thousand years; but this did not take him to the beginning. He
arrives at this estimate in this way: To the north-east of the
pyramid, we have described, are to be seen rows of small columns,
which have excited the curiosity of all who have seen them. Mr.
Stephens represents them in four rows, inclosing a rectangular
area. M. Le Plongon says they surrounded three sides of a
terraced pyramid, which once supported the main temple of the
city. Mr. Stephens has no suggestions to offer as to their use.
Le Plongon claims they were used to measure time, and quotes from
old authors to the effect, that each stone in them stands for
twenty years; and, as there is always just eight stones in a
column, each column means one hundred and sixty years. He counted
one hundred and twenty of these columns—and then, as he says:
“Got tired of pushing my way through the nearly impenetrable
thicket, where I could see many more among the shrubs.” From this
number he computes nineteen thousand two hundred years.
What shall we say to this story that M. Le Plongon brings us of
ancient Maya civilization? It is unquestioned that he has
expended a great amount of patient labor in his work, has braved
many dangers, and is thoroughly in earnest. He has also spent
years in the field, and ought to be well qualified to judge of
the ruins. We believe, however, he is altogether wrong in his
conclusions. The keystone of his discoveries—the one on which he
relies to prove the accuracy of his methods—fails him. This was
the discovery of the statue of Chaac-mol himself, which is here
represented. He claims to have found it as the result of
successfully rendering certain mural tablets in the funeral
chamber, but a careful reading of his own account of the affair
leaves us under the impression that the “instincts of the
archæologist” had as much to do with it as any thing else.62
Chaac-mol.
Be that as it may, he certainly did find this statue buried in
the ground. He is very positive it is Chaac-mol, claiming to have
read the name readily in hieroglyphics on the ear-tablets. He
says: “It is not an idol, but a true portrait of a man who has
lived an earthly life. I have seen him represented in battle, in
council, and in court receptions. I am well acquainted with his
life, and the manner of his death.” This statue was seized by the
Mexican Government, and taken to Mexico. Here a curious discovery
was made. Another statue similar to this was already in the
museum. This latter had been found not far from Mexico. Since
then, still a third, smaller than the others, but evidently
representing the same personage, has been discovered. In short,
it has been shown that this is an idol, worshiped as well by the
Aztecs as by the Mayas, and, instead of being buried, as Le
Plongon asserts, five thousand years ago, we have not much doubt
it was buried to prevent its falling in to the hands of the
Spaniards.63
Bearded Itza.
As to the antiquity with which Le Plongon would clothe Chichen,
if his method be right, he has not more than made a beginning.
Mr. Stephens counted three hundred and eighty of these same
columns, and tells us there were many more.64 We know no good
reason for supposing Chichen was not inhabited at the time of the
conquest. The wooden beams and lintels in the temples have not
yet decayed, and the masonry had not been cleaned out of some of
the rooms. On this point we wish to make a suggestion, a mere
hint. The pillars that supported the arches in the temple
mentioned some pages back were covered with sculpture. Amongst
some others, but very faintly represented, was the preceding
figure of a bearded man. May it not be that it represents a
Spaniard? We must recall the stucco figure of the horse and its
rider at Kabah. It seems to us a reasonable suggestion that they
should carve on the pillars of their temples representations of
the Spaniards, for the Spaniards were twenty-five years in
gaining a permanent foothold in Yucatan, and during that time the
Indians would continue to build and ornament as before.
Arizona Ruin. REFERENCES
Bancroft: “Native Races,” Vol. V, p. 78.
Stephens’s “Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas,
and Yucatan,” Vol. I, p. 113, _et seq._
Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. IV, p. 95.
“Report of Bureau of Ethnology,” Vol. I. Mr. Holden’s article.
Fourteen years later, these ruins were visited and described by
an Austrian traveler, Dr. Scherzer. His account, though much
more complete than Mr. Stephens’s, has not yet appeared in
English. Mr. Bancroft, in “Native Races,” Vol. IV, p. 118, _et
seq.,_ gives a _résumé_ of all information known as to these
ruins.
“Central America,” Vol II, p. 122. We are not sure about this
inclosure. But Mr. Catherwood mentions a wall, and we are told
the ruins are, in all respects, similar to those of Copan.
For full information consult Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol.
IV, pp. 115 to 139.
“Central America,” Vol. II, pp. 152-3.
Brasseur De Bourbourg styles Fuentes’s description of Copan “La
description menteuse de Fuentes.” Bancroft: “Native Races,”
Vol. IV, p. 80, note.
Charney, in _North American Review,_ 1881.
“Native Races,” Vol. IV, p. 300, _et seq._
Morgan’s “Contribution to N.A. Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 268.
Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. IV, p. 319.
Armin: “Das Heute Mexico.”
“Native Races,” Vol. IV.
Bancroft’s “Native Races,” p. 326.
Short’s “North Americans of Antiquity,” p. 389.
Holden, in “First Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology.”
Brasseur De Bourbourg.
“Myths of the New World.”
Holden, in “First Annual Report Bureau of Ethnology.”
This tablet is named after its discoverer. The building in
which it is situated was but a short distance from the others;
yet, owing to the density of the forest, neither Waldeck nor
Stephens discovered it. A cast of it is now in the National
Museum at Washington.
Rau, in “Smithsonian Contribution to Knowledge,” Vol. XXII, p.
40.
“Myths of the New World,” p. 95.
Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. V, p. 506.
See, also, “American Encyclopedia,” Art. “Cross.”
“Conquest of Mexico,” p. 160.
“Smithsonian Contribution to Knowledge,” Vol. XXII.
Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. III, p. 470.
“Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,” Vol. I.
Mr. Holden uses, as an important link in his arguments, a
figure engraved on a chalchiute (a sacred stone). He concludes
it to be a representative of Huitzilopochtli, the god of war,
or rather the Maya representative of the Mexican god of that
name. It is unfortunate that Prof. Valentine gives to this same
figure a different significance. In the “Proceedings of the
American Antiquarian Society,” for April, 1884, in a paper on
that subject, he concludes it to be a representation of a
victorious warrior giving sacrifice to his god. The only
persons entitled to speak on such subjects are those thoroughly
acquainted with Maya Archæology.
Huitzilopochtli.
Tlaloc.
Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. III, p. 324.
While such seem to us to be the results of Mr. Holden’s labors,
it must not be understood that he vouches for them. They must
be regarded as personal views which we express with some mental
forebodings. In this matter we must abide by further
investigations.
Bandelier: “An Archæological Tour in Mexico,” p. 184.
Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. IV, p. 345.
See Charney, in _North American Review,_ 1881. They wore
formerly in a house.
Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. IV, p. 332.
Brinton’s “Contribution to North American Ethnology,” Vol. V,
p. 36. “Introduction to Study of Manuscript Troano,” by Prof.
Thomas.
_North American Review,_ February, 1881, p. 187.
Bancroft’s “Native Races,” p. 287.
“Central America,” Vol. II, p. 261. At this time Mr. Stephens
had not seen the ruins at Palenque, and those in Yucatan.
Pronounced “oosh-mal.”
Our principal authority on the ruin’s of Yucatan is Mr.
Stephens, whose work, “Incidents of Travel in Yucatan,” in two
volumes, is all that can be desired. Mr. Bancroft, in “Native
Races,” Vol. IV, has gathered together whatever of worth there
is in the writings of various explorers.
Mr. Stephens thinks they were for the support of the arches,
while building. As, however, it is almost certain they
constructed this arch over a solid cove of masonry, which they
afterwards removed (see “Contributions to N.A. Ethnology,” Vol.
IV, p. 262), they could not have been intended for such use.
The pyramid is three hundred and fifty feet square at the base
and nineteen feet high. The terraces are along the south side.
The lowest terrace is three feet high and twenty feet wide. The
second is twelve feet high and forty-five feet wide. The third
is four feet high and five feet wide. The building on the south
side is two hundred and seventy-nine feet long, twenty-eight
feet wide, and eighteen feet high. The north one is two hundred
and sixty-four feet long, twenty-eight feet wide, and
twenty-five feet high. The eastern one, one hundred and
fifty-eight feet long, thirty-five feet wide, and twenty-two
feet high. The western one, one hundred and seventy-three feet
long, thirty-five feet wide, and twenty feet high. (Bancroft’s
“Native Races,” Vol. IV, p. 174.) The area of the court is two
hundred and fourteen feet by two hundred and fifty-eight feet.
It is about two and a half feet lower than the buildings on the
eastern, western, and southern sides. There are seventy-six
rooms in the four ranges of buildings, and twelve more in the
facings of the terrace of the north building, to be described.
In size the rooms vary from twenty to thirty feet long by from
ten to twelve feet wide.
Bancroft: “Native Races,” Vol. IV, p. 179.
The dimensions of this mound are as follows: Length of base,
two hundred and thirty-five feet; width of base, one hundred
and five feet; height, eighty-eight feet. Though diminishing as
it rises, it is not exactly pyramidal, but its corners are
rounded. It is incased with stone, and is apparently solid from
the plain.—Stephens’s “Yucatan,” Vol. I, p. 316.
See “Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society,” April, 1880, p. 57.
_North American Review,_ 1882.
“Contributions to North American Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 267.
Stephens’s “Yucatan,” Vol. II, p. 164.
Short’s “North Americans of Antiquity,” p. 396; Charney: _North
American Review,_ October, 1880.
“Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society,” Oct., 1878, p. 73.
Learned men of the Mayas.
American Antiquarian Society, October 1878.
The tigers can be seen on the engraving of the gymnasium.
Proceedings American Antiquarian Society, April, 1877, p. 97.
Proceedings American Antiquarian Society, April, 1877, p. 101.
M. Le Plongon interprets the curved figures issuing from the
throat of the wise-man. In the original, different parts of
this figure were of different colors. The doctor frankly tells
us, that “imagination does the greater part of the work” in his
interpretation.
“Guided, as I have said, by my interpretations of the mural
paintings, bas-reliefs, and other signs, . . . I directed my
steps, perhaps inspired by the instincts of the archæologist,
to a dense part of the thicket.” Proceedings Am. Antiq.
Society, April, 1877, p. 85.
_North American Review,_ October, 1880. And yet there are
indications that this is a statue. See Bandelier’s
“Archæological Tour in Mexico,” p. 74.
Stephens’s “Yucatan,” Vol. II, p. 318.
Chapter XV
THE CULTURE OF THE CIVILIZED TRIBES.1
Different views on this question—Reason for the same—Their
architecture—Different styles of houses—The communal house—The
tecpan—The teocalli—State of society indicated by this
architecture—The gens among the Mexicans—The phratry among the
Mexicans—The tribe—The powers and duties of the council—The head
chiefs of the tribe—The duties of the “Chief-of-men”—The mistake
of the Spaniards—The Confederacy—The idea of property among the
Mexicans—The ownership of land—Their laws—Enforcement of the
laws—Outline of the growth of the Mexicans in power—Their tribute
system—How collected—Their system of trade—Slight knowledge of
metallurgy—Religion—Quietzalcohuatl—Huitzilopochtli—Mexican
priesthood—Human sacrifices—The system of Numeration—The calendar
system—The calendar stone—Picture writing—Landa
alphabet—Historical outline.
Alandscape presents varied aspects according to the standpoint
from which it is viewed. Here we have a glimpse of hill and dale;
there a stretch of running water. But two persons, standing in
the same position, owing to their different mental temperaments,
will view things in a different light. Where one, an artist born,
is carried away with the beautiful scenery, another, with a more
practical turn of mind, perceives only its adaptability for
investments. Education and habits of life are also very potent
factors in determining our views on various questions. Scholars
of wide and extended learning differ very greatly in their views
of questions deeply affecting human interests. We know how true
that is of abstruse topics, such as religion and questions of
state polity. It is also true of the entire field of scientific
research. The unknown is a vastly greater domain than the known,
and men, after deep and patient research, adopt widely different
theories to explain the same facts.
