This article examines land tenure changes in two civilizations, indicating similar patterns of elite land concentration.
This article argues that the structural dynamic of “enclosure” — the conversion of communally managedland into concentrated elite holdings — occurred independently in two New World civilizations that hadno contact with the Old World or with each other: the Aztec Triple Alliance in Mesoamerica (c. 1430–1521 CE) and the Inca Empire in the Andes (c. 1438–1533 CE). Both civilizations developed communalland tenure systems — the calpolli and the ayllu — that underwent processes of elite land concentrationalready advanced before European contact. In Mesoamerica, the mayeque (landless estate-bound laborers)constituted approximately thirty percent of the population by 1519; in the Andes, the panaca system pro-duced an irreversible ratchet of royal land accumulation. When placed alongside the Japanese evidencepresented in a companion article (Sophia 2026), the convergence across three continents with zero mu-tual contact establishes that enclosure is not a feature of any particular civilization, economic system, orcultural tradition but a structural dynamic driven by material conditions: immobile intensive agriculture(chinampas, andenes, rice paddies), high per-unit productivity, collective infrastructure requirements, andbounded geography that eliminates the exit option for cultivators. Cosmological frameworks structurallyinhospitable to absolute land sovereignty — Nahua teotl monism and Andean Pachamama reciprocity —slowed the concentrative drift but did not prevent it, suggesting that the European theological chain fromGenesis through Locke functioned as post-hoc legitimation rather than as a cause of enclosure. Negativecases — pastoral nomads, swidden agriculturalists, sub-Saharan extensive farmers, and the geographicallyopen Russian mir — confirm the hypothesis by exhibiting the absence of oscillation where the materialconditions are absent. The historical evidence further demonstrates that every sustained distributive institu-tion operated at the local level, optimized for specific ecological conditions, challenging the contemporaryassumption that distribution requires global solutions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ryuhei ISHIBASHI (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: