Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines/Chapter 4

by Lewis Henry Morgan

 

CHAPTER IV.

USAGES AND CUSTOMS WITH RESPECT TO LANDS AND TO FOOD

THE OWNERSHIP OF LANDS IN COMMON.

Among the Iroquois the tribal domain was held and owned b}' the tribe in common. Individual ownership, with the right to sell and convey in fee-simple to any other person, was entirely unknown among them. It required the experience and development of the two succeeding ethnical periods to bring mankind to such a knowledge of property in land as its individual ownership with the power of alienation in fee-simple implies. No person in Indian life could obtain the absolute title to land, since it was vested by custom in the tribe as one body, and they had no conception of what is implied by a legal title in severalty with power to sell and convey the fee. But he could reduce unoccupied land to possession by cultivation, and so long as he thus used it he had a possessory right to its enjoyment which would be recognized and respected by his tribe. Gardens, plantinglots, apartments in a long-house, and, at a later day, orchards of fruit were thus held by persons and by families. Such possessory right was all that was needed for their full enjoyment and for the protection of their interest in them, A person might transfer or donate his rights to other persons of the same tribe, and they also passed by inheritance, under established customs, to his gentile kin. This was substantially the Indian system in respect to the ownership of lands and apartments in houses among the Indian tribes within the areas of the United States and British America in the Lower Status of barbarism. In later times, when the State or National Government acquired Indian lands, and made compensation therefor, pa}^ment for the lands went to the tribe, and for improvements to the individual who had the possessory right. At the Tonawanda Reservation of the Seneca-Iroquois, a portion of the lands are divided into separate farms, which are fenced and occupied in severalty, while the remainder are owned by the tribe in common. When a young man marries and has no land on which to subsist, the chiefs may allot him a portion of these reserved lands. The title to all these lands, occupied and unoccupied, remains in the tribe in common. Individuals may sell or rent their possessory rights to each other, or rent them to a white man. No white man can now acquire a title from an Indian to Indian lands in any part of the United States. A person could transfer his possessions to another, but apartments in a house must remain to his gentile kindred. In the time of James II the right to acquire lands was vested in the Crown exclusively as a royal prerogative, to which prerogative our State and National Governments succeeded.

The same usages prevail on the Tuscarora Reservation, near the Niagara River, where this Iroquois tribe owns in common about 8,000 acres of fine agricultural land in one body. A part of this reservation has long been parceled out to individuals in small farms, fenced, and cultivated by the possessors. The remainder is unparceled and under the control of the chiefs. The people are allowed to remove from the wood-land of the reserve the dead wood and litter, but are not permitted to touch the standing timber. When a young man marries, if lie has no land, the chiefs allot him forty acres to cultivate for his subsistence; but, before giving him possession, the lot is first open to all the tribe to cut off the timber for fire-wood. Thus, the double object is gained of supplying the people with fire-wood and of clearing the land for cultivation for the new family. These possessory rights pass by inheritance to the recognized heirs. A person may transfer or rent his possession to another person; he may rent to a white man, but in no case can he sell to a white man.

And here I may be allowed a brief digression, to notice a recent opinion of the late Secretary of the Interior, Hon. Carl Schurz, shared in to some extent by the National Government, in relation to the division of our Indian reservations into lots or tracts, and their conveyance in severalty to the Indians themselves, with power of alienation to white men after a short period, say twenty-five years. It is to be hoped that this policy will never be adopted by any National Administration, as it is fraught with nothing but mischief to the Indian tribes. The Indian is still, as he always has been, and will remain for many years to come, entirely incapable of meeting the white man, with safety to himself, in the field of trade and of resisting the arts and inducements which would be brought to bear upon him. He is incapable of steadily attaching that value to the ownership of land which its importance deserves, or of knowing how far the best interests of himself and family are involved in its continued possession. The result of individual Indian ownership, with power to sell, would unquestionably be, that in a very short time he would divest himself of every foot of land and fall into poverty. The case of the Shawnee tribe of Kansas affords a perfect illustration of this pernicious policy. The Shawnees were removed to Kansas under the Jackson policy, so called, and occupied a splendid reservation on the Kansas River, where they were told they were to make their home forever. But after a few years of undisturbed possession, our people, in the natural flow of population, reached Kansas, where they found the Shawnees in possession of the best part of what has since been the State of Kansas Our people at once wanted these Indian lands, and they determined to root out the Shawnees in the interest of civilization and progress. They accomplished this result in the most speedy and scientific manner, using as their proposed lever this identical plan since adopted by Mr. Schurz. First, the government was induced to re-purchase a part of the reservation on the ground that they had more land than they needed for cultivation; and, secondly, the government induced the Indians to have the remainder divided up into farms and conveyed to heads of families in severalty, with power of alienation. In 1859, when this scheme was being worked out, I visited Kansas, and found the Shawnees cultivating and improving their farms, some of which embraced a thousand acres, and owning them, too, like other farmers When next in Kansas, ten years later, the work was done. There was not a Shawnee in Kansas, but American farmers were in possession of all these lands. It was this individual ownership with power to sell that had done the work.

In managing the affairs of our Indian tribes, we must apply a little common sense to their condition. In their brains they are in the same stage of growth and development with our remote forefathers when they learned to domesticate animals, and came to rely upon a meat and milk subsistence. The next condition of advancement at which the Indian would naturally reach is the pastoral, the raising of flocks and herds of domestic animals. The Indian has taught himself to raise the horse in herds, and some of the tribes raise sheep and goats. A few of them raise cattle. If the government could assist them in this until they were started, they would soon become expert herdsmen; would make a proper use of the unoccupied prairie area in the interior of the continent as well as of the reservations, and would become prosperous and abundant in their resources.

Among the sedentary Village Indians of New Mexico, who were in the Middle Status of barbarism, the land system is much the same in principle, but with special usages adapted to a more advanced condition At Taos, the pueblo lands are held under a Spanish grant of 1689, covering four Spanish square leagues. This grant was afterward confirmed, as I am informed by David J. Miller, esq. of the surveyor-general's office at Santa Fé, by letters patent of the United States. It is, of course, to the Taos Indians in common as a tribe, and without the power of alienation except among themselves These lands have been allotted from time to time to individuals, and held in severalty for cultivation; but these allotments, so to call them, are verbal, and the rights of persons to their possession are settled and adjusted by the chiefs in case of disputes. Mr. Miller wrote me from Taos, under date of December 5, 1877, that "A land-owner cannot, under any circumstance, sell to any but a Pueblo Indian, and one of this (Taos) pueblo If he should do so he would be banished the pueblo, and the sale be treated as void. There is an instance now in this pueblo of a San Juan Indian man married here, but he is not allowed to acquire land in the pueblo premises. His wife has lands which he cultivates. A piece of land belonging to a man may or may not be utilized by him, but it is recognized and treated as his in fee until he sell it or dies. If a lad grows up and marries, and his father or father-in-law has no land to give him, he may purchase in the pueblo, or the pueblo may assign him land, whereby the title in fee as private property remains in him until he sells or dies. When he dies it is divided equally among widow and children. If the children are small, his brother or other relatives cultivate the land for them until they can do it for themselves; but the right of property is in the children. When a piece of land is sold it is done in the presence of witnesses, if it is so desired. Oftener the sale and transfer are made by and between the parties themselves No documents are used. This is so in all the pueblos. The rules and customs in the sale and delivery of rooms in a house and of personal property, such as animals, are the same. There is no preference, as to males or females, in the descent of property rights and titles There is a corn-field at each pueblo, cultivated by all in common, and when grain is scarce the poor take from this store after it is housed. It is in the charge of, and at the disposal of, the cacique (called the governor). Land cannot be sold to an alien; but an Indian coming from another pueblo to live at this may acquire land to subsist upon, though such immigration is rare. It is not allowed at any of the pueblos that a white person acquire property therein. An Indian woman is not allowed to marry a Mexican and live at the pueblo. A piece of land held and recognized as belonging to a person is his property, whether he utilizes it or not, and he may sell or donate it absolutely at his will to persons within the community.