It need, therefore, occasion no surprise to learn that there is a
great difference of opinion as to the real state of culture among
the so-called civilized tribes of Mexico and Central America. We
have incidentally mentioned this difference in describing the
ruins and their probable purpose. As one of the objects we have
in view, and perhaps the most important one, is to learn what we
can of the real state of society amongst the prehistoric people
we treat of, it becomes necessary to examine these different
views, and, if we can not decide in our own minds what to accept
as true, we will be prepared to receive additional evidence that
scholars are now bringing forward, and know to how weigh them and
compare them with others.
It has only been within the last few years that we have gained an
insight into the peculiar organization of Indian society. After
some centuries of contact between the various tribes of Indians
and whites, their social organization was still unknown. But we
are now beginning to understand this, and the important discovery
has also been made that this same system of government was very
widely spread, indeed. This subject has, however, been as
extensively treated as is necessary in chapter xii, so we need
not stop longer. But if, with all the light of modern learning,
we have only lately gained a clear understanding of the social
organization of Indian tribes, it need occasion no surprise, nor
call for any indignant denial, to affirm that the Spaniards
totally misunderstood the social organization of the tribes with
which they came in contact in Mexico.
We must also take into consideration the political condition of
Europe at this time. Feudalism still exercised an influence on
men’s minds. The Spanish writers, in order to convey to Europeans
a knowledge of the country and its inhabitants, applied European
names and phrases to American Indian (advanced though they were)
personages and institutions. But the means employed totally
defeated the object sought. Instead of imparting a clear idea, a
very erroneous one was conveyed.
As an illustration of this abuse of language, we might refer to
the case of Montezuma, which name itself is a corruption of the
Mexican word “Motecu-zoma,” meaning literally “my wrathy chief.”
Mr. Bandelier2 and Mr. Morgan have quite clearly shown what his
real position was. His title was “chief of men.”3 He was simply
one of the two chief executive officers of the tribe and general
of the forces of the confederacy. His office was strictly
elective, and he could be deposed for misdemeanor. Instead of
giving him his proper title, and explaining its meaning, the
Spaniards bestowed on him the title of king, which was soon
enlarged to that of emperor, European words, it will be observed,
which convey an altogether wrong idea of Mexican society. Many
such illustrations could be given.
The literature that has grown up about this subject is very
voluminous, but the authors not being acquainted with the
organization of Indian society, have not been able to write
understandingly about them. We do not flatter ourselves that we
have now solved all the difficulties of the case. But since Mr.
Morgan has succeeded in throwing such a flood of light on the
constitution of ancient society, and especially of Indian
society, and Mr. Bandelier has given us the results of his
careful investigation of the culture of the Mexicans, we feel
that a foundation has been laid for a correct understanding of
this vexed problem.
We will now examine their architecture, or style of building. In
dealing with prehistoric people, we have several times referred
to the tribal state of government, involving village life and
communism in living. We have seen how this principle enabled us
to understand the condition of Europe during the Neolithic Age.
In still another place we have used this principle to show the
connection of the Pueblo Indians and other tribes of the United
States. Now we think this is the key which is to explain many of
the ruins we have described in the preceding chapter. But another
principle to be borne in mind, is that of defense. War, we have
seen, is really the normal state of things amongst tribal
communities. Therefore, either some position naturally strong
must be selected as a village site, or the houses themselves must
be fortified, after the fashion of Indians. This will be found to
explain many peculiarities in their method of construction.
Amongst the pueblo structures of to-day, and among the ruins of
the cliff-dwellers, we have seen how compact every thing was. The
estufa, or place of council and worship, was built in close
proximity to the other building, and sometimes it formed part of
it, and we do not learn that there was any thing distinguishing
about the apartments of the chief. Further South a change is
noticed. A specialization of structures, if we may use such an
expression, has taken place, and, among the Mexicans, three kinds
of houses were distinguished. It is extremely probable the same
classification could be made elsewhere. There was, first of all,
the ordinary dwelling houses. Every vestige of aboriginal
buildings in the pueblos of Mexico has long since disappeared,
and our knowledge of these structures can only be gathered from
the somewhat confused accounts of the early writers.
Many, perhaps most, of the houses had a terraced, pyramidal
foundation. Some were constructed on three sides of a court, like
those on the Rio Chaco, in New Mexico. Others probably surrounded
an open court, or quadrangle. The houses were of one and two
stories in height. When two stories, the upper one receded from
the first, probably in the terraced form. As serving to connect
them with the more ornamental structures in Yucatan, we are told
they were sometimes “adorned with elegant cornices and stucco
designs of flowers and animals, which were often painted with
brilliant colors. Prominent among these figures was the coiling
serpent.”4 After pointing out, by many citations, that the
evidence always was that these houses were occupied by many
families, Mr. Morgan concludes, “They were evidently joint
tenement-houses of the aboriginal American model, each occupied
by a number of families ranging from five and ten to one hundred,
and perhaps, in some cases, two hundred families in a house.”5
We can discern this kind of dwelling-house in many of the
descriptions we have given of the ruins in the preceding chapter.
M. Charney evidently found them at Tulla and Teotihuacan. Mr.
Bandelier concludes that similar ruins once crowded the terraces
at Cholula, and that to this class belongs the ruins at Mitla.
The Palace, at Palenque, is evidently but another instance, as
well as the House of Nuns, at Uxmal. In fact, with our present
knowledge of the pueblos of Arizona, and the purposes which they
subserved, as well as the uses made of such houses by the
Mexicans, we are no longer justified in bestowing upon the
structures in Yucatan the name of palaces.
The mistake was excusable among the Spaniards. They were totally
ignorant of the mode of life indicated by these joint
tenement-houses. When they found one of these large structures,
capable of accommodating several hundred occupants, with its
inner court, terraced foundation, and ornamented by stucco work,
or sculpture, it was extremely natural that they should call it a
palace, and cast about for some titled owner.
A second class of houses includes public buildings. The Mexicans,
when at the height of their power, required buildings for public
use, and this was doubtless true of the people who inhabited
Uxmal and Palenque. The most important house was the tecpan, the
official house of the tribe, the council house proper. This was
the official residence of the “chief of men” and his assistants,
such as runners. This was the place of meeting of the council of
chiefs. It was here that the hospitality of the Pueblo was
exercised. Official visitors from other tribes and traders from a
distance were provided with accommodations here. When Cortez and
his followers entered Mexico they were provided for at the
tecpan. We would not expect to find these public buildings,
except in rich and prosperous pueblos. It has been suggested that
the Governor’s House at Uxmal was the official house of that
settlement. The large halls, suitable for council purposes, favor
this idea.6
A third class of buildings was the teocalli, or “House of God”—in
other words, the temple. These were quite common. Each of the
gens that composed the Mexican tribe had its own particular
medicine lodge or temple. This was doubtless true of each and
every tribe of sedentary Indians in the territory we are
describing. “The larger temples were usually built upon pyramidal
parallelograms, square or oblong, and consisted of a series of
superimposed terraces with perpendicular or sloping sides.”7 It
is not necessary to dwell longer on this style of buildings. We
have only to recall the temples of the Sun, of the Cross, and of
the Beau-relief at Palenque; the House of the Dwarf at Uxmal, and
the Citadel at Chichen-Itza, to gather a clear idea of their
construction.
The architecture of a people is a very good exponent of their
culture. Yet all have seen what different views are held as to
the culture of the tribes we are considering. We have, perhaps,
said all that is required on this part of the subject, yet even
repetition is pardonable if it enables us to more clearly
understand our subject. The ornamentation on the ruins of Yucatan
is so peculiar that in our opinion it has unduly influenced the
judgment of explorers in this matter. They lose sight of the fact
that the apartments of the houses are small, dark, and illy
ventilated.
That they should hive gone to the trouble of so profusely
decorating their usual places of abode is, indeed, somewhat
singular.8 But Mitla was certainly an inhabited pueblo at the
time of the Spanish conquest, and there is no good reason for
concluding it was ever any thing more than a group of communal
buildings. Yet, from the description given of it, we can not see
that the buildings are greatly inferior in decoration to the
structures in Yucatan. And yet again, from the imperfect accounts
we have of the aboriginal structures in the pueblo of Mexico, we
infer they were constructed on the general plan of communal
buildings. As for the decorations, we have seen they had
sometimes elaborate cornices, and were covered with stucco
designs of animals and flowers. In this case some of them were,
to be sure, public buildings for tribal purposes, but the
majority of them were certainly communal residences. With these
facts before us, we can not do otherwise than conclude that these
so-called ruins of great cities we have described are simply the
ruins of pueblos, consisting of communal houses, temples, and, in
the case of large and powerful tribes, official houses. To this
conclusion we believe American scholars are tending more and
more.
This requires us to dismiss the idea that the majority of the
people lived in houses of a poorer construction, which have since
disappeared, leaving the ruins of the houses of the nobles. There
was no such class division of the people as this would signify.
These ruins were houses occupied by the people in common. With
this understanding, a questioning of the ruins can not fail to
give us some useful hints. We are struck with their ingenuity as
builders. They made use of the best material at hand. In Arizona
the dry climate permits of the use of adobe bricks, which were
employed, though stone was also used. Further south the pouring
tropical rains would soon bring down in ruins adobe structures
and so stone alone is used.
In the Arizona pueblo we have a great fortress-built house, three
and four stories high, and no mode of access to the lower story.
This is in strict accord with Indian principles of defense, which
consists in elevated positions. Sometimes this elevated position
was a natural hill, as at Quemada, Tezcocingo, and Xochicalco.
Where no hill was at hand they formed a terraced pyramidal
foundation, as at Copan, Palenque, and Uxmal. In the highest
forms of this architecture this elevation is faced with stone, or
even composed throughout of stone, as in the case of the House of
Nuns at Chichen-Itza. In the construction of houses progress
seems to have taken place in two directions. The rooms increased
in size. In some of the oldest pueblo structures in Arizona the
rooms were more like a cluster of cells than any thing else.9
They grow larger towards the South. In the house at Teotihuacan
M. Charney found a room twenty-seven feet wide by forty-one feet
long. Two of the rooms in the Governor’s House at Uxmal are sixty
feet long. But the buildings themselves diminish in size. In
Mexico the majority of the houses were but one story high, and
but very few more than two stories. In Yucatan but few instances
are recorded of houses two stories high. We must remember that
throughout the entire territory we are considering the tribes had
no domestic animals, their agriculture was in a rude state, and
they were practically destitute of metals.10 They could have been
no farther advanced on the road to civilization than were the
various tribes of Europe during the Bronze Age. Remembering this,
we can not fail to be impressed with the ingenuity, patient toil,
and artistic taste they displayed in the construction and
decoration of their edifices.
It may seem somewhat singular that we should treat of their
architecture before we do of their system of government, but we
were already acquainted with the ruins of the former. When we
turn to the latter we find ourselves involved in very great
difficulties. The description given of Mexican society by the
majority of writers on these topics represent it as that of a
powerful monarchy. The historian Prescott, in his charming work11
draws a picture that would not suffer by comparison with the
despotic magnificence of Oriental lands. At a later date Mr.
Bancroft, supporting himself by an appeal to a formidable list of
authorities, regilds the scene.12 But protests against such views
are not wanting. Robertson, in his history, though bowing to the
weight of authority can not forbear expressing his conviction
that there had been some exaggeration in the splendid description
of their government and manners.13 Wilson, more skeptical, and
bolder, utterly repudiates the old accounts, and refuses to
believe the Aztecs were any thing more than savages.14
With such divergent and conflicting views, we at once perceive
the necessity of carefully scanning all the accounts given, and
make them conform, if possible, to what is known of Indian
institutions and manners. The Mexicans are but one of several
tribes that are the subjects of our research; but their
institutions are better known than the others, and, in a general
way, whatever is true of them will be true of the rest. We have
seen the efforts of the Spanish explorers to explain whatever
they found new or strange in America by Spanish words, and the
results of such procedure. We are at full liberty to reject their
conclusions and start anew.
