"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.[1]
"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.[2] Among most of the
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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
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."
