing program aimed to confirmthese hypotheses.

Ground-Truthing Results

Sixteen magnetic signatures and two areas withnormal magnetism were tested using 20 1 x 1 or1 x 2 m testpits (Supplemental Figures 1 and 2;Supplemental Table 1). Testpits (Units 14F, H,and J) within two areas of enhanced magnetismrevealed a nondomestic platform with abundantlithic debris 6 m from Structure 88 (SupplementalFigure 3) and a domestic platform 4 m fromStructure 48. We suggest that the domestic

Figure 5. Magnetic gradient map of the Northern Settlement Zone and Plaza H.






Figure 6. Overlays of Malerized architectural renderings on magnetic anomalies: (a) area of enhancedmagnetism asso-ciated with Group 7; (b) positive rectangular pattern with weak magnetic center near Group 7; (c) linear dipoles abut-ting Structure 90.






platform is part of the buried remains of a patiogroup, whereas the platform near Structure 88may have been a special-use workspace. Bothare located on the eastern edge of the surveynear the ridgetop overlooking the valley. In thesame area, testpits (Units 14 G and I) samplinglinear dipoles revealed a multistage perishablestructure that has evidence of the productionof red pigment (Supplemental Figure 4) and alow, multistage domestic platform near Structure49. Testpits (Units 14C, K, L, and M) samplingpositive rectangular patterns with weak magneticcenters on the western side of the settlement zoneyielded evidence of ditch and bank features asso-ciated with an agricultural field system (Supple-mental Figure 5). Unit 14N tested a lineardipole signature running parallel to Structure90 and a possible buried structure. Excavationsrevealed a terrace wall made of largecut-limestone blocks covered in plaster tilting40o with the slope. After these discoveries, agri-cultural features were targeted for more intensiveexcavations, the results of which are discussedlater.

As predicted, amorphous signatures were lessreliable indicators of cultural features in the Nor-thern Settlement Zone. Units 14A, B, D, and Orevealed diverse archaeological remains includ-ing cut-and-fill activities and burnt features.Plaza H testpits also produced variable resultsas expected. Units sampling linear dipoles andrectangular anomalies discovered plaza floorsand fills, collapsed walls, and clusters of rivercobbles, none of which appear to be domesticstructures. Most of the constructions rest onplaza floors and were not cut into sterile clay,making the anomaly signatures difficult tointerpret. Finally, control units discoverednothing that would be predicted to create ananomaly.

To better understand the nature of the fieldsystems discovered in the ground-truthing pro-gram, Theresa Heindel (2017, 2018) excavatedburied and visible stone terraces on the easternslopes of the aguada drainage. She partiallyuncovered two field systems and a special-useconstruction associated with Structure 90. FieldSystem 1 is located near the bottom of the drain-age and Field System 2 near the top (Figure 7). Inthis location, the fields lie within an interstitial

area formed by Groups 5, 6, and 7. Thespecial-use structure is north of Group 7 over-looking Requena Creek.

Field System 1 is an interconnected group ofstone alignments that formed agricultural plotsand a low platform (Supplemental Figure 6).These features were uncovered in shallow exca-vations across 52.5 m2. Lowwalls (< 40 cm) var-ied between one and four courses high and wereconstructed using river cobbles and irregularlimestone blocks. The plots are small; the largestis 3.5 x 5 m in size. Similar dry-field systems ofcontiguous plots have been found in the Petexba-tún Region of Guatemala and elsewhere (Dun-ning and Beach 1994). At Actuncan, plots wereenriched and the slope stabilized by discardedtrash that dates to the Late and Terminal Classicperiods. At the northeast corner of the system, asmall channel of redeposited white clay leadsto the ditch and bank found in Unit 14K lessthan 3 m away. A small platform, 2 x 2 m insize, is embedded in the field system. The plat-form fill contains packed river cobbles similarto that for house platforms, but it was probablynot a residence because it was not raised abovethe level of the plots. It might have been achampa (fieldhouse) for people tending thefields.