What the Spaniards found around the lakes of Mexico was a union
or confederacy of three tribes. Very late investigations by Mr.
Bandelier have established the presence of the usual subdivisions
of the tribes. So we have here a complete organization according
to the terms of ancient society: that is, the gens, phratry,
tribe, and confederacy of tribes. It is necessary that we spend
some time with each of these subdivisions before we can
understand the condition of society among the Mexicans, and, in
all probability, the society among all of the civilized nations
of Central America.
We will begin with the gens, or the lowest division of the tribe.
We must understand its organization before we can understand that
of a tribe, and we must master the tribal organization before
attempting to learn the workings of the confederacy. To neglect
this order, and commence at the top of the series, is to make the
same mistake that the older writers did in their studies into
this culture. A gens has certain rights, duties, and privileges
which belong to the whole gens, and we will consider some of the
more important in their proper place. We must understand by a
gens a collection of persons who are considered to be all related
to each other. An Indian could not, of his own will, transfer
himself from one gens to another. He remained a member of the
gens into which he was born. He might, by a formal act of
adoption, become a member of another gens; or he might, in
certain contingencies, lose his connection with a gens and become
an outcast. There is no such thing as privileged classes in a
gens. All its members stand on an equal footing. The council of
the gens is the supreme ruling power in the gens. Among some of
the northern tribes, all the members in the gens, both male and
female, had a voice in this council. In the Mexican gens, the
council itself was more restricted. The old men, medicine men,
and distinguished men met in council—but even here, on important
occasions, the whole gens met in council.
Each gens would, of course, elect its own officers. They could
remove them from office as well, whenever occasion required. The
Mexican gentes elected two officers. One of these corresponded to
the sachem among northern tribes. His residence was the official
house of the gens. He had in charge the stores of the gens; and,
in unimportant cases, he exercised the powers of a judge. The
other officer was the war-chief. In times of war he commanded the
forces of the gens. In times of peace he was, so to speak, the
sheriff of the gens.
The next division of the tribe was the phratry—the word properly
meaning a brotherhood. Referring to the outline below, we notice
that the eight gentes were reunited into two phratries. Mr.
Morgan tells us that the probable origin of phratries was from
the subdivision of an original gens. Thus a tradition of the
Seneca Indians affirms that the Bear and the Deer gentes were the
original gentes of that tribe.15 In process of time they split up
into eight gentes, which would each have all the rights and
duties of an original gens—but, for certain purposes, they were
still organized into two divisions.
TRIBE.
First Phratry, or Brotherhood.
Bear Wolf Beaver Turtle
Gens.
Second Phratry, or Brotherhood.
Deer Snipe Heron Hawk
Gens.
Each of these larger groups is called a phratry. All of the
Iroquois tribes were organized into phratries, and the same was,
doubtless, true of the majority of the tribes of North America.
The researches of Mr. Bandelier have quite conclusively
established the fact, that the ancient Mexican tribe consisted of
twenty gentes reunited as four phratries, which constituted the
four quarters of the Pueblo of Mexico.
It is somewhat difficult to understand just what the rights and
duties of a phratry were. This division does not exist in all
tribes. But, as it was present among the Mexicans, we must learn
what we can of its powers. Among the Iroquois the phratry was
apparent chiefly in religious matters, and in social games. They
did not elect any war-chief. The Mexican phratry was largely
concerned with military matters. The forces of each phratry went
out to war as separate divisions. They had their own costumes and
banners. The four phratries chose each their war-chief, who
commanded their forces in the field, and who, as commander, was
the superior of the war-chiefs of the gentes.
In time of peace, they acted as the executors of tribal justice.
They belonged to the highest grade of war-chiefs in Mexico—but
there was nothing hereditary about their offices. They were
strictly elective, and could be deposed for cause. They were in
no case appointed by a higher authority. One of these chiefs was
always elected to fill the office of “Chief of Men;”16 and, in
cases of emergency, they could take his place—but this would be
only a temporary arrangement.
Ascending the scale, the next term of the series is the tribe.
The Spanish writers took notice of a tribe, but failed to notice
the gens and phratry. This is not to be considered a singular
thing. The Iroquois were under the observation of our own people
two hundred years before the discovery was made in reference to
them. “The existence among them of clans, named after animals,
was pointed out at an early day, but without suspecting that it
was the unit of a social system upon which both the tribe and the
confederacy rested.”17 But, being ignorant of this fact, it is
not singular that they made serious mistakes in their description
of the government.
We now know that the Mexican tribe was composed of an association
of twenty gentes, that each of these gens was an independent
unit, and that all of its members stood on an equal footing.
This, at the outset, does away with the idea of a monarchy. Each
gens would, of course, have an equal share in the government.
This was effected by means of a council composed of delegates
from each gens. There is no doubt whatever of the existence of
this council among the Mexicans. “Every tribe in Mexico and
Central America, beyond a reasonable doubt, had its council of
chiefs. It was the governing body of the tribe, and a constant
phenomenon in all parts of aboriginal America.”18 The Spanish
writers knew of the existence of this council, but mistook its
function. They generally treat of it as an advisory board of
ministers appointed by the “king.”
Each of the Mexican gens was represented in this council by a
“Speaking Chief,” who, of course was elected by the gens he
represented. All tribal matters were under the control of this
council. Questions of peace and war, and the distribution of
tribute, were decided by the council. They also had judicial
duties to perform. Disputes between different gentes were
adjusted by them. They also would have jurisdiction of all crimes
committed by those unfortunate individuals who were not members
of any gens, and of crimes committed on territory not belonging
to any gens, such as the Teocalli, Market-place, and Tecpan.
The council must have regular stated times of meeting; they could
be called together at any time. At the time of Cortez’s visits
they met daily. This council was, of course, supreme in all
questions coming before it; but every eighty days there was a
council extraordinary. This included the members of the council
proper, the war-chiefs of the four phratries, the war-chiefs of
the gentes, and the leading medicine men. Any important cause
could be reserved for this meeting, or, if agreed upon, a
reconsideration of a cause could be had. We must understand that
the tribal council could not interfere in any matter referring
solely to a gens; that would be settled by the gens itself.
The important points to be noticed are, that it was an elective
body, representing independent groups, and that it had supreme
authority. But the tribes needed officers to execute the decrees
of the council. Speaking of the Northern tribes, Mr. Morgan says,
“In some Indian tribes, one of the sachems was recognized as its
head chief; and so superior in rank to his associates. A need
existed, to some extent for an official head of the tribe, to
represent it when the council was not in session. But the duties
and powers of the office were slight. Although the council was
superior in authority, it was rarely in session, and questions
might arise demanding the provisional action of some one
authorized to represent the tribe, subject to the ratification of
his acts by the council.”19
This need was still more urgent among the Mexicans; accordingly
we find they elected two officials for this purpose. It seems
this habit of electing two chief executives was quite a common
one among the tribes of Mexico and Central America. We have
already noticed that the Mexican gentes elected two such officers
for their purpose. We are further told that the Iroquois
appointed two head war-chiefs to command the forces of the
confederacy.20
One of the chiefs so elected by the Mexicans bore the somewhat
singular title of “Snake-woman.” He was properly the head-chief
of the Mexicans. He was chairman of the council and announced its
decrees. He was responsible to the council for the tribute
received, as far as it was applied to tribal requirements, and
for a faithful distribution of the remainder among the gentes.
When the forces of the confederacy went out to war, he commanded
the tribal forces of Mexico; but on other occasions this duty was
fulfilled by his colleague, who was the real war-chief of the
Mexicans. His title was “Chief-of-men.” This is the official who
appears in history as the “King of Mexico,” sometimes, even, as
“Emperor of Anahuac.” The fact is, he was one of two equal
chiefs; he held an elective office, and was subordinate to the
council.
When the confederacy was formed, the command of its forces was
given to the war-chief of the Mexicans; thus he was something
more than a tribal officer. His residence was the official house
of the tribe. “He was to be present day and night at this abode,
which was the center wherein converged the threads of information
brought by traders, gatherers of tribute, scouts and spies, as
well as all messages sent to, or received from, neighboring
friendly or hostile tribes. Every such message came directly to
the ‘Chief-of-men,’ whose duty it was, before acting, to present
its import to the ‘Snake-woman,’ and, through him, call together
the council.” He might be present at the council, but his
presence was not required, nor did his vote weigh any more than
any other member of the council, only, of course, from the
position he occupied, his opinion would be much respected. He
provided for the execution of the council’s conclusions. In case
of warp he would call out the forces of the confederacy for
assistance. As the procurement of substance by means of tribute
was one of the great objects of the confederacy, the gathering of
it was placed under the control of the war-chief, who was
therefore the official head of the tribute-gatherers.
We have thus very imperfectly and hastily sketched the
governmental organization of the Mexican tribe. It is something
very different from an empire. It was a democratic organization.
There was not an officer in it but what held his office by
election. This, to some, may seem improbable, because the
Spaniards have described a different state of things. We have
already mentioned one reason why they should do so—that was their
ignorance of Indian institutions. We must also consider the
natural bias of their minds. The rule of Charles the V was any
thing but liberal. It was a part of their education to believe
that a monarchical form of government was just the thing; they
were accordingly prepared to see monarchical institutions,
whether they existed or not.
Then there was the perfectly natural disposition to exaggerate
their achievements. To spread in Europe the report that they had
subverted a powerfully organized monarchy, having an emperor, a
full line of nobles, orders of chivalry, and a standing army,
certainly sounded much better than the plain statement that they
had succeeded in disjointing a loosely connected confederacy,
captured and put to death the head war chief of the principal
tribe, and destroyed the communal buildings of their pueblo.
We must not forget that, from an Indian point of view, the
confederacy was composed of rich and powerful tribes. This is
especially true of the Mexicans. The position they held, from a
defensive standpoint, was one of the strongest ever held by
Indians. They received a large amount of tribute from subject
tribes, along with the hearty hatred of the same. From the time
Cortez landed on the shore he had heard accounts of the wealth,
power, and cruelty of the Mexicans. When he arrived before Mexico
the “Chief-of-men,” Montezuma, as representative of tribal
hospitality, went forth to meet him, extending “unusual
courtesies to unusual, mysterious, and therefore dreaded,
guests.” We may well imagine that he was decked out in all the
finery his office could raise, and that he put on as much style
and “court etiquette” as their knowledge and manner of life would
stand.
The Spaniards immediately concluded that he was king, and so he
was given undue prominence. They subsequently learned of the
council, and recognized the fact that it was really the supreme
power. They learned of the office of “Snake-woman,” and
acknowledged that his power was equal to that of the
“Chief-of-men.” They even had some ideas of phratries and gentes.
But, having once made up their minds that this was a monarchy,
and Montezuma the monarch, they were loath to change their views,
or, rather, they tried to explain all on this supposition, and
the result is the confused and contradictory accounts given of
these officials and divisions of the people. But every thing
tending to add glory to the “Empire of Montezuma” was caught up
and dilated upon. And so have come down to us the commonly
accepted ideas of the government of the ancient Mexicans.
That these views are altogether erroneous is no longer doubted by
some of the very best American scholars. The organization set
forth in this chapter is one not only in accord with the results
obtained by the latest research in the field of ancient society,
but a careful reading of the accounts of the Spanish writers
leads to the same conclusions.21 In view of these now admitted
facts, it seems to us useless to longer speak of the government
of the Mexicans as that of an empire.
We have as yet said nothing of the league or confederacy of the
three tribes of Mexico, Tezcuco, and Tlacopan; nor is it
necessary to dwell at any great length on this confederacy now.