"At Jemes and Zia (other pueblos in New Mexico), when a woman dies her property goes into the control of her husband; if a widow, it descends to her children; if she has no children, it goes to her brothers and sisters equally; and if none survive her, then to her nearest relatives; if she has no relatives, then to such friends as attend her in her last illness. It never reverts to the pueblo, which as a corporate community owns no land."

What Mr. Miller refers to as property rights and titles, and ownership in fee of land, is sufficiently explained by the possessory right found among the Northern tribes. The limitations upon its alienation to an Indian from another pueblo or to a white man, not to lay any stress upon the absence of written conveyances of titles made possible by Spanish and American intercourse, show quite plainly that their ideas respecting the ownership of the ultimate title to land, with power to alienate in fee, were entirely below this conception of property in land. The more important ends of individual ownership were obtained through the possessory right, while the ultimate title remained in the tribe for the protection of all. That the pueblo now owns no land, as Mr. Miller states, must be understood to mean that all the lands of the original grant have been parcelled out. The further statement of Mr. Miller, that if a father dies his land is divided between his widow and children, and that if a mother dies, leaving no husband, her land is divided equally between her sons and daughters, is important, because it shows an inheritance by the children from both father and mother, a total departure from the principles of gentile inheritance. While visiting the Taos pueblo in the summer of! 878 I was unable to find among them the gentile organization, and from lack of sufficient time could not inquire into their rules of descent and inheritance.

My friend, Mr. Ad. F. Bandelier, now recognized as our most eminent scholar in Spanish American history, has recently investigated the subject of the tenure of lands among the ancient Mexicans with great thoroughness of research. The results are contained in an essay published in the Eleventh Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, p. 385 (Cambridge, 1 878). It gives me great pleasure to incorporate verbatim in this chapter, and with his permission, so much of this essay as relates to the kinds or classes of land recognized among them, the manner in which they were held, and his general conclusions.

In the pueblo of Mexico (Tenochtitlan), he remarks: "Four quarters had been formed by the localizing of four relationships composing them respectively, and it is expressly stated that each one 'might build in its quarter (barrio) as it liked.'^[1] The term for these relationships, in the Nahuatl tongue, and used among all the tribes speaking it, was 'calpulli.' It is also used to designate a great hall or house, and we may therefore infer that, originally at least, all the members of one kinship dwelt under one common roof^[2] The ground thus occupied by the 'calpulli' was not, as Torquemada admits, assigned to it by a higher power; the tribal government itself held no domain which it might apportion among subdivisions or to individuals, either gratuitously or on condition of certain prestations, or barter against a consideration.^[3] The tribal territory was distributed, at the time of its occupancy, into possessory rights held by the kindred groups as such, by common and tacit consent, as resulting naturally from their organization and state of culture.^[4]

"The patches of solid ground, on which these 'quarters' settled, were gradually built over with dwellings, first made out of canes and reeds, and latterly, as their means increased, of turf, 'adobe,' and light stone. These houses were of large size, since it is stated that even at the time of the conquest 'there were seldom less than two, four, and six dwellers in one house; thus there were infinite people (in the pueblo) since, as there was no other way of providing for them, many aggregated together as they might please.' Communal living, as the idea of the 'calpulli' implies, seems, therefore, to have prevailed among the Mexicans as late as the period of their greatest power.^[5]

"The soil built over by each 'calpulli' probably remained for some time the only solid expanse held by the Mexicans. Gradually, however, the necessity was felt for an increase of this soil. Remaining unmolested 'in the midst of canes and reeds,' their numbers had augmented, and for residence as well as for food a greater area was needed. Fishing and hunting no longer satisfied a people whose original propensities were horticultural; they aspired to cultivate the soil as they had once been accustomed to, and after the manner of the kindred tribes surrounding them. For this purpose they began throwing up little artificial garden beds, 'chinampas,' on which they planted Indian corn and perhaps some other vegetables. Such plots are still found, as 'floating gardens,' in the vicinity of the present city of Mexico, and they are described as follows by a traveler of this century:

"'They are artificial gardens, about fifty or sixty yards long, and not more than four or five wide. They are separated by ditches of three or four yards, and are made by taking the soil from the intervening ditch and throwing it on the chinampa, by which means the ground is raised generally about a yard, and thus forms a small fertile garden, covered with the finest culinary vegetables, fruits, and flowers. * * *'

"Each consanguine relationship thus gradually surrounded the surface on which it dwelt with a number of garden plots sufficient to the wants of its members. The aggregate area thereof, including the abodes, formed the 'calpullalli'—soil of the 'calpulli'^[6]—and was held by it as a unit; the single tracts, however, being tilled and used for the benefit of the single families. The mode of tenure of land among the Mexicans at that period was therefore very simple. The tribe claimed its territory, 'altepetlalli,' an undefined expanse over which it might extend—the 'calpules,' however, held and possessed within that territory such portions of it as were productive; each 'calpulli' being sovereign within its limits, and assigning to its individual members for their use the minor tracts into which the soil was parcelled in consequence of their mode of cultivation. If, therefore, the terms 'altepetlalli' and 'calpulalli' are occasionally regarded as identical, it is because the former indicates the occupancy, the latter the distribution of the soil. We thus recognize in the calpulli, or kindred group, the unit of tenure of whatever soil the Mexicans deemed worthy of definite possession. Further on we shall investigate how far individuals, as members of this communal unit, participated in the aggregate tenure.

"In the course of time, as the population further increased, segmentation occurred within the four original 'quarters,' new 'calpulli' being formed.^[7] For governmental purposes this segmentation produced a new result by leaving, more particularly in military affairs, the first four clusters as great subdivisions.^[8] But these, as soon as they had disaggregated, ceased to be any longer units of territorial possession, their original areas being held thereafter by the 'minor quarters' (as Herrera, for instance, calls them), who exercised, each one within its limits, the same sovereignty which the original 'calpulli' formerly held over the whole.^[9] A further consequence of this disaggregation was (by removing the tribal council farther from the calpules) the necessity for an official building, exclusively devoted to the business of the whole tribe alone.^[10]

"This building was the 'teepan' called, even by Torquemada, 'house of the community'; it was, therefore, since the council of chiefs was the highest authority in the government, the 'council house' proper. It was erected near the center of the 'pueblo,' and fronting the open space reserved for public celebrations. But, whereas formerly occasional, gradually merging into regular, meetings of the chiefs were sufficient, constant daily attendance at the "teepan' became required, even to such an extent that a permanent residence of the head-chief there resulted from it and was one of the duties of the office. Consequently the 'tlacatecuhtli,' his family, and such assistants as he needed (like runners), dwelt at the 'official house.' But this occupancy was in no manner connected with a possessory right by the occupant, whose family relinquished the abode as soon as the time of office expired through death of its incumbent. The 'teepan' was occupied by the head warchiefs only as long as they exercised the functions of that office.^[11] * * *