System 2 was uncovered in a 31 m2 excava-tion block and consists of at least eight lowwall segments forming plots measuring 2 x 3 min size (Supplemental Figure 7). Another smallrectangular platform (2 x 3.5 m) was found inthe middle of the system, as well as two pit fea-tures that are 70 cm deep, circular, and boundedby rocks. They contained large pottery sherdsand charcoal at the bottom, but not throughoutthe matrix. Like System 1, abundant trash wasfound strewn across the plots, illustrating theintensive nature of in-field agriculture.

The special-use construction comprises asmall building (Structure 90) with two terracewalls located 2 m upslope, paralleling the topog-raphy. The two walls are short, no taller than30 cm, and are separated by a 20 cm wide chan-nel with a plastered floor. Jute and marine shellwere recovered from the lowest occupation sur-face, and seven human teeth, nine shell beads,and a posthole were found above a burnt surfacenear the top of the walls. Given the unusual






nature of these features and artifacts, this con-struction might have served as a well house orwater shrine similar to that discovered at thenearby settlement of Chan (Wyatt 2008).

In sum, the archaeo-geophysical programachieved its primary objective of identifyingmagnetic signatures that correlate with buriedfeatures in the Northern Settlement Zone,although much more work is required to confi-dently interpret magnetic signatures. Accordingto Walker, the success of the gradiometer surveyis due to the presence of shallow conductive soilsat the site. Actuncan’s soils are members of thePiedegral Series of the Yaxa Suite found on theEarly Tertiary limestones that form the rollinghills of western Belize, north of the BelizeRiver (Birchall and Jenkins 1979:34–35). Themain soils derive from dark-colored blocky

clays that are neutral or alkaline and well sup-plied with calcium and magnesium, but haveonly moderate amounts of other nutrients suchas iron. Constructions and features cut into theclayey soils and filled with stone and anthropo-genic materials produce visible magnetic gradi-ent differences. In the Northern SettlementZone, no plaza surfaces capped domestic depos-its, but instead, occupation surfaces were cut intothe sterile soil. Further, the survey was conductedat the end of the dry season when the soil wasevenly dry and differential moisture was not afactor in data recovery. Finally, Walker mappeda relatively flat pasture that was burnt or choppedto the ground before the survey. This preparationallowed for a rapid and evenly paced gradiometersurvey that resulted in high sample density andgood resolution.

Figure 7. Overlay of agricultural field systems on magnetic gradient map (Map by David W. Mixter).






Spatial Analysis of Residential Units andBuried Signatures

To determine the spatial distribution of residen-tial units in Actuncan’s Northern SettlementZone and how it changed through time, weused ArcGIS average nearest neighbor analysis(NNA). Points were placed in the center of resi-dential units for analysis, and each residentialunit was assigned an occupational time span:Preclassic (Groups 1, 5, and 7 and Structure48) and Classic periods (Groups 1, 2, 3, 5, 6,and 7 and Structures 48 and 49).

The distribution of residential units was dis-persed in both time periods with nearly identicalmeasures of standard deviation (PreclassicZ-score = 5.12 and Classic Z-score = 4.34) andsignificant p-values (both p < 0.001). Thesedata indicate that there was less than a 1% likeli-hood that the patterns could be the result ofrandom chance. Although the observed meandistance between residential units declinedfrom 105 to 62 m over time, this decrease wasdue to the addition of buried domestic platformson the eastern side of the settlement zone that cre-ated firm boundaries for the statistic. Nonethe-less, residential units did not cluster. Althoughhouselots became smaller through time, theirspatial relationships with neighbors remainedconstant.

To investigate the exclusionary nature ofproperty, we used the anomaly signature of rect-angular patterns to look for evidence of houselotimprovements. Structural cores of houselots areidentified as areas of enhanced magnetism inActuncan’s gradiometer map, and as documen-ted earlier, large rectangular anomalies correlatewith low structures and agricultural features. Ifcommunity members built walls around theirhouselots or improved them substantially, theyshould appear conjoined by anomalies. If not,houselots will appear isolated, separated byempty buffer zones.