They were perfectly independent of each other as regards tribal
affairs; and for the purpose of government, were organized in
exactly the same way as were the Mexicans. The stories told of
the glories, the riches, and power of the kings of Tezcuco, if
any thing, outrank those of Mexico. We may dismiss them as
utterly unreliable. Tribal organization resting on phratries and
gentes, and the consequent government by the council of the tribe
was all the Spaniards found. These three tribes, speaking
dialects of the same stock language, inhabiting contiguous
territory, formed a league for offensive and defensive purposes.
The commander-in-chief of the forces raised for this purpose was
the “Chief-of-men” of the Mexicans.
We have confined our researches to the Mexicans. Mr. Bandelier,
speaking of the tribes of Mexico, remarks: “There is no need of
proving the fact that the several tribes of the valley had
identical customs, and that their institutions had reached about
the same degree of development.” Or if such proofs were needed,
Mr. Bancroft has furnished them. So that this state of society
being proven among the Mexicans, it may be considered as
established among the Nahua tribes. Neither is there any
necessity of showing that substantially the same state of
government existed among the Mayas of Yucatan. This is shown by
their architecture, by their early traditions, and by many
statements in the writings of the early historians. These can
only be understood and explained by supposing the same social
organization existed among them as among the Mexicans.
But this does not relegate these civilized nations to savagism.
On the other hand, it is exactly the form of government we would
expect to find among them. They were not further along than the
Middle Status of barbarism. They were slowly advancing on the
road that leads to civilization, and their form of government was
one exactly suited to their needs, and one in keeping with their
state of architecture. When we gaze at the ruins of their
material structures, we must consider that before us are not the
only ruins wrought by the Spaniards; the native institutions were
doomed as well. Traces of this early state of society are,
however, still recoverable, and we must study them well to learn
their secret.
We have yet before us a large field to investigate; that is, the
advance made in the arts of living among these people. This is
one of the principal objects of our present research. We are here
slightly departing from the prehistoric field, and entering the
domain of history. But the departure is justifiable, as it serves
to light up an extensive field, that is, the manner of life among
the civilized nations just before the coming of the Spaniards.
And first we will examine their customs in regard to property. We
have in a former chapter reverted to the influence of commerce
and trade in advancing culture. The desire for wealth and
property which is such a controlling power to-day was one of the
most efficient agents in advancing man from savagism to
civilization. The idea of property, which scarcely had an
existence during that period of savagism, had grown stronger with
every advance in culture. “Beginning in feebleness, it has ended
in becoming the master passion of the human mind.”
The property of savages is limited to a few articles of personal
use; consequently, their ideas as to its value, and the
principles of inheritance, are feeble. They can scarcely be said
to have any idea as to property in lands, though the tribe may
lay claim to certain hunting-grounds as their own. As soon as the
organization of gens arose, we can see that it would affect their
ideas of property. The gens, we must remember, was the unit of
their social organization.
They had common rights, duties, and privileges, as well as common
supplies; and hence the idea arose that the property of the
members of a gens belonged to the gens. At the death of an
individual, his personal property would be divided among the
remaining members of the gens. “Practically,” says Mr. Morgan,
“they were appropriated by the nearest of kin; but the principle
was general that the property should remain in the gens.”22 That
this is a true statement there is not the shadow of a doubt. This
was the general rule of inheritance among the Indian tribes of
North America. As time passed on, and the tribes learned to
cultivate the land, some idea of real property would arise—but
not of personal ownership.
This is quite an important topic; because, when we read of lords
with great estates, we are puzzled to know how to reconcile such
statements with what we now know of the nature of Mexican tribal
organization. Mr. Bandelier has lately gone over the entire
subject. He finds that the territory on which the Mexicans
originally settled was a marshy expanse of land which the
surrounding tribes did not value enough to claim.
This territory was divided among the four gentes of the tribe. As
we have already seen, each of these four gentes subsequently
split up into other independent gentes until there were twenty in
all. Each of these gens held and possessed a portion of the
original soil. This division of the soil must have been made by
tacit consent. The tribe claimed no ownership of these tracts,
still less did the head-chief. Furthermore, the only right the
gentes claimed in them was a possessory one. “They had no idea of
sale or barter, or conveyance, or alienation.” As the members of
a gens stood on equal footing, this tract would be still further
divided for individual use. This division would be made by the
council of the gens. But we must notice the individual acquired
no other right to this tract of land than a right to cultivate
it—which right, if he failed to improve, he lost. He could,
however, have some one else to till it for him. The son could
inherit a father’s right to a tract.
We have seen that the Mexicans had a great volume of tribal
business to transact, which required the presence of an official
household at the tecpan. Then the proper exercise of tribal
hospitality required a large store of provisions. To meet this
demand, certain tracts of the territory of each gens were set
aside to be worked by communal labor. Then, besides the various
officers of the gens, and the tribe, who, by reason of their
public duties, had no time to till the tracts to which, as
members of a gens, they would be entitled, had the same tilled
for them by communal labor. This was not an act of vassalage, but
a payment for public duties.
This is a very brief statement of their customs as regards
holding of lands. It gives us an insight into the workings of
ancient society. It shows us what a strong feature of this
society was the gens, and we see how necessary it is to
understand the nature of a gens before attempting to understand
ancient society. We see that, among the civilized nations of
Mexico and Central America, they had not yet risen to the
conception of ownership in the soil. No chief, or other officer,
held large estates. The possessory right in the soil was vested
in the gens composing the tribe, and they in turn granted to
individuals certain definite lots for the purpose of culture. A
chief had no more right in this direction than a common warrior.
We can easily see how the Spaniards made their mistake. They
found a community of persons holding land in common, which the
individuals could not alienate. They noticed one person among
them whom the others acknowledged as chief. They immediately
jumped to the conclusion that this chief was a great “lord,” that
the land was a “feudal estate,” and that the persons who held it
were “vassals” to the aforesaid “lord.”23
We must now consider the subject of laws, and the methods of
enforcing justice amongst the civilized nations. The laws of the
Mexicans, like those of most barbarous people, are apt to strike
us as being very severe; but good reasons, according to their way
of thinking, exist for such severity. The gens is the unit of
social organization; which fact must be constantly borne in mind
in considering their laws. In civilized society, the State
assumes protection of person and property; but, in a tribal state
of society, this protection is afforded by the gens. Hence, “to
wrong a person was to wrong his gens; and to support a person was
to stand behind him with the entire array of his gentile
kindred.”
The punishment for theft varied according to the value of the
article stolen. If it were small and could be returned, that
settled the matter. In cases of greater value it was different.
In some cases the thief became bondsman for the original owner.
In still others, he suffered death. This was the case where he
stole articles set aside for religion—such as gold and silver, or
captives taken in war; or, if the theft were committed in the
market-place. Murder and homicide were always punished with
death. According to their teaching, there was a great gulf
between the two sexes. Hence, for a person of one sex to assume
the dress of the other sex was an insult to the whole gens—the
penalty was death. Drunkenness was an offense severely
punished—though aged persons could indulge their appetite, and,
during times of festivities, others could. Chiefs and other
officials were publicly degraded for this crime. Common warriors
had their heads shaved in punishment.
These various penalties necessarily suppose judicial officers to
determine the offense and decree the punishment. Having
established, on a satisfactory basis, the Mexican empire, the
historians did not scruple to fit it out with the necessary
working machinery of such an organization. Accordingly we are
presented with a judiciary as nicely proportioned as in the most
favored nations of to-day. But when, under the more searching
light of modern scholarship, this empire is seen to be something
quite different, we find the whole judicial machinery to be a
much more simple affair.
Not much need be added on this point to what we have already
mentioned. Each gens, through its council, would regulate its own
affairs, and would punish all offenses against the law committed
by one of its members against another. Of necessity the decision
of this council had to be final. There was no appeal from its
decision. The council of the tribe had jurisdiction in all other
cases—such as might arise between members of different gentes, or
among outcasts not connected with any gens, or such as were
committed on territory not belonging to any gens.
For this work, the twenty chiefs composing the council were
subdivided into two bodies, sitting simultaneously in the
different halls of the tecpan. This division was for the purpose
of greater dispatch in business. They did not form a higher and
lower court, with power of the one to review the decisions of the
other. They were equal in power and the decisions of both were
final. The decision of the council, when acting in a judicial
capacity, would be announced by their foreman, who was, as we
have seen, the head-chief of the Mexicans—the Snake-woman. It is
for this act that the historian speaks of him as the supreme
judge, and makes him the head of judicial authority.24 His
decisions were, of course, final, not because he made them, but
because they were the conclusions of the council.
The “Chief-of-men,” the so-called “king,” did not properly have
any judicial authority. He was their war-chief, and not a judge;
but from the very nature of his office he had some powers in this
direction. As commander-in-chief, he possessed authority to
summarily punish (with death, if necessary) acts of
insubordination and treachery during war. It was necessary to
clothe him with a certain amount of discretionary power for the
public good. Thus, the first runner that arrived from the coast
with news of the approach of the European ships was, by the order
of Montezuma, placed in confinement. “This was done to keep the
news secret until the matter could be investigated, and was
therefore a preliminary measure of policy.” Placed at the tecpan
as the official head of the tribe, he had power to appoint his
assistants. But this power to appoint implied equal power to
remove, and to punish.25
This investigation into their laws and methods of enforcing them,
carries us to the conclusion already arrived at. It is in full
keeping with what we would expect of a people in the Middle
Status of barbarism. We also see how little real foundation there
is for the view that this was a monarchy. There is no doubt but
that the pueblo of Mexico was the seat of one of the largest and
most powerful tribes, and the leading member of one of the most
powerful confederacies that had ever existed in America.
It may be of interest for us to inquire as to what was the real
extent of this power, and the means employed by the Mexicans to
maintain this power; also how they had succeeded in attaining the
same. They were not by nature more gifted than the surrounding
tribes. The valley of Mexico is an upland basin. It is oval in
form, surrounded by ranges of mountains, rising one above the
other, with depressions between. The area of the valley itself is
about sixteen hundred square miles. The Mexicans were the last
one of the seven kindred tribes who styled themselves,
collectively, the Nahuatlacs. We treat of them as the Nahuas.
The Nahuas on the north and the Mayas on the south included the
civilized nations. When the Mexicans arrived in this valley, they
found the best situations already occupied by other tribes of
their own family. To escape persecution from these, they fled
into the marsh or swamp which then covered the territory which
they subsequently converted into their stronghold. Here on a
scanty expanse of dry soil, surrounded by extensive marshes, they
erected their pueblo. Being few in numbers they were overlooked
as insignificant, and thus they had a chance to improve their
surroundings. They increased the area of dry land by digging
ditches, and throwing the earth from the same on the surrounding
surface, and thus elevated it. In reality, in the marshes that
surrounded their pueblo was their greatest source of strength.
“They realized that while they might sally with impunity, having
a safe retreat behind them, an attack upon their position was
both difficult and dangerous for the assailant.” They were,
therefore, strong enough for purposes of defense. But they wished
to open up communication with the tribes living on the shore of
the great marsh in the midst of which they had their settlement.
For this purpose they applied to their near and powerful
neighbors, the Tecpanics, for the use of one of the springs on
their territory, and for the privilege of trade and barter in
their market. This permission was given in consideration that the
Mexicans become the weaker allies of the Tecpanics, that is, pay
a moderate tribute and render military assistance when called
upon.
The Pueblo of Mexico now rapidly increased in power.
Communication being opened with the mainland, it was visited by
delegates from other tribes, and especially by traders. They
fully perceived the advantages of their location and improved the
same. By the erection of causeways, they entirely surrounded
their pueblo with an artificial pond of large extent. To allow
for the free circulation of the water, sluices were cut,
interrupting these causeways at several places. Across these
openings wooden bridges were placed which could be easily removed
in times of danger.