"Of those tracts whose products were exclusively applied to the governmental needs of the pueblo or tribe itself (taken as an independent unit) there were, as we have already seen, two particular classes:

"The first was the 'teepan-tlalli,' land of the house of the community, whose crops were applied to the sustenance of such as employed themselves ;n the construction, ornamentation, and repairs of the public house. Of these there were sometimes several within the tribal area. They were tilled in common by special families who resided on them, using the crops in compensation for the work they performed on the official buildings. "The second class was called 'tlatoca-tlalli,' land of the speakers. Of these there was but one tract in each tribe, which was to be 'four hundred of their measures long on each side, each measure being equal to three Castilian rods.'^[12] The crops raised on such went exclusively to the requirements of the household at the 'teepan,' comprising the head-chief and his family with the assistants. The tract was worked in turn by the other members of the tribe, and it remained always public ground, reserved for the same purposes.^[13]

"Both of these kinds were often comprised in one, and it is even not improbable that the first one may have been but a variety of the general tribute-lands devoted to the benefit of the conquering confederates. Still the evidence on this point is too indefinite to warrant such an assumption.

"While the crops raised on the 'teepan-tlalli,' as well as on the 'tlatocatlalli,' were consumed exclusively by the official houses and households of the tribe, the soil itself which produced these crops was neither claimed nor possessed by the chiefs themselves or their descendants. It was simply, as far as its products were concerned, official soil.^[14]

"The establishing and maintaining of these areal subdivisions was very simple with the tribes of the mainland, since they all possessed ample territories for their wants and for the requirements of their organizations. Their soil formed a contiguous unit. It was not so, however, with the Mexicans proper. With all their industry in adding artificial sod to the patch on which they had originally settled, the solid surface was eventually much too small for their numbers, and they themselves put an efficient stop to further growth thereof by converting, as we have seen elsewhere, for the purpose of defence, their marshy surroundings into water-sheets, through the construction of extensive causeways.^[15] While the remnants of the original 'teepantlalli' and of the 'tlatocatlalli' still remained visible in the gardens, represented to us as purely ornamental, which dotted the pueblo of Mexico,^[16] the substantial elements wherewith to fulfill a purpose for which they were no longer adequate had, in course of time, to be drawn from the mainland. But it was not feasible, from the nature of tribal condition, to extend thither by colonization. The soil was held there by other tribes, whom the Mexicans might well overpower and render tributary, but whom they could not incorporate, since the kinships composing these tribes could not be fused with their own. Outposts, however, were established on the shores, at the outlets of the dykes, at Tepeyacac on the north, at Iztapalapan, Mexicaltzinco, and at Huitzilopocheo to the south, but these were only military positions, and beyond them the territory proper of the Mexicans never extended.^[17] Tribute, therefore, had to furnish the means for sustaining their governmental requirements in the matter of food, and the tribute lands had to be distributed and divided, so as to correspond minutely to the details of their home organization For this reason we see, after the overthrow of the Tecpanecas, lands assigned apparently to the head war-chiefs, to the military chiefs of the quarters, 'from which to derive some revenue for their maintenance and that of their children^[18] These tracts were but 'official tracts,' and they were apart from those reserved for the special use of the kinships. The latter may have furnished that general tribute which, although given nominally to the head war-chief, still was 'for all the Mexicans in common.'

"The various classes of lands which we have mentioned were, as far as their tenure is concerned, included in the 'calpulalli' or lands of the kinships. Since the kin, or 'calpulli,' was the unit of governmental organization, it also was the unit of landed tenure. Clavigero says: 'The lands called altepetlalli, that is, those who belonged to the communities of the towns and villages, were divided into as many parts as there were quarters in a town, and each quarter held its own for itself, and without the least connection with the rest. Such lands could in no manner be alienated.'^[19] These 'quarters' were the 'calpulli'; hence it follows that the consanguine groups held the altepetlalli or soil of the tribe.

"We have, therefore, in Mexico the identical mode of the tenure of lands which Polo de Ondogardo had noted in Peru and reported to the King of Spain, as follows: * * * 'Although the crops and other produce of these lands were devoted to the tribute, the land itself belonged to the people themselves. Hence a thing will be apparent which has not hitherto been properly understood. When any one wants land, it is considered sufficient if it can be shown that it belonged to the Inca or to the sun. But in this the Indians are treated with great injustice; for in those days they paid the tribute, and the land was theirs.^[20] * * *

"The expanse held and occupied by the calpulli, and therefore called 'calpulalli' was possessed by the kin in joint tenure.^[21] It could neither be alienated nor sold; in fact, there is no trace of barter or sale of land previous to the conquest.^[22] If, however, any calpulli weakened, through loss of numbers from any cause whatever, it might farm out its area to another similar group, deriving subsistence from the rent.^[23] If the kinship died out, and its lands therefore became vacant, then they were either added to those of another whose share was not adequate for its wants or they were distributed among all the remaining calpulli.^[24] The calpulli was a democratic organization. Its business lay in the hands of elective chiefs—'old men' promoted to that dignity, as we intend to prove in a subsequent paper, for their merits and experience, and after severe religious ordeals. These chiefs formed the council of the kin or quarter, but their authority was not absolute, since on all important occasions a general meeting of the kindred was convened.^[25] The council in turn selected an executive, the 'calpullec' or 'chinancallec,' who in war officiated as 'achcacauhtin' or 'teachcauhtin'

elder brother).^[26] This office was for life or during good behavior.^[27] It was one of his duties to keep a reckoning of the soil of the calpulli, or 'calpulalli,' together with a record of its members, and of the areas assigned to each family, and to note also whatever changes occurred in their distribution.^[28] Such changes, if unimportant, might be made by him; more important ones, or contested cases, had to be referred to the council of the kinship, which in turn often appealed to a gathering of the entire quarter.^[29]

"The 'calpulalli' was divided into lots or arable beds, 'tlalmilli.'^[30] These were assigned each to one of the married males of the kinship, to be worked by him for his use and that of his family. If one of these lots remained unimproved for the term of two consecutive years, it fell back to the quarter for redistribution. The same occurred if the family enjoying its possession removed from the calpulli. But it does not appear that the cultivation had always to be performed by the holders of the tract themselves. The fact of improvement under the name of a certain tenant was only required to insure this tenant's rights.^[31] "Therefore the chiefs and their families, although they could not, from the nature of their duties, till the land themselves, still could remain entitled to their share of 'tlalmilpa' as members of the calpulli. Such tracts were cultivated by others for their use. They were called by the specific name of 'pillali' (lands of the chiefs or of the children, from 'piltontli,' boy, or 'piltzintli,' child), and those who cultivated them carried the appellation of 'tlalmaitl'—hands of the soil.^[32]

"The 'tlalmilpa,' whether held by chiefs or by ordinary members of the kin ('macehuales'), were, therefore, the only tracts of land possessed for use by individuals in ancient Mexico. They were so far distinguished from the 'tecpantlalli' and 'tlatocatlalli' in their mode of tenure as, whereas the latter two were dependent from a certain office, the incumbent of which changed at each election, the 'tlalmilli' was assigned to a certain family, and its possession, therefore, connected with customs of inheritance.

