Data from rock shelters in southern Belize show evidence of tool making, hunting, and aquatic resource exploitation by 10,500 cal b.c.; the shelters functioned as mortuary sites between 7600 and 2000 cal b.c. Early Holocene contexts contain stemmed and barbed bifaces as part of a tradition found broadly throughout the neotropics. After around 6000 cal b.c., bifacial tools largely disappear from the record, likely reflecting a shift to increasing reliance on plant foods, around the same time that the earliest domesticates appear in the archaeological record in the neotropics. We suggest that people living in southern Belize maintained close ties with neighbors to the south during the Early Holocene, but lagged behind in innovating new crops and farming technologies during the Middle Holocene. Maize farming in Belize intensified between 2750–2050 cal b.c. as maize became a dietary staple, 1000–1300 years later than in South America. Overall, we argue from multiple lines of data that the Neotropics of Central and South America were an area of shared information and technologies that heavily influenced cultural developments in southeastern Mesoamerica during the Early and Middle Holocene.

The island nature of the Aztec capital, Tenochtitlan, is an under-studied aspect in our understanding of this unique urban space, located in the Mexican highlands of Mesoamerica. The island location induces cross-links from aquatic and terrestrial paths to create connectivity and continuity within the lacustrine cultural landscape of the Basin of Mexico during the Postclassic period (a.d. 900–1521). Although Cortés described this city as the “Venice of the New World,” no specific and systematic investigation of facilities related to water transport has been carried out. In this article, I fill this gap through a study of navigation routes which were conceived to facilitate the continuous movement of people and goods through the numerous canals crisscrossing the Aztec capital, and which are identifiable by means of anthropic markers that respond to functional needs. Transition zones (piers, quays, shoreline areas), coordination zones (ports), and activity zones (customs facilities, warehouses, bridges, sacred sites) are all related to the practice of water transport and intimately related to terrestrial roads. I identify and locate these areas using a multidisciplinary methodology based on archaeological data, ethnohistorical testimonies, and pictographic and iconographic documents.

Archaeoastronomical studies carried out during the last decades in Mesoamerica have demonstrated that civic and ceremonial buildings were largely oriented on astronomical grounds, mostly to sunrises and sunsets on certain dates, allowing the use of observational calendars that facilitated the scheduling of agricultural and related ritual activities. One of the deeply rooted but unfounded ideas is that many alignments recorded the Sun's positions at the equinoxes. By examining such proposals and analyzing their methodological flaws, I argue that they are not based on reliable and objectively selected alignment data, but rather derive from the preconceived significance attributed to the equinoxes. The most likely targets of the near-equinoctial orientations were the so-called quarter days, which occur two days after/before the spring/fall equinox and mark mid-points in time between the solstices. Considering that the astronomical alignments dominate extensive parts of the built environment, they must have played an important role in religion, worldview, and political ideology. Therefore, only a correct identification of their celestial referents, a prerequisite for any convincing interpretation of their meaning, underlying intents, and observational practices employed, can contribute to a proper understanding of some prominent aspects of architectural and urban planning in Mesoamerica.

Research in 1970 vaulted Becán to prominence on the landscape of great Maya centers. Mapping, excavation, and ceramic stratigraphy revealed that its enigmatic earthwork, first recorded archaeologically in 1934, was a fortification built at the end of the Preclassic period. Large-scale warfare thus unexpectedly turned out to have very deep roots in the Maya lowlands. The site's wider implications remained obscure, however, in the absence of dates and other inscriptions. The ever-increasing dependence on historical and iconographic information in our narratives, along with the invisibility of its Preclassic buildings and plazas, unfortunately marginalized Becán. Some colleagues even claimed that we have misinterpreted both the nature of the earthworks (not fortifications) and their dating (not Preclassic). We rehabilitate Becán by dispelling these claims and by showing that standard archaeological evidence, contextualized in what we know today, has much to say about Becán's role in lowland culture history. We identify intervals of crisis when the earthwork remained useful long after it was originally built, especially during the great hegemonic struggles of the Snake and Tikal dynasties, and introduce new ceramic and lithic data about Becán's settlement history and political entanglements. Our most important message is that inscriptions and iconography, for all their dramatic chronological detail and historical agency, must always be complemented by standard fieldwork.