To analyze the spatial patterning of anomal-ies, we used kernel density analysis (KDA) orestimates (KDEs). Wheatley and Gillings(2002) describe KDEs as similar to simple dens-ity estimates, except in KDEs, each pointreceives a density function, called a “kernel,”which are added together to estimate point

densities. Baxter and colleagues (1997) suggestthat KDEs are better at displaying patterningthan other methods because they use a symmet-rical probability density function to smoothdata. Each point’s kernel density is representedas a density height, a value based on the point’sdensity in relation to surrounding ones. A con-tour plot of ranked density data is generated toillustrate gradients of higher and lower densities.KDEs also provide illustrations of asymmetricalpoint densities better than simple density or clus-ter analyses, resulting in a robust tool for charac-terizing multivariate data (Whallon 1987). InArcGIS 10.2, KDEs are available in the formof KDA.

Using Actuncan’s data, KDAwas used to pro-duce an anomaly densities map of rectangularanomalies with weak magnetic centers. Nelsonidentified them based on patterning in lineardipoles and marked them as polygons on themagnetic gradient map. One data point wasplaced in the center of the rectangle to representthe anomaly. The KDA function was performedat a search radius of 20 m that produced asmoothed floating-point raster grid of localizeddensity estimates (Figure 8).

Unsurprisingly, kernel densities are greatestwithin the structural cores of patio-focusedgroups (Groups 6 and 7), whereas Group 3 andisolated structures (48, 49, 87, 88, and 89) dis-play moderate densities. More intriguingly, thekernel density data illustrate interconnectivitybetween neighbors. When buried features aretaken into consideration, the Northern SettlementZone appears as a web of constructions, ratherthan spatially buffered houselots. In the easternportion of the settlement, residential units andburied buildings form dense clusters of con-structions in which small domestic units aresurrounded by low platforms or perishable build-ings erected on clay floors, some of which havebeen shown to be locations of specialized craftactivities, including lithic and pigment produc-tion. On the western side of the settlement,Groups 1, 6, and 7, and probably 5, are intercon-nected by agricultural features and low construc-tions such as those found in ground-truthexcavations. None of the stone walls that havebeen found through ground-truthing appear tobe high enough to restrict access to fields.






Anomalies were dated based on recovereddiagnostic ceramic artifacts. The low platformson the eastern side of the settlement date to theLate Classic, although diagnostic artifacts arescarce. The field system was certainly in use inthe Terminal Classic period, when people forti-fied the soil with trash dating to this period.Other agricultural features contain only LateClassic diagnostics, indicating that improve-ments began earlier.

Conclusions

Our combined excavation and remote-sensingdata support the proposition that a common prop-erty regime was established at Actuncan in theTerminal Preclassic period and persisted untilthe site was abandoned sometime after the Ter-minal Classic period. These interpretations arebased on four archaeological correlates of com-mon property regimes: (1) diachronic changes

in community settlement patterns, (2) spatialproximity of residential units to land andresources, (3) the arrangement of land subdiv-ision and improvements, and (4) the presenceof public goods in community land.

At the founding of the political center, a smallnumber of elite and common families built newhomes on top of an earlier settlement aroundthe civic core of the site. Commoners settled inthe Northern Settlement Zone near the aguada,an important public good for agriculturalists,whereas elites built houses on the eastern andsouthern edges of the civic zone. Over time,founding families improved their houselotswith ephemeral outbuildings and features, andnew commoner residential units were built onthe eastern edge of the Northern SettlementZone. These new residential units did notinfringe on founding patio-focused lands. Thereis no evidence that commoner houselots weresubdivided, although their boundaries became

Figure 8. Kernel density estimates, rectangularmagnetic signatures, and visible architecture in the Northern SettlementZone.






more delineated in the Late Classic period whenadditional residential units were built on the east-ern side of the settlement. Common land abovethe aguada drainage was improved. Excavationsin this area discovered two in-field systems ofwalled plots and champas interspersed betweenGroups 5 and 7, whereas anomaly signatures sur-rounding residential cores of houselots indicateadditional improvements. Most of these signa-tures date to the Late and Terminal Classic peri-ods, which lends evidence to suggest that rightsto land within the urban settlement becameinherited social entitlements at that time. TheNorthern Settlement Zone also contains twospecial-use facilities, a water shrine or wellhouse and Group 6, a set of two platforms thatsupported perishable buildings and containedan unusual sample of artifacts. In sum, all fourarchaeological correlates for common propertyhave been confirmed for Actuncan’s NorthernSettlement Zone.