Thus it was that they secured one of the strongest defensive
positions ever held by Indians. The Tecpanics had been the
leading power in the valley, but the Mexicans now felt themselves
strong enough to throw off the yoke of tribute to which they were
subject. In the war that ensued the power of the Tecpanics was
broken, and the Mexicans became at once one of the leading powers
of the valley. We must notice, however, that the Mexicans did not
gain any new territory, except the locality of their spring.
Neither did they interfere at all in the government of the
Tecpanics. They simply received tribute from them.
Once started on their career of conquest, the Mexicans, supported
by allies, sought to extend their power. The result was that soon
they had subdued all of the Nahua tribes of the valley except
one, that was a tribe located at Tezcuco. This does not imply
that they had become masters of the territory of the valley. When
a modern nation or state conquers another, they often add that
province to their original domain, and extend over it their code
of laws. This is the nature of the conquests of ancient Rome. The
territory of the conquered province became part of the Roman
Empire. They became subject to the laws of Rome. Public, works
were built under the direction of the conquerors, and they were
governed from Rome or by governors appointed from there.
Nothing of this kind is to be understood by a conquest by the
Mexicans, and it is necessary to understand this point clearly.
When they conquered a tribe, they neither acquired nor claimed
any right to or power over the territory of the tribe. They did
not concern themselves at all with the government of the tribe.
In that respect the tribe remained free and independent. No
garrisons of troops were stationed in their territory to keep
them in subjection; no governors were appointed to rule over
them. What the Mexicans wanted was tribute, and in case of war
they could call on them for troops. Secure in their pueblo
surrounded by water, they could sally out on the less fortunate
tribes who chose to pay tribute rather than to be subject to such
forays.
Instead of entering into a conflict with the tribe at Tezcuco,
the result of which might have been doubtful, a military
confederacy was formed, into which was admitted the larger part
of the old Tecpanic tribe that had their chief pueblo at
Tlacopan. The definite plan of this confederacy is unknown. Each
of the three tribes was perfectly independent in the management
of its own affairs. Each tribe could make war on its own account
if it wished, but in case it did not feel strong enough alone, it
could call on the others for assistance. When the force of the
confederacy went out to war, the command was given to the war
chief of the Mexicans, the “Chief-of-men.”
If a member of the confederacy succeeded in reducing by its own
efforts a tribe to tribute, it had the full benefit of such
conquest. But when the entire confederacy had been engaged in
such conquest, the tribute was divided into five parts, of which
two went to Mexico, two to Tezcuco, and one to Tlacopan. This
co-partnership for the purpose of securing tribute by the three
most powerful tribes of the valley, under the leadership of
Mexico, was formed about the year 1426, just about one hundred
years from the date of the first appearance of the Mexicans in
the valley.
From this time to the date of the Spanish conquest in 1520, the
confederate tribes were almost constantly at war with the
surrounding Indians, and particularly with the feeble village
Indians southward from the valley of Mexico to the Pacific, and
thence eastward well towards Guatemala. They began with those
nearest in position, whom they overcame, through superior
numbers, and concentrated action, and subjected to tribute. These
forays were continued from time to time for the avowed object of
gathering spoil, imposing tribute and capturing prisoners for
sacrifice, until the principal tribes within the area named, with
some exceptions, were subdued and made tributary.26
The territory of these tribes, thus subject to tribute,
constitutes what is generally known as the Mexican Empire.27 But,
manifestly, it is an abuse of language to so designate this
territory. No attempt was made for the formation of a State which
would include the various groups of aborigines settled in the
area tributary to the confederacy. “No common or mutual tie
connected these numerous and diverse tribes,” excepting hatred of
the Mexican confederacy. The tribes were left independent under
their own chiefs. They well knew the tribute must be forthcoming,
or else they would feel the weight of their conquerors’
displeasure. But such a domination of the strong over the weak,
for no other reason than to enforce an unwilling tribute, can
never form a nation, or an empire.28 These subject tribes, held
down by heavy burdens—inspired by enmity, ever ready to
revolt—gave no new strength to the confederacy: they were rather
an element of weakness. The Spaniards were not slow to take
advantage of this state of affairs. The tribes of Vera Cruz, who
could have imposed an almost impassable barrier to their advance
through that section, were ready to welcome them as deliverers.29
The Tlascaltecans, though never made tributary to the Mexicans,
had to wage almost unceasing war for fifty years preceding the
coming of the Spaniards. Without their assistance, Cortez would
never have passed into history as the conqueror of Mexico.
A word as to the real power of the Mexicans. Their strength lay
more in their defensive position than any thing else. As we have
just stated, the entire forces of the confederacy were unable to
subject the Tlascaltecans, the Tarasca of Michhuacan were fully
their equal in wealth and power. The most disastrous defeat that
ever befell the forces of the confederacy was on the occasion of
their attack upon this last-named people in 1479. They fled from
the battle-field in consternation, and never cared to renew the
attempt. As to the actual population of the Pueblo of Mexico, the
accounts are very much at variance. Mr. Morgan, after taking
account of their barbarous condition of life—without flocks and
herds, and without field agriculture, but also considering the
amount of tribute received from other tribes—considers that an
estimate of two hundred and fifty thousand inhabitants in the
entire valley would be an excessive number. Of these he would
assign thirty thousand to the Pueblo of Mexico.30
This is but an estimate. In this connection we are informed,
that, when the forces of the confederacy marched against
Michhuacan, as just stated, they counted their forces, and found
them to be twenty-four thousand men. This includes the forces of
the three confederate tribes, and their allies in the valley, and
would indicate a population below Mr. Morgan’s estimate. The
Spanish writers have left statements as to the population of
Mexico which are, evidently, gross exaggerations. The most
moderate estimate is sixty thousand inhabitants; but the majority
of the writers increase this number to three hundred thousand.
The main occupation of the Aztecs, then, was to enforce the
payment of tribute. From the limited expanse of territory at the
disposal of the Mexicans, and the unusually large number of
inhabitants for an aboriginal settlement, as well as the natural
inclination of the Mexicans, they were obliged to draw their main
supplies from tributary tribes. It is human for the strong to
compel the weak to serve them. The inhabitants of North America
were not behind in this respect.31 This is especially true of the
civilized tribes of Mexico and Central America. The confederacy
of the three most powerful tribes of Mexico was but a
copartnership for the avowed purpose of compelling tribute from
the surrounding tribes, and they were cruel and merciless in
exacting the same.
Our information in regard to this tribute is derived almost
entirely from a collection of picture writings, known as the
Mendoza collection, which will be described more particularly
when we describe their picture writings. The confederacy was
never at a loss for an excuse to pounce upon a tribe and reduce
them to tribute. Sometimes the tribe marked out for a prey,
knowing their case to be hopeless, submitted at once when the
demand was made; but, whether they yielded with or without a
struggle, the result was the same—that is, a certain amount of
tribute was imposed on them. This tribute consisted of articles
which the tribe either manufactured, or was in situation to
acquire by means of trade or war; but, in addition to this, it
also included the products of their limited agriculture.
The same distribution of land obtained among all the civilized
tribes that we have already sketched among the Mexicans. So, a
portion of the territory of each conquered tribe would be set
aside to be cultivated for the use of the confederacy. But, as
the tribe did not have any land of its own, except for some
official purpose, this implies that each gens would have to set
aside a small part of its territory for such purpose. Such lots
Mr. Bandelier calls tribute lots. These were worked by the gentes
for the benefit of the Mexicans. It is to be noticed right here,
that the Mexicans did not claim to own or control the land; this
right remained in the gentes of the conquered tribe.
The miscellaneous articles demanded were generally such that they
bore some relation to the natural resources of the pueblo. For
instance: pueblos along the coast, in the warm region of country,
had to furnish cotton cloth, many thousand bundles of fine
feathers, sacks of cocoa, tiger-skins, etc. In other, and
favorable locations for such products, the pueblos had to furnish
such articles as sacks of lime, reeds for building purposes,
smaller reeds for the manufacture of darts.
Tribute Sheet
These facts are ascertained in the Mendoza collection. We are
given there the pictorial symbol, or coat-of-arms, of various
pueblos; also, a pictorial representation of the tribute they
wore expected to pay. The plate is a specimen of their tribute
rolls. The pueblos paying it are not, however, shown.
Considerable can be learned from a study of this collection
—such, for instance, as that the Pueblo of Chala had to pay a
tribute of forty little bells, and eighty copper ax blades.32
And, in another place, we learn that the Pueblo of Yzamatitan was
tributary to eight thousand reams of paper. The articles are here
pictured forth; the number is indicated by the flags, feathers,
etc. The tribute of provisions consisted of such articles as
corn, beans, cocoa, red-pepper, honey, and salt—amounting in all,
according to this collection33 to about six hundred thousand
bushels. Still it will not do to place too great a reliance on
picture records. The number of tributary pueblos must have been
constantly changing. The quantity of articles intended for
clothing was certainly very great. A moderate quantity of gold
was also collected from a few pueblos, where this was obtainable.
The collection of this tribute was one of the most important
branches of government among the Mexicans. The vanquished stood
in peril of their lives if they failed to keep their part of the
contract. In the first place, the Mexicans took from each subject
tribe hostages for the punctual payment of tribute. These
hostages were taken to the Pueblo of Mexico, and held there as
slaves; their lives were forfeited if the tribute was refused.34
But special officers were also assigned to the subject tribes,
whose duty it was to see that the tribute was properly gathered
and transmitted to Mexico. These stewards or tribute gatherers,
are the officers that the early writers mistook for governors.
Their sole business, however, had to do with the collection of
the tribute, and they did not interfere at all in the internal
affairs of the tribe.
Where the forces of the confederacy had conquered a tribe, but
one steward was required to tend to the tribute, but each of the
confederate tribes sent their representative to such pueblos as
had become their own prey, and as sometimes occurred, one pueblo
paid tribute to each of the confederate tribes, it had to submit
to the presence among them of three separate stewards.
We can easily enough see that it required men of ability to fill
this position. They were to hold their residence in the midst of
a tribe who were conquered, but held in subjection only by fear.
To these people they were the constant reminder of defeat and
disgrace. They were expected to watch them closely and report to
the home tribe suspicious movements or utterances that might come
to their notice. We need not wonder that these stewards were the
tokens of chiefs. It was a part of their duty to superintend the
removal of the tribute from the place where gathered to the
Pueblo of Mexico. The tribe paying tribute were expected to
deliver it at Mexico, but under the supervision of the steward.
Arrived at Mexico the tribute was received, not by the so-called
king, the Chief-of-men, but by the Snake-woman, or an officer to
whom this personage delegated his authority. This officer was the
chief steward, and made the final division of the tribute. We are
not informed as to details of this division. A large part of it
was reserved for the use of the tribal government. It was upon
this store that the Chief-of-men could draw when supplies were
needed for tribal hospitality or for any special purpose. The
stores required for the temple, its priests and keepers were
gathered from this source. The larger division must have gone
direct to the stewards of the gentes, who would set some aside
for their official uses, some for religion or medicine, but the
larger part would be divided among the members of the gentes.
In our review of the social system of the Mexicans we have
repeatedly seen how the organization of gentes influenced and
even controled all the departments of their social and political
system. One of the cardinal principles, we must remember, is that
all the members of a gens stand on an equal footing. In keeping
with this we have seen that all were trained as warriors; yet the
great principle of the division of labor was at work. Some filled
in their leisure during times of peace by acting as traders;
others became proficient in some branch of work, such as feather
work, or making gold and silver ornaments. Yet under a gentile
system of society, persons practising such callings could never
become very rich or proficient, simply because, being members of
different gentes, there could not be that cooperation and united
efforts among workmen in these various trades and callings that
is necessary to advance them to the highest proficiency. It
required the breaking up of the gentes and substituting for that
group a smaller one, our modern family, as the unit of social
organization, before great progress could be made.