"Being thus led to investigate the customs of Inheritance of the ancient Mexicans, we have to premise here, that the personal effects of a deceased can be but slightly considered. The rule was, in general, that whatever a man held descended to his offspring.^[33] Among most of the

northern Indians a large cluster participated.^[34] In conformity with the organization of society based upon kin, when in the first stage of its development, the kindred group inherited, and the common ancestor of this kin being considered a female, it follows that if a man died, not his children, still less his wife, but his mother's descendants, that is, his brothers, sisters, in fact the entire consanguine relationship from which he derived on his mother's side, were his heirs.^[35] Such may have been the case even among the Muysca of New Granada.^[36] It was different, however, in Mexico, where we meet with traces of a decided progress. Not only had descent been changed to the male line,^[37] but heirship was limited, to the exclusion of the kin and of the agnates themselves, to the children of the male sex.^[38] Whatever personal effects a father left, which were not offered up in sacrifice at the ceremonies of his funeral,^[39] they were distributed among his male

offsprings. and if there were none, they went to his brothers. Females held nothing whatever, beyond their wearing apparel and some few ornaments for personal use.

"The 'tlalmilli' itself, at the demise of a father, went to his oldest son, with the obligation to improve it for the benefit of the entire family until the other children had been disposed of by marriage^[40]^ But the other males could apply to the chief of the calpulli for a 'tlalmilli' of their own;^[41] the females went with their husbands. Single blessedness, among the Mexicans, appears to have occurred only in case of religious vows, and in which case they fell back for subsistence upon the part allotted to worship, or in case of great infirmities, for which the calpulli provided.^[42] No mention is made of the widow participating in the products of the 'tlalmilli,' still it is presumable that she was one of those whom the oldest son had to support. There are indications that the widow could remarry, in which case her husband, of course, provided for her.

"The customs of Inheritance, as above reported, were the same with chiefs as well as with the ordinary members of the tribe. Of the personal effects very little remained, since the higher the office was which the deceased had held, the more display was made at his cremation, and consequently the more of his dresses, weapons, and ornaments were burnt with the body. Of lands, the chiefs only held each their 'tlalmilli' in the usual way, as members of their kin, whereas the other 'official' lots went to the new incumbents of the offices. It should always be borne in mind that none of these offices were hereditary themselves. Still, a certain 'right of succession' is generally admitted as having existed. Thus, with the Tezcucans, the office of head war-chief might pass from father to son,^[43] at Mexico from brother to brother, and from uncle to nephew.^[44] This might, eventually, have tended to perpetuate the office in the family, and with it also the possession of certain lands, attached to that officer's functions and duties. But it is quite certain too that this stage of development had not yet been reached by any of the tribes of Mexico at the time of its conquest by the Spaniards. The principal idea had not yet been developed, namely, that of the domain, which, in eastern countries at least, gradually segregated into individually hereditary tenures and ownerships.

"Out of the scanty remains thus left of certain features of aboriginal life in ancient Mexico, as well as out of the conflicting statements about that country's early history, we have now attempted to reconstruct the conceptions of the Mexican aborigines about tenure of lands, as well as their manner of distribution thereof Our inquiries seem to justify the following conclusions:

"1. The notion of abstract ownership of the soil, either by a nation or state, or by the head of its government, or by individuals, was unknown to the ancient Mexicans.

"2. Definite possessory right was vested in the kinships composing the tribe; but the idea of sale, barter, or conveyance or alienation of such by the kin had not been conceived.

"3. Individuals, whatever might be their position or office, without any exception, held but the right to use certain defined lots for their sustenance, which right, although hereditary in the male line, was nevertheless limited to the conditions of residence within the area held by the kin, and of cultivation either by or in the name of him to whom the said lots were assigned.

"4. No possessory rights to land were attached to any office or chieftaincy. As members of a kin, each chief had the use of a certain lot, which he could rent or farm to others, for his benefit.

"5. For the requirements of tribal business, and of the governmental features of the kinships (public hospitality included), certain tracts were set apart as official lands, out of which the official households were supplied and sustained; but these lands and their products were totally independent from the persons or families of the chiefs themselves. "6. Conquest of any tribe by the Mexicans was not followed by an annexation of that tribe's territory, nor by an apportionment of its soil among the conquerors. Tribute was exacted, and, for the purpose of raising that tribute (in part), special tracts were set off; the crops of which were gathered for the storehouses of Mexico.

"7. Consequently, as our previous investigations (of the warlike institutions and customs of the ancient Mexicans) have disproved the generally received notion of a military despotism prevailing among them, so the results of his review of Tenure and distribution of lands tend to establish 'that the principle and institution of feudality did not exist in aboriginal Mexico.'"

Among the Peruvians their land system was probably much the same as among the ancient Mexicans. But according to Garcilapo de la Vega, they had carried their system with respect to lands a little farther. Their lands, he remarks, were "divided into three parts and applied to different uses. The first was for the Sun, his priests and ministers; the second was for the King, and for the support and maintenance of his governors and officers. * * * And the third was for the natives and sojourners of the provinces, which was divided equally according to the needs which each family required."^[45]

While these several statements may not present the exact case in all respects in Peru, Mexico, or among the Northern Indian tribes, they sufficiently indicate the ownership of land by communities of persons, larger or smaller, with a system of tillage that points to large households. Neither the Peruvians, nor the Aztecs, nor any Indian tribe had attained to a knowledge of the ownership of land in severalty in fee simple at the period of their discovery. This knowledge belongs to the period of civilization. There is not the slightest probability that any Indian, whether Iroquois, Mexican, or Peruvian, owned a foot of land that he could call his own, with power to sell and convey the same in fee simple to whomsoever he pleased.

THE CUSTOM OF HAVING BUT ONE PREPARED MEAL EACH DAY A DINNER AND THEIR SEPARATION AT MEALS, THE MEN EATING FIRST, AND THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN AFTERWARDS.

This was the usage among the Indian tribes in the Lower Status of barbarism. In the Middle Status there seems to have been more method and regularity of life, but no change in their customs with respect to food, so marked in character that we are forced to recognize a new plan of domestic life among them. The Iroquois had but one cooked meal each day. It was as much as their resources and organization for housekeeping could furnish, and was as much as they needed. It was prepared and served usually before the noon-day hour, ten or eleven o'clock, and may be called a dinner. At this time the principal cooking for the day was done. After its division at the kettle, among the members of the household, it was served warm to each person in earthen or wooden bowls. They had neither tables, nor chairs, nor plates, in our sense, nor any room in the nature of a kitchen or a dining room, but ate each by himself, sitting or standing, and where most convenient to the person. They also separated as to the time of eating, the men eating first and by themselves, and the women and children afterwards and by themselves. That which remained was reserved for any member of the household when hungry. Towards evening the women cooked hominy, the maize having been pounded into bits the size of a kernel of rice, which was boiled and put aside to be used cold as a lunch in the morning or evening, and for the entertainment of visitors. They had neither a formal breakfast nor a supper Each person, when hungry, ate of whatever food the house contained. They were moderate eaters. This is a fair picture of Indian life in general in America, when discovered. After intercourse commenced with whites, the Iroquois gradually began to adopt our mode of life, but very slowly. One of the difficulties was to change the old usage and accustom themselves to eat together. It came in by degrees, first with the breaking up of the old plan of living together in numbers in the old long-houses, and with the substitution of single houses for each family, which ended communism and living in the large household, and substituted the subsistence of a single family through individual effort. After many years came the use of the table and chairs among the more advanced families of the Iroquois tribes. There are still upon the Iroquois reservations in this State many log houses or cabins with but a single room on the ground floor, and a loft above, with neither a table or chair in their scanty furniture. A portion of them still live very much in the old style, with perhaps two regular meals daily instead of one. That they have made this much of change in the course of two centuries must be accounted remarkable, for they have been compelled, so to speak, to jump one entire ethnical period, without the experience or training of so many intervening generations, and without the brain-growth such a change of the plan of domestic life implies, when reached through natural individual experience There is a tradition still current among the Seneca-Iroquois, if the memory of so recent an occurrence may be called traditional, that when the proposition that man and wife should eat together, which was so contrary to immemorial usage, was first determined in the affirmative, it was formally agreed that man and wife should sit down together at the same dish and eat with the same ladle, the man eating first and then the woman, and so alternately until the meal was finished.