Although day-to-day oversight of Actuncan’scommon land resided in the households thatlived and worked in the Northern SettlementZone, we suggest that collective action betweengoverning elites and commoner supporters wasa critical factor for the initial implementation ofthe land tenure regime. Most likely, elites recog-nized that the site’s commoner families were keyallies in promoting the newly established centerto hinterland populations. This common interestwas a possible motivation to negotiate access topublic goods and services equitably at the found-ing of the center. Indeed, all founding residentialunits were in close proximity to civic monu-ments, particularly Structure 19, the site’s largestrange structure, and commoners lived close tothe vital aguada. In the Late and Terminal Clas-sic, the noble court at Actuncan or the ruler’scourt at Xunantunich would have overseen landdisputes. We note that evidence for the inherit-ance of social entitlements to field plots appearedwhen political power was the most hierarchicallyorganized and tax-tribute demands the most bur-densome. It raises questions about linkagesbetween agricultural intensification and changesin property rights.

AlthoughMaya archaeologists have been lim-ited in studying ancient land tenure systemsgiven the lack of textual evidence, our combined

excavation and remote-sensing efforts providenew techniques for recovering and analyzingdata to address questions about property. Thearchaeo-geophysical program at Actuncan wassuccessful in discovering buried agricultural sys-tems, low platforms, and other features undertropical soils prone to colluviation on gentleslopes. When buried remains are taken intoaccount, the Northern Settlement Zone appearsas a web of residential buildings, informal con-structions, and landscape features that demon-strate a far greater degree of social connectivitybetween houselots than what meets the eye onthe ground surface. This densely improved land-scape is more in keeping with how modern Mayacommunity members live today than the isolatedresidential units envisioned by archaeologistswho work solely on standing-stone architecture.

Acknowledgments. Major support for the Actuncan Arch-aeological Project was provided by the National ScienceFoundation (BCS0923747) and the National GeographicSociety (CRE-9279-13 and 9658-15). Two University ofAlabama (UA) grants from the College of Arts and Sciencesfunded the gradiometer survey and ground-truthing projects.The UADepartment of Anthropology also provided logisticaland financial support. Ongoing investigations at Actuncantake place through the permission and support of the directorsof the Belize Institute of Archaeology, especially Drs. JohnMorris and Jaime Awe. The Galvez and Juan families gra-ciously permitted us to work on their lands, and we appreciatetheir support of our research. Many people contributed to thesuccess of the gradiometer project and the excavation datapresented here, especially David Mixter, Bobbie Simova,Kara Fulton, Carolyn Freiwald, Dan Salberg, Angela Keller,and Jane Millar. Theresa Heindel’s work in the NorthernSettlement Zone was crucial in solidifying our interpretationof the field systems. We are indebted to the many fine Beliz-ean crew members who make this project successful, espe-cially our foremen Carlos Cocom, Cruz Puuc, and ReneUck. We also wish to thank Kenneth Kvammewho commen-ted on an earlier version of this article, as well as the anonym-ous reviewers who provided comments. Scott Hutson, DavidCarballo, and Christopher Morehart also provided enlighten-ing discussions ofMesoamerican land tenure systems, andwethank them for their time and effort.

Data Availability Statement. All artifacts are curated at Clar-issa Falls Eco-resort, Belize. Requests to access the collec-tions and magnetometer data should be sent to Dr. LisaLeCount, principal investigator of the Actuncan Archaeo-logical Project (AAP). Annual AAP reports are available asdownloadable documents at http://llecount.people.ua.edu.

Supplemental Materials. For supplementary material accom-panying this paper, visit https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2019.16.



http://llecount.people.ua.edu

http://llecount.people.ua.edu






Supplemental Text 1. Ground-truthing Excavations inActuncan’s Northern Settlement Zone.

Supplemental Table 1. Ground-truthing Results by Pro-venience.

Supplemental Figure 1. Malerized rendering of NorthernSettlement and Plaza H architecture overlain onmagnetic gra-dient map (Illustration by David W. Mixter and TedC. Nelson).

Supplemental Figure 2. Ground-truth testpit locationsoverlain on magnetic gradient map (Illustration by DavidW. Mixter).

Supplemental Figure 3. Late Classic platform in Lot 14J3(Photograph by Jane Millar).