From what we have just said it follows that it is not at all
likely that there was any great extremes in the condition of the
people. No very wealthy or extremely poor classes. This brings us
to consider the condition of trade and commerce among them. They
had properly no such a thing as money, so their commerce must
have consisted of barter or trade and exchange. Some authorities
assert quite positively that they had money, and mention as
articles used for such purposes grains of cacao, “T” shaped
pieces of tin or copper, and quills of gold dust.35 But Mr.
Bandelier has shown that the word barter properly designates the
transactions where such articles passed. But this absence of
money shows us at once that the merchants of Mexico were simply
traders who made their living by gathering articles from a
distance to exchange for home commodities.
We are given some very entertaining accounts of the wealth and
magnificence of the “merchant princes of Mexico.”36 It needs but
a moment’s consideration of the state of society to show how
little foundation there is for such accounts. Mr. Bancroft also
tells us that “throughout the Nahua dominions commerce was in the
hands of a distinct class, educated for their calling, and
everywhere honored by the people and by kings. In many regions
the highest nobles thought it not disgraceful to engage in
commercial pursuits.”
Though we do not believe there is any foundation for this
statement, yet trading is an important proceeding among sedentary
tribes. “The native is carried over vast distances, from which he
returns with a store of knowledge, which is made a part of his
mythology and rites, while his personal adventures become a part
of the folk lore.”37 It was their principal way of learning of
the outside world. It was held in equally high esteem among the
Mexicans. Such an expedition was not in reality a private, but a
tribal undertaking. Its members not only carried into distant
countries articles of barter, but they also had to observe the
customs, manners, and resources of the people whom they visited.
Clothed with diplomatic attributes, they were often less traders
than spies. Thus they cautiously felt their way from tribe to
tribe, from Indian fair to Indian fair, exchanging their stuff
for articles not produced at home, all the while carefully noting
what might be important to their own tribe. It was a highly
dangerous mission; frequently they never returned, being waylaid
or treacherously butchered even while enjoying the hospitality of
a pueblo in which they had been bartering.
We may be sure the setting out of such an expedition would be
celebrated in a formal manner.38 The safe return was also an
important and joyful event. The reception was almost equal to
that afforded to a victorious war-party. After going to the
temple to adore the idol, they were taken before the council to
acquaint them with whatever they had learned of importance on
their trip. In addition to this, their own gens would give them
appropriate receptions. From the nature of things but little
profit remained to the trader. They had no beasts of burden, and
they must bring back their goods by means of carriers; and the
number of such men were limited. Then their customs demanded that
the most highly prized articles should be offered up for
religious purposes; besides, the tribe and the gens each came in
for a share. But the honors given were almost as great as those
won in war.
The Mexicans had regular markets. This, as we have already
stated, was on territory that belonged to the tribe; not to any
one gens alone. Hence the tribal officers were the ones to
maintain order. The chiefs of the four phratries were charged
with this duty. The market was open every day, but every fifth
was a larger market.39 They do not seem to have had weights, but
counted or measured their articles. In these markets, or fairs,
which would be attended by traders from other tribes, who, on
such occasions, were the guests of the Mexicans, and lodged in
the official house, would be found the various articles of native
manufacture: cloth, ornaments, elaborate featherwork, pottery,
copper implements and ornaments, and a great variety of articles
not necessary to enumerate.
We must now briefly consider their arts and manufactures. Stone
was the material principally used for their weapons and
implements. They were essentially in their Stone Age. Their
knives, razors, lancets, spear and arrowheads were simply flakes
of obsidian. These implements could be produced very cheaply, but
the edge was quickly spoiled. Axes of different varieties of
flint were made. They also used flint to carve the sculptured
stones which we have described in the preceding chapter. They
also had some way of working these big blocks of stone used in
building. But they were not unacquainted with metals—the
ornamental working of gold and silver had been carried to quite a
high pitch. Were we to believe all the accounts given us of their
skill in that direction, we would have to acknowledge they were
the most expert jewelers known. How they cast or moulded their
gold ornaments is unknown. They were also acquainted with other
metals, such as copper, tin, and lead. But we can not learn for
what purpose they used lead or tin, or where they obtained it.40
Cortez, in one of his letters, speaks of the use of small pieces
of tin as money. But we have already seen that the natives had
not risen to the conception of money. They certainly had copper
tools, and bronze ones. It seems, however, that their bronze was
a natural production and not an artificial one—that is to say,
the ores of copper found in Mexico contain more or less gold,
silver, and tin. So, if melted, just as nature left them, the
result would be the production of bronze.41 They were then
ignorant of the knowledge of how to make bronze artificially.
This shows us that they had not attained to a true Bronze Age;
and yet the discovery could not have been long delayed. Sooner or
later they would have found out that tin and copper melted
together would produce the light copper that experience had
taught them was the most valuable.
Yucatan Axes
The most important tool they made of copper was the ax. The ax,
in both Mexico and Yucatan, was made as represented in this
illustration. From their shape and mode of hafting them, we see
at once they are simply models of the stone ax; and this recalls
what we learned of the Bronze Age in Europe. At first they
contented themselves with copying the forms in stone.
Carpenter’s Axe Mexican CarpenterCopper Tool
Nature, everywhere, conducts her children by the same means to
the same ends. This form of ax is a representation of a
carpenter’s hatchet. The next cut is from the Mendoza collection,
and represents a carpenter at work. He holds one of these
hatchets in his hand, and is shaping a stick of timber. The other
cut represents a form of copper tool found in Oaxaca, where they
were once used in abundance. The supposition is that this
implement was used for agricultural purposes—probably as a hoe.
The pieces of T-shaped copper said to have been used as money,
are diminutive forms of this same tool. The statement is
sometimes made that they had a way of hardening copper. “This,”
says Mr. Valentine, “is a hypothesis, often noted and spoken of,
but which ranges under the efforts made for explaining what we
have no positive means to verify or to ascertain.” The presence
of metals necessarily implies some skill in mining; but their
ability to mine was certainly very limited. Gold and silver were
collected by washing the sands. We do not know how copper was
mined; the probabilities are that this was done in a very
superficial way. Whenever, by chance, they discovered a vein of
copper, they probably worked it to an easy depth, and then
abandoned it. M. Charney speaks of one such locality, discovered
in 1873. In this case they had made an opening eleven feet long,
five feet wide, and three feet deep. To judge from appearances,
they first heated the rock, and then perhaps sprinkled it with
water, and thus caused it to split up.42 This is about all we can
discover of their Metallic Age. It falls very far short of the
knowledge of metallurgy enjoyed by the Europeans of the Bronze
Age; and, with the exception of working gold and silver, it was
not greatly in advance of the powers of the North American
aborigines.43 Certainly no trace of mining has been discovered at
all on the scale of the ancient mines in Michigan.
A few words as to some of their other arts, and we will pass on
to other topics. In manufacturing native pottery, they are spoken
of as having great skill. The sedentary Indians everywhere were
well up in that sort of work.44 They knew how to manufacture
cotton cloth, as well as cloth from other articles. We have
stated that paper furnished an important article of tribute. They
made several kinds of paper. One author states that they made
paper from the membrane of trees—from the substance that grows
beneath the upper bark.45 But they also used for this purpose a
plant, called the maguey plant. This was a very valuable plant to
the aborigines, since we are told that the natives managed to
extract nearly as great a variety of useful articles from it as
does an inhabitant of the East Indies from his cocoa palm.
Amongst other articles, they made paper. For this paper, we are
told, “the leaves were soaked, putrefied, and the fibers washed,
smoothed, and extended for the manufacture of thin as well as
thick paper.”46
They used feathers for plumes, fans, and trimmings for clothing.
The articles the Spaniards are most enthusiastic in praising is
that variety of work known as feather mosaic. They took very
great pains with this sort of work. The workman first took a
piece of cloth, stretched it, and painted on it, in brilliant
colors, the object he wished to reproduce. Then, with his bunch
of feathers before him, he carefully took feather after feather,
arranging them according to size, color, and other details, and
glued each feather to the cloth. The Spanish writers assert that
sometimes a whole day was consumed in properly choosing and
adjusting one delicate feather, the artist patiently
experimenting until the hue and position of the feather, viewed
from different points, and under different lights, became
satisfactory to his eye.47
This disregard of time is a thoroughly Indian trait of character.
Years would be spent in the manufacture of a choice weapon. The
impression is given that these feather-workers formed a craft, or
order, and that they lived by themselves. But this would be such
an innovation on the workings of the gens that there is probably
no foundation for it.
We will now consider the subject of religion. We can never judge
of the real state of culture of a people by their advance in the
arts of government and of living alone. Constituted as men are,
they can not help evolving, in the course of time, religious
conceptions, and the result is that almost all the races and
tribes of men have some system of belief, or, at any rate, some
manner of accounting for the present condition of affairs, and
some theory as to a future state. It is true that these theories
and beliefs are often very foolish and childish, still they are
not on that account devoid of interest. From our present
standpoint, we can clearly see that the religions belief of a
people is a very good index of their culture. At first such
conceptions are necessarily rude, but as the people advanced in
culture, they become clearer.
Fearing that we will be misunderstood in the last statement, we
will state to whom it applies. The Christian world hold that God
revealed himself to his chosen people, and that we draw from his
Word what is permitted mortals to know of his government and the
future world. We make no question but that this is true. But long
before there was a Hebrew people there was a Paleolithic race,
who doubtless had some vague, shadowy, ill defined idea of
supernatural power, and sought, in some infantile way, to appease
the same. Afterwards, but long before the glories of Solomon, a
Neolithic people were living in Palestine, and the same culture
was wide-spread over the world. To this day a large part of the
world’s inhabitants have never so much as heard of the Christian
religion. It is to such people that we especially refer.
The religious beliefs of the Indians have not been fully studied
as yet; but, until that is done, it is scarcely possible to
understand and fully weigh what is said as to the religious
beliefs of the Mexicans. What we can discern of the religion of
the Nahua and Maya tribes shows us that it is not at all probable
they had reached a stage of development in which they had any
idea of One Supreme, Over-ruling Power. But our scholars differ
on that point, many contending that the Mexicans distinctly
affirmed the existence of such a God.48 To form such conceptions
implies a power of reasoning on abstract topics that is vain to
expect of a people in their state of development. We think,
therefore, that the idea that they had such a belief, arises from
a misconception. Let us see if we can discover how that was.
Nearly all of the North American tribes had some word to express
supernatural power. The Iroquois used for this purpose the words
“oki” and “otkon.”49 The first meaning of these words is “above.”
As used by these Indians, however, they expressed the working of
any unseen, mysterious, and, therefore, to them, supernatural
power. There was, however, no idea of personality or of unity
about it. Other Indian tribes had words to express the same
meaning. The English and French explorers translated these words
into their languages in various ways. The most common is the
rather absurd one of “medicine,” which has passed into common
use. Thus, to mention one in very frequent use, we have the
expression “Medicine-men”—meaning their priests and conjurers.
The same custom prevailed among the higher class of sedentary
Indians of Mexico and Central America. The Aztecs used the word
“teotl” to express the name meaning; the Mayas, the word “ku;”
the Peruvians, “huaca.” But the word used, in each case, meant
not so much a personal supreme-being as it did an ill-defined
sense of supernatural, mysterious power. This point not being
clearly understood, it was quite natural that the early writers
understood by these various expressions their name of the First
Cause.
In the present state of our knowledge, it is certainly very hard
to give an intelligent statement of the religious conceptions of
the Maya and Nahua tribes. Among the Nahuas, their conception of
creative power was that of a pair—a man and wife. These were not
the active agents, however—they engendered four sons, who were
the creators. This seems to be a widely extended form of
tradition. Two authors, writing about fifty years after the
conquest, speak of the four principal deities and statues. They
had a great many idols besides—but four were the principal ones.