The testimony of such writers as have noticed the house-life of the Indian tribes is not uniform in respect to the number of meals a day. Thus Catlin remarks, "As I have before observed, these men (the Mandans) generally eat but twice a day, and many times not more than once, and these meals are light and simple * * * The North American Indians, taking them in the aggregate, even when they have an abundance to subsist on, eat less than any civilized population of equal numbers that I have ever travelled among.^[46] And Heckewelder, speaking of the Delawares and other tribes, says: "They commonly make two meals every day, which they say is enough. If any one should feel hungry between meal-times, there is generally something in the house ready for him.^[47] Adair contents himself with stating of the Chocta and Cherokee tribes that "they have no stated meal time.^[48] There was doubtless some variation in different localities, and even in the same household; but as a general rule, from what is known of their mode of life, one prepared meal each day expresses very nearly all the people in this condition of society can do for the sustenance of mankind.

Although the sedentary Village Indians were one ethnical period in advance of the Northern Indians, there can be but little doubt that their mode of life in this respect was substantially the same. Among the Aztecs or ancient Mexicans a dinner was provided about midday, but we have no satisfactory account of a breakfast or a supper habitually and regularly prepared. Civilization, with its diversified industries, its multiplied products, and its monogamian family, affords a breakfast and supper in addition to a dinner. It is doubtful whether they are older than civilization;

and even if they can be definitely traced backward into the older period of barbarism, there is little probability of their being found in the Middle period. Clavigero attempts to invest the Aztecs with a breakfast, but he was unable to find any evidence of a supper. "After a few hours of labor in the morning," he observes, "they took their breakfast, which was most commonly atolli, a gruel of maize, and their dinner after midday; but among all the historians we can find no mention of their supper."^[49] The "gruel of maize" here mentioned as forming usually the Aztec breakfast suggests the "hominy of the Iroquois," which, like it, was not unlikely kept constantly prepared in every Mexican house as a lunch for the hungry. Two meals each day are mentioned by other Spanish authors, but as the Aztecs, as well as the tribes in Yucatan and Central America, were ignorant of the use of tables and chairs in eating their food, divided their food from the kettle, placing the dinner of each person usually in a separate bowl, and separated at their meals, the men eating first and by themselves, and the women and children afterwards, this similarity of usage renders it probable they were not far removed from the Iroquois in respect to the time and manner of taking their food Montezuma's dinner, witnessed by Bernal-Diaz and others, and elaborately described by a number of authors, shows that the Aztecs had a smoking hot dinner each day, prepared regularly, and on a scale adequate to a large household; that the dinner of each person was placed in one bowl, and all these bowls to the number of several hundred were brought in and set down together upon the floor of one room, where they were taken up one by one by the male members of the household, and the contents eaten sitting down upon the floor or standing in the open court, as best suited them. The breakfast that preceded it, and the supper that follows, are not mentioned, from which we infer that there was neither a breakfast nor a supper for these inquisitive observers to see. Neither is the subsequent dinner of the women and children of the household mentioned, from which it may be inferred that as the men ate their dinner first in a particular hall by themselves, the women and children took their dinner later in another hall, not seen by the Spaniards.

In the accounts of Montezuma's dinner a cook-house or kitchen is mentioned, in which the dinner for the large household of the "Tecpan" or "official house," so fully explained above by Mr. Bandelier, was prepared. This kitchen, and the use of another room, where the bowls containing the dinner of each person separately were set down on the floor in a mass by themselves—an incipient dining-room—make their first appearance in the Middle Status of barbarism. But, as will be noticed, they are but rude realizations of the kitchen and dining-room of civilized man. The pueblo houses in Yucatan and Chiapas, now in ruins, are without chimneys, from which it may be inferred that no cooking was done within them. At Uxmal we recognize in the Governor's House the Tecpan or official-house, and in the House of the Nuns, and other structures which formed the pueblo, the joint-tenement houses in which the body of the tribe resided. If the truth of the matter is ever ascertained, it will probably be found that the dinner for each household group, consisting of several families, was prepared in a common cook-house outside of the main structure, and that it was divided at the kettle to the individuals of each household.

The separation of the sexes at their meals has been sufficiently referred to among the Iroquois. Robertson states the usage as general: "They must approach their lords with reverence; they must regard them as more exalted beings, and are not permitted to eat in their presence"^[50] Catlin the same: "These women, however, although graceful and civil, and ever so beautiful, or ever so hungry, are not allowed to sit in the same group with the men while at their meals. So far as I have yet travelled in the Indian country, I have never seen an Indian woman eating with her husband. Men form the first group at the banquet, and women and children and dogs all come together at the next."^[51] And Adair "for the men feast by themselves and the women eat the remains."^[52] Herrera remarks that "the woman of Yucatan are rather larger than the Spanish, and generally have good faces, * * * but they would formerly be drunk at their festivals, though they did eat apart"^[53] And Sahagun, speaking of the ceremony of baptism among the Aztecs, observes that "to the women, who ate apart, they did not give cacao to drink."^[54] With these general references to the universality of the practice on the part of the men of eating first, and leaving the women and children to come afterwards, according to the manners of barbarism, we leave the subject.

 

---

 

forcibly reminded here of the houses of Itza on Lake Peten, which were found in 1695. "Hist. de la Conq. de los Itzaex," Lib. VIII, cap. XII, p. 494." "It was all filled with houses, some with stone walls more than one rod high, and higher up of wood, and the roofs of straw, and some only of wood and straw. There lived in them all the Inhabitants of the Island brutally together, one relationship occupying a single house." See also the highly valuable Introduction to the second Dialogue of Cervantes-Salázar ("Mexico in 1554") by my excellent friend Sr. Icazbalceta (pp.73 and 74).