Supplemental Figure 4. Unit 14I north profile. Pit featurefilled with red matrix and charcoal originates at upper floor(Photograph by Jane Millar).

Supplemental Figure 5. Terraformed sterile white clay inUnit 14K (south profile) (Photograph by Jane Millar).

Supplemental Figure 6. Plan view of Field System1 (Illustration by Theresa Heindel).

Supplemental Figure 7. Plan view of Field System2 (Illustration by Theresa Heindel).

References Cited

Adler, Michael A.1996 Land Tenure, Archaeology, and the AncestralPueblo Social Landscape. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 15:337–371.

Baxter, Michael J., Christian C. Beardah, and RichardV. S. Wright

1997 Some Archaeological Applications of Kernel Dens-ity Estimates. Journal of Archaeological Science24:347–354.

Birchall, C. J., and R. N. Jenkins1979 The Soils of the Belize Valley, Belize. Foreign andCommonwealth Office Overseas Development Admin-istration, Land Resources Development Centre, Tol-worth, UK.

Blanton, Richard E., and Lane F. Fargher2008 Collective Action in the Formation of Pre-ModernStates. Springer, New York.

Brookfield, Harold S.1984 Intensification Revisited. Pacific Viewpoint 25:15–44.

Cap, Bernadette2015 Classic Maya Economies: Identification of aMarketplace at Buenavista del Cayo, Belize. PhD disser-tation, Department of Anthropology, University ofWisconsin-Madison. Proquest (ATT 3680340).

Carballo, David M.2013 Cultural and Evolutionary Dynamics of Cooperationin Archaeological Perspective. In Cooperation & Col-lective Action: Archaeological Perspectives, edited byDavid M. Carballo, pp. 3–34. University Press of Color-ado, Boulder.

Dunning, Nicholas P., and Timothy Beach1994 Soil Erosion, Slope Management, and Ancient Ter-racing in the Maya Lowlands. Latin American Antiquity5:51–69.

Earle, Timothy K.1998 Property Rights and the Evolution of HawaiianChiefdoms. In Property in Economic Context, edited

by Robert C. Hunt and Antonio Gilman, pp. 89–118.University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland.

2000 Archaeology, Property and Prehistory. AnnualReview of Anthropology 29:39–60.

Estrada-Belli, Francisco2011 The First Maya Civilization: Ritual and Powerbefore the Classic Period. Routledge, Oxford.

Farriss, Nancy M.1984 Maya Society under Colonial Rule: The CollectiveEnterprise of Survival. Princeton University Press,Princeton, New Jersey.

Freidel, David A.1983 Lowland Maya Political Economy: Historical andArchaeological Perspectives in Light of Intensive Agri-culture. In Spaniards and Indians in SoutheasternMeso-america: Essays on the History of Ethnic Relations,edited by Murdo J. MacLeod and Robert Wasserstrom,pp. 40–63. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Freiwald, Carolyn2015 Life and Death at Actuncan: An Examination ofBurial Treatment and Taphonomy. In The ActuncanArchaeological Project: Report of the 2014 Field Sea-son, edited by Lisa J. LeCount, pp. 55–70. Report sub-mitted to the Institute ofArchaeology,Belmopan,Belize.

Fulton, Kara A.2015 Community Identity and Social Practice during theTerminal Classic Period at Actuncan, Belize. PhD dis-sertation, Department of Anthropology, University ofSouth Florida, Tampa. Proquest (ATT 3714712).

Gaffney, Chris F.2008 Detecting Trends in the Prediction of the BuriedPast: A Review of Geophysical Techniques in Archae-ology. Archaeometry 50:313–336.

Halperin, Christina T.2007 Materiality, Bodies, and Practice: The PoliticalEconomy of Late Classic Figurines from Motul de SanJosé, Petén, Guatemala. PhD dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.Proquest (ATT 3298216).

Hann, Chris M.1998 Introduction: The Embeddedness of Property. InProperty Relations: Renewing the AnthropologicalTradition, edited by Chris M. Hann, pp. 1–47. Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge.