It would be very satisfactory could we frame some theory to
account for this state of things. If we could only be sure that
each god was symbolic of some of the elements—or, if we could
only say that this was but another instance of the use of the
number “four”—and thus connect them with the cardinal points, it
would be very satisfactory to many. The amount of study that has
been bestowed on this question is very great, and it is very far
from being settled. Each of these four was the principal, or
guardian, deity of a particular tribe.50 All of these appear in
native traditions as historical personages, as well as deities.
It is for this reason that Mr. Bandelier concludes that the “four
principal gods were deified men, whose lives and actions became
mixed up with the vague ideas of natural forces and phenomena.”51
As prominent a figure as any in Central American Mythology is
Quetzalcohuatl; and we can form a good idea of the force of the
preceding remarks by considering this case. The name is a
compound of two words, “quetzal-cohuatl”—and is, says Mr.
Bandelier, a fair specimen of an Indian personal name. He tells
us that the meaning is “bright,” or “shining snake.” Others have
translated it, “feathered serpent.” We have referred to the
attempt to show that the tablet of the cross, at Palenque, had
reference to him. Those who think he was the nature-god of the
Nahuas find a great deal of significance in the name.52 Mr.
Bandelier, after carefully considering all reference to him by
the early writers, shows that it is quite as likely that
Quetzalcohuatl “was a man of note, whose memory was afterward
connected with dim cosmological notions.” It is plain that our
idea of the culture of the Mexicans will vary according as we
consider the base of this myth to be a man, or the forces in
nature producing the fertilizing summer rain.53
The worship of Quetzalcohuatl was very widely extended; but it
was mostly confined to the Nahua tribes. But there are somewhat
similar traditions among the Maya tribes; and this is one of
those few points which, like the similarity of their calendar
systems, seems to point to a close connection in early times. The
Quiches have a very similar myth. Briefly, it is to the effect
that four principal gods created the world. One of these was
named Gucumatz—meaning, also, shining, or brilliant snake. Some
think that this is the same personage as Quetzalcohuatl, and from
this fact show how true it is that the operations of the forces
of nature everywhere affect the minds of men in a similar
manner.54 Others will not, however, go as far as this, and will
only say there is a similarity between the two characters. The
tribes in Yucatan also have a tradition of Cuculcan, whose name
means the same as the two already mentioned. The authority who
refers to him speaks of him only as a man. The Quiche legend,
already referred to, speaks of Gucumatz only as a god. The Nahua
traditions of Quetzalcohuatl, as we have seen, are confused
accounts of a man and a god.
The traditions having reference to the earthly career of
Quetzalcohuatl represent him as having considerable to do with
Tulla and Cholula. At Tulla he appears in the light of a great
medicine-man, or priest; at Cholula, as a sachem. Still other
traditions represent him as a great and successful warrior. None
of these characters are incompatible with the others, from an
Indian point of view. These traditions are so hopelessly
confused, that it is doubtful if any thing of historical value
can be gained from them. As a deity, he was worshiped as god of
the air or wind. Why he should be so considered is answered in
various ways. If, reasoning from his name, we choose to believe
he is a nature-god—as such standing for the thunder-storm, clouds
of summer—then, as the winds “sweep the path for the
rain-clouds,” he would be considered their god. Also, following
out this line of thought, we can see how, as the god which brings
the fertilizing summer rain, he would be considered the god of
wealth, and the patron deity of traders.
We must not lose sight of the fact that all these traditions are
most woefully mixed; that, since the conquest, many ideas from
other than native sources have been engrafted on them; and,
furthermore, that other explanations that are worth considering
can be presented. The horticultural tribe located at Cholula had
Quetzalcohuatl for their tutelar deity. Their crops depend upon
the timely descent of the rain. What more natural than that they
should regard such rains as sent by him? This pueblo was also
famous for its fairs. “By its geographical position, its natural
products, and the industry of its people,” it became a great
trading market. Near it was raised cochineal dye, in large
quantities. This was eagerly sought after by traders from a
distance. Cholula was also famous for its pottery. The
Tlaxcaltecos told Cortez that the inhabitants of Cholula were a
tribe of traders; what more natural, then, than that their
tutelar deity should become, in the eyes of foreign tribes, the
god of traders.55
Quetzalcohuatl was but one of the four principal gods. The
tutelar deity of the Mexicans was Huitzilopochtli. His altars
were almost daily wet with the blood of sacrificed victims. No
important war was undertaken, except with many ceremonies he was
duly honored. If time were so short that proper care could not be
bestowed on the ceremonies, then there was a kind of deputy god
that could be served in a hurried manner that would suffice.56
After a successful battle, the captives were conducted at once to
his temple, and made to prostrate themselves before his image. In
times of great public danger, the great drum in his temple was
beaten. The Spaniards, by dire experience, knew well the meaning
of that awful sound.
Huitzilopochtli.
The plate represents what was probably the idol of
Huitzilopochtli. “It was brought to light in grading the Plaza
Mayor in the City of Mexico in August, 1790. It was near the
place where the great Teocalli stood, and where the principal
monuments of Mexico were. They were thrown down at the time of
the conquest and buried from sight. It is an immense block of
bluish-gray porphyry, about ten feet high and six feet wide and
thick, sculptured on front, rear, top and bottom, into a most
complicated and horrible combination of animal, human, and ideal
forms.”57 This idol is generally stated to be that of the goddess
of death. But Mr. Bandelier, after carefully reviewing all the
authorities, concludes that it represents the well-known war-god
of the Mexican tribe.58
To properly conduct the services in honor of these various gods,
required established rites and a priesthood. What we call
“Medicine men” wizards, and names of similar import among the
northern tribes, were more correctly priests. There was no tribe
of Indians so poor but what they had these priests. But we would
expect this office to increase more in power and importance among
the southern Indians. Among the Iroquois, we are told each gens
elected certain “keepers of the faith.” These included persons
both male and female. Their principal duty was to see that the
feast days were properly celebrated. From what we know of the
gens we feel confident that they would be perfectly, independent
in religious matters as well as in other respects. Consequently
it is not probable that there was even in Mexico any hereditary
caste of priests.59
However set aside, or chosen, or elected, we have every reason to
believe that the organization of the priesthood was systematic.
The aspirant for the office had to acquaint himself with the
songs and prayers used in public worship, the national
traditions, their principles of astrology, so as to tell the
lucky and unlucky days. When admitted to the priesthood, their
rank was doubtless determined by meritorious actions. Successes
in war would contribute to this result as well as sanctity, a
priest who had captured several prisoners ranking higher than one
who had captured but one, and this last higher than the
unfortunate who had taken none.60 We must not forget that war was
the duty of all among the Mexicans. The priests were not in all
cases exempt; part of their duties may have been to care for the
wounded. It is not likely that the priests of any one god ranked
any higher than the priests of others, or had any authority over
them.
This body of priests of whom we have just treated concerned
themselves a great deal with the social life of the Mexicans, and
their power was doubtless great. Their duties commenced with the
birth of the child, and continued through life. No important
event of any kind was undertaken without duly consulting the
priests to see if the day selected was a lucky one. The Nahuas
were, like all Indians, very superstitious, so there was plenty
of work cut out for the priests. Into their hands was committed
the art of explaining dreams, fortune-telling, astrology, and the
explanation of omens and signs. Such as the flight and songs of
birds, the sudden appearance of wild animals; in short, any
unexpected or unusual event, was deemed of sufficient importance
to require in its explanation priestly learning. In addition
there was the regular routine of feasts.61 We have seen what a
multitude of gods the Nahuas worshiped. Like all Indian people,
they were very fond of feasts and gatherings of that character;
therefore feast days in honor of some one of the numerous deities
were almost constantly in order, and every month or two were
feasts of unusual importance. The most acceptable sacrifice to
these gods, and without which no feast of any importance was
complete, was human life.
This introduces us to the most cruel trait of their character. It
was not alone true of the Mexicans, but of all the Nahua tribes
and of the Mayas, though in a less degree. On every occasion of
the least importance victims were sacrificed. Any unusual event
was celebrated in a similar manner. Before the departure of a
warlike expedition, the favor of Huitzilopochtli was sought by
the sacrifice of human life; on the return of the same, similar
scenes were enacted. On all such occasions the more victims the
better. These victims were mostly captives taken in war, and wars
were often entered into for the express purpose of procuring such
victims. They were even made a subject of tribute. Devout people
sometimes offered themselves or their children for the sacrifice.
The number of victims, of course, varied from year to year, but
it is possible that it counted up into the thousands every year.
What we are able to gather from the religious beliefs of the
civilized nations sustains the conclusions we have already
arrived at in reference to their culture. We can but believe this
had been greatly overrated. It is the religion of barbarians, not
of a cultivated and enlightened people the historians would have
us believe in. It is a religion in keeping with the character of
the people who had confederated together for the purpose of
compelling unwilling tribute from weaker tribes. It is in keeping
with what we would expect of a people still in the Stone Age, who
still practised communism in living, and whose political and
social organization was founded on the gens as a unit.
It will not be out of place to devote some space to a
consideration of their advance in learning; and first of all let
us see about their system of counting or numeration. This
knowledge, as Mr. Gallatin remarks, must necessarily have
preceded any knowledge of astronomy, or any effort to compute
time. They must have known how to count the days of a year before
they knew how many days it contained. We all know how natural it
is for a child to count by means of his fingers. This was
undoubtedly the first method employed by primitive man. Proof of
this is found in the wide extended use of the decimal system.
Among the civilized nations, traces of this early custom are
still preserved in the meaning of the words used to express the
numbers.
To express the numbers up to twenty, small dots or circles were
used—one for each unit. For the number twenty they painted a
little flag, for the number four hundred, a feather; and for
eight thousand, a purse or pouch. The following table represents
the method of enumeration employed by the Mexicans. But it is
necessary to remark they used different terminations for
different objects.62
Mexican System of Numeration.
Substantially the same system of numeration prevailed among all
the Nahua tribes and the Mayas. It will be seen from this table
that the only numbers having simple names are one, two, three,
four, five, ten, fifteen, twenty, four hundred, and eight
thousand. The other names are compounds of these simple names. It
is also easy to understand their method of pictorial
representation. In reference to the flag, the feather, and the
purse, we must remark that, when these were divided into four
parts, only the colored parts were counted. The collective
number, used among them much as we use the word dozen, was always
twenty; but queerly enough their word for twenty varied according
to the object to be counted. The regular word given in the table
was “pohualli.” In counting thin objects that could be arranged
one above the other, the word twenty was “pilli.” Objects that
were round and plump and thus resembling a stone, were counted
with “tetl” for twenty, and other words for different objects.63
The division of time or their calendar system, is one that was
thought to show great advance in astronomical learning, but of
late years it has been shown that this also was overrated. This
question of how to keep a record of time was a difficult one for
primitive man to solve; that is, when he began to think about it
at all. A long while must have elapsed, and considerable advance
in other respects been made before the necessity of such a thing
occurred to them. The increase and decrease of the moon would
form a natural starting point. It is well known that this is
about as far as the knowledge of the Indians extended. The Maya
word for month means also moon, showing this was their earliest
system of reckoning time.64
Table of Days.
The various Nahua and Maya tribes of Mexico and Central America
had reached about the same stage of development. But their
calendar system is so similar that it affords a strong argument
of the original unity of these people.65 All of the civilized
tribes had months of twenty days each, and each of these days had
a separate name, which was the same for every month of the year.