1. Durán (Cap. V, p. 42). Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. VII, p. 467). Herrera (Dec. Ill, Lib. II, cap. XI, p. 61).
2. Torquemada (Lib. II, cap.LXVIII, J). 194. "Estaba de ordinario, recogido en una grande Sala (6 calpul)." (Lib. III, cap. XXVII, p. 30.5. Lib. IV, cap. XIX, p. 396 (que asi Haman las Salas grandes de Comunidad, ú do Cabildo). We find, under the corrupted name of "galpon," the "calpulli" in Nicaragua among the Niquirans, which speak a dialect of the Mexican (Nahuatl) language. See E. G. Squier ("Nicaragua," Vol. II, p. 342). "The council-houses were called grepons, surrounded by broad corridors called galpons, beneath which the arms were kept, protected by a guard of young men"). Mr, Squier evidently bases upon Oviedo ("Hist, general," Lib. XLII, cap. III, p. 52. "Esta casa de cabildo Haman galpon. . . ." It is another evidence in favor of our statements, that the kinship formed the original unit of the tribe, and at the same time a hint that, as in New Mexico, originally an entire kin inhabited a single large house. See Molina's Vocab. (p. 11).
3. The division into "quarters" is everywhere represented as resulting from common consent. But nowhere is it stated that the tribal government or authority assigned locations to any of its fractions. This is only attributed to the chiefs, on the supposition that they, although elective, were still hereditary monarchs.
4. There is no evidence of any tribute or prestation due by the quarters to the tribe. The custom always remained, that the "calpulli" was sovereign within its limits. See Alonzo de Zurita ("Rapport sur les différentes classes de chefs de la Nouvelle-Espagne," pp. 51-65). Besides, Ixtlilxochitl says: ("Hist. des Chichim," cap. XXXV, p. 242), "Other fields were called Calpolalli or Altepetlalli." Now calpulalli (from "calpulli," quarter or kinship, and "tlalli," soil), means soil of the kin, and altepetlalli ("altepetl," tribe), soil of the tribe. Clavigero even says that the lands called "altepetlalli," belonging to the communities "of the towns and villages, were divided into so many parts as there were quarters in the town, each quarter having its own, without the least connection with the other." (Lib. VII, cap. XIV.) This indicates plainly that the kinships held the soil, whereas the tribe occupied the territorial expanse. The domain, either as pertaining to a "lord," or to a "state," was unknown among the Indians in general. Even among the Peruvians, who were more advanced than the Mexicans in that respect, there was no domain of the tribe.
5. 'See Torquemada (Lib. II, cap. XI, and Lib. III, cap XXII). Durán (cap. V). The quotation is from Herrera (Dec. II, Lib. VII, cap. XIII, p. 190), and is confirmed by Torquemada (Lib. III, cap. XXIII, p. 291), and especially by Gomara ("Conquista de Méjico," p. 443. Vedia, I). "Many married people ("muchos casados") live in one house, either on account of the brothers and relations being together, as they do not divide their grounds ("heredades"), or on account of the limited space of the pueblos; although the pueblos are large, and even the houses." Peter Martyr of Angleria ("De Novo Orbe," translated by Richard Eden and Michael Lok, London, 1612, Dec. V, cap. X, p. 228), says: "But the common houses themselves as hygh as a mannes Girdle, were also built of stone, by reason of the swellyng of the lake through the floode, or washing flote of the Ryvers fallying into it. Upon those greate foundations, they builde the reste of the house, with Bricke dryed, or burned in the sunne, intermingled with Beames of Tymber, and the common houses have but one floore or planchin." We are
6. Alonzo de Zurita (p. 51). Ixtlilxochitl ("Hist. des Chichim," cap. XXXV, p. 242). Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545). Bustamante ("Tezcoco en los ultimos Tiempos de sus antiguas Reyes," p. 232).
7. This successive formation of new "calpulli" is nowhere explicitly stated, but it is implied by the passage of Durán which we have already quoted (Cap. V, p. 42). It also results from their military organization as described in the "Art of War" (p. 115). With the increase of population, the original kinships necessarily disaggregated further, as we have seen it to have occurred among the Qquiché (see "Popol-Vuh," quoted in our note 7), forming smaller groups of consanguinei. After the successful war against the Tecpanecas; of which we shall speak hereafter, we find at least twenty chiefs, representing as many kins (Durfin, cap. XI, p. 97), besides three more, adopted then from those of Culhuacan (Id., pp. 98 and 99). This indicates an increase.
8. "Art of War, etc.," pp. 115 and 120.
9. Torquemada (Lib. III, cap. XXIV, p. 295): "I confess it to be truth that this city of Mexico is divided into four principal quarters, each one of which contains others, smaller ones, included, and all, in common as well as in particular, have their commanders and leaders. . . ." Zurita ("Rapport," p. 58-64). That the smaller subdivisions were those who held the soil, and not the four original groups, must be inferred from the fact that the ground was attached to the calpulli. Says Zurita (p. 51), "They (the lands) do not belong to each inhabitant of the village, but to the calpulli, which possesses them iu common." On the other hand, Torquemada states (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545), "That in each pueblo, according to the number of people, there should be (were) clusters ('parcialidades') of diverse people and families. . . . These clusters were distributed by calpules, which are quarters ('barrios'), and it happened that one of the aforesaid clusters sometimes contained three, four, aud more calpules, according to the population of the place ('pueblo') or tribe." The same author further affirms: "These quarters and streets were all assorted and leveled with so much accuracy that those of one quarter or street could not take a palm of land from those of another, and the same was with the streets, their lots running (being scattered) all over the pueblo." Consequently there were no communal lands allotted to the four great quarters of Mexico as such, but each one of the kinships (calpules) held its part of the original aggregate. Compare Gomara (Vedia, Vol. I, "Conq. de Méjico," p. 434: "Among tributaries it is a custom, etc., etc." Also p. 440). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. XIV): "Each quarter has its own tract, without the least connection with the others."
10. Compare Durán (Cap. XI, p. 87). Acosta (Lib. VII, cap, XXXI, p. 470). It appears as if the "teepan" had not been constructed previous to the middle of the 14th century, the meetings of the tribe being previously called together by priests, and probably in the open space around the main house of worship. The fact of the priests calling the public meetings is proved by Durán (Cap. IV, p. 42). Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. VII, p. 46H). Veytia (Lib. II, cap. XVIII, pp. 156, 159. Cap. XXI, p. 186). Acosta first mentions "unos palacios, aunque harto pobres." (Lib. VII, cap. 8, p. 470), on the occasion of the election of the first regular "tlacatecuhtli:" Acamapichtli—Torquemada says (Lib. XII, cap. XXII, p. 290) that they lived in miserable huts of reeds and straw, erected around the open space where the altar or place of worship of Huitzilopochtli was built. The public building was certainly their latest kind of construction.
11. Nearly every author who attempts' to describe minutely the "chief-house" (teepan) mentions it as containing great halls (council-rooms). See the description of the teepan of Tezcuco by Ixtlilxochitl ("Hist, dcs Chichimĕques," cap. XXXVI, p. 247).
12. Ixtlilxochitl ("Hist, des Chichim," cap. XXXV, p. 242). Vedia (Lib. III, cap. VI, p. 195). "This had to be four hundred of their measures in square ('eucuadro,' each side long), each one of these being equal to three Castilian rods. . . ." See "Art of War" (p. 944, note 183). "The rod" (vara) is equal to 2.78209 feet English (Guyot).
13. Veytia (Lib. III, cap. VI, p. 195). It is superfluous to revert to the erroneous impression that the chiefs might dispose of it.