Healy, Paul F., John D. H. Lambert, John T. Arnason, andRichard J. Hebda

1983 Caracol, Belize: Evidence of Ancient Maya Agricul-tural Terraces. Journal of Field Archaeology 10:397–410.

Heindel, Theresa2017 Investigating Agricultural Strategies: On-goingOperation 14 Excavations. In The Actuncan Archaeo-logical Project: Report of the 2016 Field Season, editedby Lisa J. LeCount and David W. Mixter, pp. 7–20.Report submitted to the Institute of Archaeology, Bel-mopan, Belize.

2018 Investigating Agricultural Plot Systems and ChichCobble Mounds: Operation 51 and 52, and On-goingOperation 14 Excavations. In The Actuncan Archaeo-logical Project: Report of the 2017 Field Season, editedby David W. Mixter and Lisa J. LeCount, pp. 11–48.Report submitted to the Institute of Archaeology, Bel-mopan, Belize.

Hunt, Robert C.1998 Properties of Property: Conceptual Issues. In Prop-erty in Economic Context, edited by Robert C. Hunt






and Antonio Gilman, pp. 7–27. University Press ofAmerica, Lanham, Maryland.

Hutson, Scott R., Travis W. Stanton, Aline Magnoni,Richard Terry, and Jason Craner

2007 Beyond the Buildings: Formation Processes ofAncient Maya Houselots and Methods for the Study ofNon-Architectural Space. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 26:442–473.

Johnston, Kevin J.2002 Protrusion, Bioturbation, and Settlement Detectionduring Surface Survey: The Lowland Maya Case. Jour-nal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9:1–67.

Johnston, Robert2005 Pattern without a Plan: Rethinking the Bronze AgeCoaxial Field Systems on Dartmoor, South West Eng-land. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24:1–21.

Killion, Thomas W.1990 Cultivation Intensity and Residential Site Structure:An Ethnographic Examination of Peasant Agriculture inthe Sierra de los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico. LatinAmerican Antiquity 1:191–215.

1992 Residential Ethnoarchaeology and Ancient SiteStructure: Contemporary Farming and PrehistoricSettlement Agriculture at Matacapan, Veracruz,Mexico.In Gardens of Prehistory: The Archaeology of Settle-ment Agriculture in Greater Mesoamerica, edited byThomas W. Killion, pp. 119–149. University of Ala-bama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Kvamme, Kenneth L.2006 Magnetometry: Nature’s Gift to Archaeology. InRemote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly NorthAmerican Perspective, edited by Jay K. Johnson, pp.205–233. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

LeCount, Lisa J.2010 Ka’Kaw Pots and Common Containers: CreatingHistories and Collective Memories among the ClassicMaya of Xunantunich, Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica21:341–351.

LeCount, Lisa J., E. Christian Wells, Thomas Jamison, andDavid W. Mixter

2016 Geochemical Characterization of Inorganic Resi-dues on Plaster Floors from the Palace Complex atActuncan, Belize. Journal of Archaeological ScienceReports 5:453–464.

Leventhal, Richard M., Wendy Ashmore, Lisa J. LeCount,and Jason Yaeger

2010 The Xunantunich Archaeological Project, 1991–1997. In Classic Maya Provincial Politics: Xunantunichand Its Hinterlands, edited by Lisa J. LeCount andJason Yaeger, pp. 1–19. University of Arizona Press,Tucson.

McAnany, Patricia A.1995 Living with the Ancestors: Kinship and Kingship inAncient Mayan Society. University of Texas Press,Austin.

McGovern, James O.2004 Monumental Ceremonial Architecture and PoliticalAutonomy at the Ancient Maya City of Actuncan,Belize. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology,University of California, Los Angeles. Proquest (ATT3121224).

Mixter, David W.2016 Surviving Collapse: Collective Memory and Polit-icalReorganization atActuncan,Belize. PhDdissertation,Department of Anthropology, Washington University inSt. Louis. Proquest (ATT 10160011).

2017 Collective Remembering in Archaeology: A Rela-tional Approach to Ancient Maya Memory. Journal ofArchaeological Method and Theory 24(1):261–302.

Mixter, David W., Thomas R. Jamison, and Lisa. J. LeCount2013 Actuncan’s Noble Court: New Insights into PoliticalStrategies of an Enduring Center in the Upper BelizeRiver Valley. Research Reports in Belizean Archae-ology 10:91–103.