14. "Patrimonial Estates" are mentioned frequently, but the point is, where are they to be found? Neither the "teepan-tlalli" nor the "tlatoca-tlalli," etill less the "calpulalli," show any trace of individual ownership. "Eredad" (heirloom) is called indiscriminately "milli" and "cuemitl" (Molina, Parte la, p. 57). The latter is also rendered as "tierra labrada, ó camellon" (Molina, Parte IIa, p. 26). It thus reminds us of the "chinamitl" or garden-bed (as the name "camellon" also implies), and reduces it to the proportion of an ordinary cultivated lot among the others contained within the area of the calpulli. It is also called "tlalli," but that is the general name for soil or ground. "Tierras o eredades de particulares, juntas en alguna vega," is called "tlalmilli." This decomposes into "tlalli" soil and "milli." But "vega" signifies a fertile tract or field, and thus we have again the conception of communal lands, divided into lots improved by particular families, as the idea of communal tenure necesiarily implies
15. "Art of War" (pp. 150 and 151). L. H. Morgan ("Ancient Society," Part II, cap. VII, pp. 190 and 191).
16. Humboldt ("Essai politique sur la Nouvelle Espagne," Vol. II, Lib. III, cap). VIII, p. 50): Nearly all the old authors describe the public buildings as surrounded by pleasure-grounds or ornamental gardens. It is very striking that, the pueblo having been founded in 1325, and nearly a century having been spent in adding sufficient artificial sod to the originally small solid expanse settled, the Mexicans could have been ready so soon to establish purely decorative parks within an area, every inch of which was valuable to them for subsistence alone!
17. The Mexican tribe proper clustered exclusively within the pueblo of Tenuchtitlan. The settlements at Iztapalapan, Huitzilopocheo, and Mexicaltzinco were but military stations—outworks, guarding the issues of the causeways to the South. Tepeyacac (Guadalupe Hidalgo) was a similar position—unimportant as to population—in the north. Chapultepec was a sacred spot, not inhabited by any number of people, and only held by the Mexicans for burial purposes, and on account of the springs furnishing fresh water to their pueblo.
18. Tezozomoc (Cap. XV, p. 24).
19. "Storia del Messico" (Lib. VII, cap. XVI).
20. "Narratives of the Rites and Laws of the Yncas, translated from the original Spanish manuscripts, and edited by Clement R. Markham." Publication of the "Hackluyt Society," 1873. "Report of Polo de Ondegardo," who was "Regidor" of Cuzco in 1560, and a very important authority (see Prescott, "History of the Conquest of Peru," note to Book I, cap. V). Confirmed by Garcia ("El Origen de los Indios," Lib. IV, cap. XVI, p. 162).
21. Zurita ("Rapport," etc., etc., p. 50): "The chiefs of the second class are yet called calpullec in the singular and chinancallec in the plural. (This is evidently incorrect, since the words 'calpulli' and 'chinancalli' can easily be distinguished from each other. "Chinancalli," however, after Molina means 'cercado de seto' (Parte IIa, p. 21), or an inclosed area, and if we connect it with the old original 'chinamitl' we are forcibly carried back to the early times, when the Mexicans but dwelt on a few flakes of more or less solid ground. This is an additional evidence in favor of the views we have taken of the growth of landed tenure among the Mexican tribe. We must never forget that the term is 'Nahuatl,' and as such recognized by all the other tribes, outside of the Mexicans proper. The interpretation as 'family' in the QQuiché tongue of Guatemala, which we have already mentioned, turns up here as of further importance; th. is chiefs of an old race or family, from the word calpulli or chinancalli, which is the same, and signifies a quarter (barrio), inhabited by a family known, or of old origin, which possesses since long time a territory whose limits are known, and whose members are of the same lineage." "The calpullis, families or quarters, are very common in each province. Among the lands which were given to the chiefs of the second class there were also calpullis. These lands are the property of the people in general ('de la masse du peuple') from the time the Indians reached this land. Each family or tribe received a portion of the soil for perpetual enjoyment. They also had the name of calipulli, and until now this property has been respected. They do not belong to each inhabitant of the village in particular, but to the calpulli, which possesses them in common." Don Eamirez de Fuenleal, letter dated Mexico, 3 Nov., 1532 ("Recueil de piĕces," etc., Ternaux-Compans, p. 253): "There are very few people in the villages which have lands of their own; * * * the lands are held in common and cultivated in common." Herrera (Dec. Ill, Lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 135) confirms, in a condensed form, the statements of Zurita, "and they are not private lands of each one, but held in common." Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545.) Veytia (Lib III, cap. VI, p. 196). "Finally, there were other tracts of lands in each tribe, called calpulalli, which is land of the calpules (barrios), which also were worked in common." Oviedo (Lib. XXXII, cap. LI, jqj. 536 and 537). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. XIV). Bustamante ("Tezcoco," etc. . Parte IIIa, cap. V. p. 232).
22. Zurita (p. 52): "He who obtained them from the sovereign has not the right to dispose of them." Herrera (Dec. Ill, Lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 135): "He who possessed them could not alienate them, although he enjoyed their use for his lifetime." Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545): "Disputes about lands are frequently mentioned, but they refer to the enjoyment and possession, and not the transfer of the land. Baron Humboldt ("Vues des Cordillères et monuments indigènes des peuples de l'Amérique," Vol. I, Tab. V) reproduces a Mexican painting representing a litigation about land. But this painting was made subsequent to the conquest, as the fact that the parties contending are Indians and Spaniards sufficiently asserts. Occasional mention is made that certain lauds "could be sold." All such tracts, however, like the "pallali," have been.shown by us to be held in communal tenure of the soil, their enjoyment alone being given to individuals and their families.
23. Zurita (i). 93): "In case of need it was permitted to farm out the lands of a calpulli to the inhabitants of another quarter." Herrera (Dec. III. lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 134): "They could be rented out to another lineage."
24. Zurita (p. 52): "When a family dies out, its lands revert to the calpulli, and the chief distributes them among such members of the quarter as are most in need of it."
25. Zurita (pp. 60, 01, 02). Ramirez de Fuenleal ("Letter," etc., Ternaux-Compans, p. 249).
26. Zurita (p. 60): The calpulli have a chief taken necessarily from among the tribe; he must be one of the principal inhabitants, an able man who can assist and defend the people. The election takes place among them. * * * The office of this chief is not hereditary; when any one dies, they elect in his place the most respected old man. * * * If the deceased has left a son who is able the choice falls upon him, and a relative of the former incumbent is always preferred" (Id., pp. 50 and 222). Simancas M. S. S. ("De l'ordre de succession," etc.; "Recueil," p. 225): As to the mode of regulating the jurisdiction and election of the alcaldes and regidors of the villages, they nominated men of note who had the title of achcacaulitin. * * * There were no other elections of officers." * * * "Art of War," etc. (pp. 119 and 120).
27. Zurita (pp. 60 and 61). Herrera (Dec. Ill, Lib. IV, cap. XV, cap. 125): "I le elegian entre si y teman por maior."
28. Zurita (pp. 61 and 62): "This chief has charge of the lands of the calpulli. It is his duty to defend their possession. He keeps paintings showing the tracts, the names of their holders, the situation, the limits, the number of men tilling them, the wealth of private individuals, the designations of such as are vacant, of others that belong to the Spaniards, the date of donation, to whom and by whom they were given. These paintings he constantly renews, according to the changes occurring, and in this they are very skillful." It is singular that Motolinia, in his "Epistola proémial" ("Col. de Doc."; Icazbalceta, Vol. I, p. 5), among the five "books of paintings" which he says the Mexicans had, makes no mention of the above. Neither does he notice it in his letter dated Cholula, 27 Aug., 1554 ("Recueil de pieces," etc., Ternaux-Compans).
29. Zurita "Rapport," etc., pp. 56 and 62). We quote him in preference, since no other author known to us has been so detailed.
30. "Tlalmilli" "tierras, á heredades de particulares, que estan juntas en alguna vega" (Molina, Part II a, p. 124).
31. Each family, represented by its male head, obtained a certain tract or lot for cultivation and use, Zurita (p. 55). "The party (member of the calpulli, because no member of another one had the right to settle within the area of it—see Id., p. 53), who has no lands applies to the chief of the calpulli, who, upon the advice of the other old men, assigns to him such as corresponds to his ability and wants. These lands go to his heirs." * * * id., p. 56). "The proprietor who did not cultivate during two years, either through his own fault or through negligence, without just cause, * * * he was called upon to imi)rove them, and if he failed to do so they were given to another the following year." Bustamante (Tezcoco, etc., Parte IIIa, p. 190, cap I): "The fact that any holder of a 'tlalmilli' might rent out his share, if he himself was occupied in a line precluding him from actual work on it, results from the lands of the 'calpulli' being represented alternately treated as communal and again as private lands. Besides, it is said of the traders who, from the nature of their occupation, were mostly absent, that they were also members and participants of a 'calpulli' (Zurita, p. 223. Sahagun, Lib. VIII, cap III, p. 349): "Now, as every Mexican belonged to a kinship, which held lands after the plan exposed above, it follows that such as were not able to work themselves, on account of their performing other duties subservient to the interests of the community, still i)reserved their tracts by having others to work them for their benefit. It was not the right of tenancy which authorizes the improvement, but the fact of improvement for a certain purpose and benefit, which secured the possession or tenancy."
32. From "tlalli" soil, and "maitl' hand. Hands of the soil. Molina (Parte IIa, p. 124) has: "tlalmaitl"—"labrador, ò gañan." This name is given in distinction of the "macehuales" or people working the soil in general. The tlalmàites are identical with the "mayeques." (See Zurita, p. 224): "tlalmaites or mayeques, which signifies tillers of the soil of others." * * * He distinguishes them plainly from the "teccallec," which are the "tecpanpouhque" or "tecpantlaca" formerly mentioned as attending to a class of official lands (p. 221, Zurita). Herrera (Dec. III, Lib. IV, cap. XVII, p. 138): "These mayeques could not go from one tract to another, neither leave those which they cultivated, and they paid a rent to its masters according as they agreed upon ('en lo que se concertabau') in what they raised. They paid tribute to nobody else but the master of the land." This tends to show that there existed not an established obligation, a serfdom, but a voluntary contract, that the "tlalmaites' were not serfs, but simply renters.
33. Motolinia (Tratado II, cap. V, p. 120): "But they left their houses and lands to their children. . ." Goniara (p. 434): "Es costumbre do pecheros que el hijo mayor heredo al padre en toda la hacienda raiz y mueble, y que tenga y mantenga todos los hermanos y sobrinos, con tal que hagan ellos lo quo el les mandare." Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. XIII): "In Mexico, and nearly the entire realm, the royal family excepted as already told, the sous succeeded to the father's rights; and if there were no sons, then the brothers, and the brothers' sous inherited." Bustamanto ("Tezcoco," etc., p. 219): In all these cases, Bustamante only speaks of chiefs; but the quotations from Motolinia and Gomara directly apply to the people in general.
34. Mr. L. H. Morgan has investigated the customs of inheritance, not only among the northern Indians, hut also among the pueblo Indians of New Mexico. He establishes the fact, that the "kinship" or "gens," which we may justly consider as the unit of organization in American aboriginal society, participated in the property of the deceased. He proves it among the Iroquois ("Ancient Society," Part II, cap. II, pp. 75 and 76). Wyandottes, Id., cap. VII, p. 153. Missouri-tribes, p. 155. Winnebagoes, p. 157. Mandans, p. 158. Minnitarees, p. 159. Creeks, p. 161. Choctas, p. 162. Chickasas, p. 163. Ojibwas, p. 167; also Potowattomies and Crees, Miamis, p. 168. Shawnees, p. 169. Sauks, Foxes, and Menominies, p. 170. Delawares, p. 172. Munsees and Mohegans, p. 173. Finally, the pueblo Indians of New Mexico are shown to have, if not the identical at least a similar mode of inheritance. It would be easy to secure further evidence, from South America also.
35. "Ancient Society" (Part II, cap. II, p. 75; Part IV, cap. I, pp. .528, 530, 531,. 536, and 537).
36. Gomara ("Historia de las Indios," Vedia I, p. 201). Garcia ("Origen do los ludios," Lib. IV, cap. 23, p. 247). Piedrahita (Parte 1, Lib. I, cap. .5, p. 27). Joaquin Acosta ("Compendio historico del Descumbrimiento y Colonisazion de la Nueva-Granada," Cap. XI, p. 201). Teruaux-Compans ("L'ancien Cundinamarca," pp. 21 and 38).
37. Motolinia (Trat. II, cap. V, p. 120). Gomara (p. 434). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. XIII). Zurita (pp. 12 and 43).
38. Letter of Motolinia and Diego d'Olarte, to Don Luis do Velasco, Cholula, 27 Aug., 1554 ("Recueil," etc., etc., p. 407): "The daughters did not inherit; it was (he principal, wife's son. . . .' Besides, nearly every author designates but a son, or sons, as the heirs. There is no mention made of daughters at all. In Tlaxcallan, it is also expressly mentioned that the daughters did not inherit (Torquemada. Lib. XI, cap. XXII, p. 348). In general, the position of woman in ancient Mexico was a very inferior one, and but little above that which it occupies among Indians in general. (Compare the description of Gomara, p. 440, Vedia I, with those of Sahagun. Lib. X, cap. I, p. 1; cap. XIII, pp. 30, 31, 32, and 33. The fact is generally conceded). H. H. Bancroft, "Native Races," Vol. II, cap. VI, p. 224, etc.
39. Motolinia (Trat. II, cap. V, p. 120). Torquemada (Lib. XIII, cap. XLII to XLVIII, pp. 515 to 529). Acosta (Lib. V, cap. VIII, pp. 320, 321, and 322). Gomara (pp. 436 and 437, Vedia, 1). Mendicta (Lib. II, cap. XL, pp. 162 and 163). Clavigero (Lib. VI, cap. XXXIX). "They burnt the clothes, arrows, and a portion of the household utensils. . . . "
40. Gomara ("Conq. de Méjico, p. 434): "It is customary among tributary classes that the oldest son shall inherit the father's property, real and personal, and shall maintain and support all the brothers and nephews, provided they do what he commands them. The reason why they do not partition the estates is in order not to decrease it through such a partition. . . . "Simancas M. S. S. ("Recueil," etc., etc., p. 224): "Relative to the calipulalli. . . . the sons mostly inherited."
41. Zurita (p. G.'i): "He who has no land applies to the chief of the tribe (calpulli), who, upon the advice of the other old men, assigns to him a tract suitable for his wants, and corresponding to his abilities and to his strength." Herrera (Dec. III, Lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 135).
42. Such unmarried females were the "nuns" frequently mentioned by the old writers. We shall have occasion to investigate the point in our paper on "The ancient Mexican priesthood." As attendants to worship, they participated in the tributes furnished towards it by each calpulli, of which we have spoken.
43. Zurita (p 12). Gomara (Vedia I, p. 434). Torquemada (Lib. IX, cap. IV, p. 177; Lib. XI, cap. 27, p. 356, etc. etc.).
44. This fact is too amply proven to need special references. We reserve it for final discussion in our proposed paper on the chiefs of the Mexicans, and the duties, powers and functions of their office.
45. Royal Commentaries of Peru, Lond. ed., 1688. Rycaut, trans., p. 154.
46. North American Indians, Philadelphia ed., 1857, i, 203.
47. Indian Nations, 193.
48. History of the American Indian, Lond. ed., 1775, p. 17.
49. History of Mexico, ii, 262
50. History of America, New York ed., 1856, 178.
51. North American Indians, i, 202.
52. History of the American Indians, p. 140.
53. History of America, iv, 175
54. Historia General, lib. iv, 36.