Mixter, David, Kara Fulton, Lauren Bussiere, and Lisa LeCount2014 Living through Collapse: An Analysis of Maya Resi-dential Modifications during the Terminal Classic Periodat Actuncan, Belize.Research Reports in Belizean Archae-ology 11:55–66.

Morehart, Christopher T.2016 Let the Earth Forever Remain! Landscape Legaciesand the Materiality of History in the Northern Basin ofMexico. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute22:939–961.

Oosthuizen, Susan2013a Tradition and Transformation in Anglo-SaxonEngland: Archaeology, Common Rights and Land-scape. Bloomsbury, London.

2013b Beyond Hierarchy: The Archaeology of CollectiveGovernance. World Archaeology 45:714–729.

Östrom, Elinor1990 Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institu-tions for Collective Action. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Restall, Matthew1997 The Maya World: Yucatec Culture and Society,1550–1850. Stanford University Press, Stanford,California.

Robin, Cynthia1999 Towards an Archaeology of Everyday Life: AncientMaya Farmers of Chan Nóohl and Dos ChombitosCikín, Belize. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthro-pology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Pro-quest (ATT 9953587).

Rothenberg, Kara A.2012 The 2011 Excavations at Group 1. In ActuncanArchaeological Project: Report of the 2011 Field Sea-son, edited by Lisa J. LeCount and John H. Blitz, pp.33–48. Report submitted to the Belize Institute ofArchaeology, Belmopan, Belize.

Roys, Ralph L.1927 Documentos de Tabi. Typescript on file, LatinAmerican Library, Tulane University, New Orleans.

1943 The Indian Background of Colonial Yucatan. Car-negie Institution of Washington Publication 548, Wash-ington, DC.

1962 Literary Sources for the History of Mayapan. InMayapan, Yucatan, Mexico, edited by HarryE. D. Pollock, Ralph L. Roys, Tatiana Proskouriakoff,and A. Ledyard Smith, pp. 25–86. Carnegie Instituteof Washington Publication 619, Washington, DC.

Simova, Borislava S.2015 Ceramic Analysis and the Revised ConstructionSequence of Structure 73. In Actuncan Archaeo-logical Project: Report of the 2014 Field Season, edi-ted by Lisa J. LeCount, pp. 105–114. Reportsubmitted to the Belize Institute of Archaeology, Bel-mopan, Belize.

Simova, Borislava S., David W. Mixter, and Lisa J. LeCount2015 The Social Lives of Structures: Veneration Ritualsand Changing Cultural Landscapes at Actuncan, Belize.Research Report in Belizean Archaeology 12:193–204.






Smith, Michael M.2003 The Aztec. 2nd ed. Blackwell, Hoboken, New Jersey.

Sweely, Tracy2005 Detecting “Invisible” Dwellings in the Maya AreaUsing Electromagnetic Induction: Significant Findingsof a Pilot Study at Chau Hiix, Belize. Latin AmericanAntiquity 16:193–208.

Walker, Chester P.2012 Geophysical Survey at the Actuncan Site. In Actun-can Archaeological Project: Report of the Fourth Sea-son 2011, edited by Lisa J. LeCount and JohnH. Blitz, pp. 162–174. Report submitted to the Instituteof Archaeology, Belmopan, Belize.

Whallon, Richard1987 Simple Statistics. In Quantitative Research inArchaeology: Progress and Prospects, edited by MarkS. Aldenderfer, pp. 135–150. Sage, London.

Wheatley, David, and Mark Gillings2002 Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The

Archaeological Application of GIS. Taylor and Francis,New York.

Wyatt, Andrew R.2008 Gardens on Hills: AncientMaya Terracing and Agri-cultural Production at Chan, Belize. PhD dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois atChicago. Proquest (ATT 3345506).

Yaeger, Jason2010 Landscapes of the Xunantunich Hinterlands. InClassic Maya Provincial Politics: Xunantunich and ItsHinterlands, edited by Lisa J. LeCount andJason Yaeger, pp. 233–249. University of ArizonaPress, Tucson.

Submitted July 11, 2017; Revised November 30, 2018;Accepted December 1, 2018






Documents

Land Tenure Systems at the Ancient Maya Site of Actuncan ...anthropology.ua.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/LeCount...sugerir la herencia transgeneracional de los derechos de la propiedad