This period of twenty days was properly their unit of time
reckoning. It is true they had smaller divisions,66 but for all
practical purposes, they were ignored. As none of these tribes
possessed the art of writing, they had to represent these days by
means of hieroglyphics. The following table shows the Mexican and
Maya days, the meaning of each, and the pictorial sign by which
they were represented. We must notice that the Maya hieroglyphics
look more arbitrary, more conventional than the Mexican. This is
interesting, because some of our scholars now believe the Mayas
were the inventors of the calendar. Their hieroglyphics,
therefore, as being the older of the two, should appear more
conventional. In the Mexican hieroglyphics for the days, we can
still trace a resemblance to the natural objects they represent;
in the Maya hieroglyphics, this resemblance has disappeared.
It is not out of place to theorize as to the facts already
mentioned. The first thing that strikes us is that they should
have chosen twenty days for a unit of time. There must have been
some reason lying back of this selection. It would have been more
natural for them to have chosen a number of days (say thirty)
more nearly corresponding to the time from one new moon to
another. Whether we shall ever learn the reason for choosing this
number of days is doubtful; but Mr. Bandelier has given us some
thoughts on this subject, which, though he is careful to state
are not results, but mere suggestions, seem to us to have some
germs of truth, the more so as it is fully in keeping with Indian
customs.
He points out that many of the names for these days mean the same
as the names of the gens in the more northern Indian tribes. Thus
seven of the days have the same meaning as the names of seven of
the nine gens of the Moqui tribe in Arizona. He, therefore,
suggests that the names of these twenty days are the names of the
twenty gens of the aboriginal people from whom have descended the
various civilized tribes under consideration. Indeed, this is
expressly stated to be the method of naming the days adopted by
the Chiapanecs, one of the tribes in question.57
As soon as the people commenced to take any observation at all,
they would perceive that it took just about eighteen of these
periods of twenty days to make a year. So the next step appears
to have been the division of the year into eighteen months. These
months received each a name, and were of course designated by a
hieroglyphic. The names of the Mexican months seem to have been
determined by some of the feasts happening therein. There is
great diversity among the early writers both as to the names of
these months, and the order in which they occur, as well as by
the hieroglyphics by which they are represented.68 It does not
seem worth while to give their names and meaning. We give a plate
showing the name, order in which they occur, and hieroglyphic
symbol of the Maya months. In point of fact, the months were very
little used, as we shall soon see it was not necessary to name
the month to designate the day; but of that hereafter.
Maya Months.
But it would not take these people very long to discover that
they had not hit on the length of a year. Eighteen months, of
twenty days each, make only three hundred and sixty days; so the
next step would be to add on five days to their former year. As
these days do not make a month, they were called the nameless
days. They were considered as being unlucky—no important
undertaking could be commenced on one of them. The child born
therein was to be pitied. But we will see that the expression,
“nameless days” was hardly the case among the Mayas, though it
was among the Mexicans.
Perhaps this will be as good a place as any to inquire whether
they had exact knowledge of the length of the year. As every one
knows, the length of the year is three hundred and sixty-five and
one quarter days, or very nearly; and for this reason we add an
extra day to every fourth year. We would not expect to find this
knowledge among tribes no farther advanced than we have found
these to be. If, as our scholars suspect, the Maya be the one
from which the others were derived, they would be apt to possess
this knowledge, if known. Perez, however, could find no trace of
it among them.69 Many authors have asserted that the Mexicans
knew all about it. Some say they added a day every four years;
others, that they waited fifty-two years, and then added thirteen
days; and some, even, give them credit for still closer
knowledge, and say they added twelve and one-half days every
fifty-two years.70 Prof. Valentine, who has made their calendar
system a special study, concludes that they knew nothing at all
about the matter.71
The beginning of the year is variously stated. Among the Mexicans
it seems that, while the authors differ very much, all but one
places it on some day between the second day of February and the
tenth of April. As their word for year means “new green,” it is
probable they placed its commencement about the time new grass
appeared. The Mayas are said to have placed the commencement of
the year about the sixteenth of July. As this happens to be just
about the time that the sun is directly overhead in Yucatan, it
has been surmised that the natives took astronomical
observations, and tried to have their year commence at that time.
But it must be manifest that, if they did not possess a knowledge
of the true length of the year, and so make allowance for the
leap-year, in the course of a very few years they would have to
revise this date.
Refer once more to the Maya table of days. Suppose the first day
of the year to commence with the day Kan. As there are twenty
days in a month, we see that the second month would also commence
with Kan. In like manner, Kan would be the first day of every
month of that year. When the eighteen months were past, there
would still remain the five days to complete the year. Now,
although they were said to be nameless days, the Mayas gave them
names. The first day was Kan, the second day Chichan, the third
day Quimij, the fourth day Manik, the fifth day Lamat. The
regular order of days we see. They were now ready to commence a
new year.
The next day in the list is Muluc. This becomes the first day of
the first month of the new year. But, being the first day of the
first month, it was the first day of every month of that year. At
the end of the eighteen months of that year, the five days would
have to be named in their order again, which would carry us down
to Gix, the first day of the first month of the third year. It
would also be the first day of every month of that year.
Similarly we see that Cavac would be the first day of every month
of the fourth year. The fifth year would commence again with Kan.
So we see that four of these twenty days became of more
importance than the others. The years were named after them. The
year in which the month commenced with Kan was also called Kan.
The same way with the other days. So the name of the year was
either Kan, Muluc, Gix, or Cavac. These four days were called
“carriers of the year;” because they not only gave the name to
the year, but because the name of the year was also the name of
the first day of every month of that year.
The foregoing will help us to understand the Mexican method. Let
us refer now to the list of Mexican days. The first day of the
first month was Cipac. For the same reason as above set forth,
this would be the first day of every month of the year. The five
extra days either were not named at all, or at any rate they were
not counted off in the table of days. The consequence was that
Cipac was the first day of every month; for we have just seen
that it was the first day of every month of the first year. At
the end of the eighteen months the five nameless days would come
in; but, as they did not form part of a month, were not named.
The first day of the first month of the next year would be named
as if they had not occurred.72 But, when they came to name the
years, we find they proceeded on exactly the same principle as
the Mayas. Thus four of the twenty days, occurring just five days
apart, were taken to name the years. These days were Tecpatl,
Calli, Tochtli, and Acatl.73
Mr. Bandelier, who made the valuable suggestion in regard to the
origin of the names of the days, has also suggested that,
inasmuch as there are four of the days more prominent than the
others, they may signify four original gentes, from which the
others have come. It seem to us, however, when we notice they are
just five days apart, that the system pursued by the Mayas in
naming their years explains the whole matter.
Before we mention the longer periods of time in use among them we
must refer to another mode of reckoning time, and trace the
influence of this second method on the one already named. The
method already explained seems to have been a perfectly natural
one—the second method is founded on superstition. A large part of
the duties of the priests, we remember, was to determine lucky
and unlucky days, and in soothsaying. For this purpose they made
a peculiar division of time, which we will now try and explain.
For some cause or other, thirteen was a number continually
recurring in their calendar. We can perceive no reason why it
should have been chosen. It has been suggested that it was just
about the time from the appearance of a new moon to its full. Be
that as it may, the number of days thirteen comes very near to
what we would call a week. Among the Mexicans, and probably among
the Mayas, these thirteen days were divided into lucky, unlucky,
and indifferent days, and were supposed to be under the guidance
of different gods. The priests had regularly painted lists of
them, with the deities which governed them. These lists were used
in fortune telling.
We must now inquire as to how they kept track of the years. The
Mayas named their next longer period of time an ahau. There is
some dispute as to what number of years it meant. Most of the
early writers decide that it was twenty years;74 but Perez, whose
work we have already referred to, contends that it was
twenty-four years. And this conclusion seems to be confirmed by a
careful study of some of their old manuscripts.75 Thirteen of
these ahaus embraced their longest period of time, known as an
ahau-katun. It had a length of either two hundred and sixty or
three hundred and twelve years, according as we reckon either
twenty or twenty-four years to an ahau. It may be that the length
of an ahau varied among the different tribes of the Mayas.
The Mexicans also had this week of thirteen days. Twenty of these
weeks, or two hundred and sixty days, formed that part of the
year they called the moon-reckoning; the remainder of the year
was the sun-reckoning. Their longer period of time was also based
on this number. A period of thirteen years they called a
tlapilli; four of these constituted a cycle equal to fifty-two
years. The end of this cycle was anxiously awaited by the
Mexicans. They supposed the world was to come to an end on one of
these occasions. As the time drew near, the furniture was broken,
the household gods were thrown into the water, the houses were
cleaned, and finally, all the fires were extinguished. As the
last day of the cycle drew to a close, the priests formed a
procession, and set out for a mountain about six miles from
Mexico. There an altar was built. At midnight a captive, the
bravest and finest of their prisoners, was laid on it. A piece of
wood was laid on his breast, and on this fire was built by
twirling a stick. As soon as fire was produced, the prisoner was
killed as a sacrifice. The production of new fire was proof that
the gods had granted them a new period of fifty-two years.
To understand how the years in this cycle were arranged and
numbered, we must refer once more to the Mayas, for though they
did not use the cycle themselves, yet they give us a hint as to
how it was obtained, and afford one more reason why we should
think the Mayas were the originators of this calendar system. We
give a table showing the arrangement of the days of the year
among the Mayas. We will take the year Kan—that is, we remember,
when Kan was the first day of every month. We would naturally
think they would describe a day by giving the name of the day and
the month—as, the day Kan, of the month Xul, or the first day of
the month Xul—but instead of so doing, they made use of the
period of thirteen days.
For instance, we see, by looking at the table, that the day ten
Kan can not be any other day during the year than the day above
mentioned; so that, for all purposes, it is sufficient to give
the day and its number in the week. We notice, however, that the
last five columns of figures for week days of thirteen are just
the same as the first five. But this did not confuse any, for the
last five columns of days belong to the “sun-reckoning,” the
others to the moon-reckoning. And though the number of the day in
the week was the same, yet a different deity ruled over them than
in the corresponding days of the first five columns. We can not
affirm that we know this to be true of the Mayas. Such, however,
we know to be the case among the Mexicans.76
Almanac.
Now we notice in this almanac that the last day of the year Kan,
is number one of the week. As the count goes right along, the
first day of the next year, Muluc, must be number two. If we
would make an almanac for that year, we would find the first day
of the third year would be number three of the week. If we were
to continue this, we would find that the first days of the years,
would range from one to thirteen. This table shows the number in
the week of the first day of the first fourteen years. The first
day of the fourteenth year would be number one of the week again,
but this time one Muluc, and not Kan. If we would continue our
researches, we would quickly discover that fifty-two years would
go by before we would have a year Kan in which the first day of
the year would be number one again.
Arrangement of Years in a Mexican Cycle. Years.
We think the above explains the origin of the Mexican cycle of
fifty-two years. The Mayas either never had this cycle, or had
abandoned its use.77 The Mexicans however, used this period of
time, and they numbered their years in it in such a way that we
can not explain it, unless we suppose they derived it in some
such a way as just set forth. We give a table showing the order
of the years in a cycle, and also notice that all that was needed
was the number and name of the year to show at once what year of
the cycle it was. The year seven Calli, for instance, could never
be any other year than the twentieth of the cycle.78
Day Date. Year Date.
To express the dates, they of course painted the hieroglyphic of
the day, and dots for the number of days. This cut, for instance,
expresses the day-date “seven Acatl.” They generally wrote the
dots in sets of five. Seven was sometimes expressed in the above
manner. When they wished to express a year-date, they made a
little frame and painted in the hieroglyphics of the year, and
dots for the number. This date here expressed is their thirteen
Acatl, which, by the above table, is seen to be the twenty-sixth
year of the cycle.
We have already dwelt too long on this part of the subject.
Glancing back over the ground, we see there is nothing implying
astronomical knowledge, more than we would expect to find among a
rude people. We find there are several particulars of the Mexican
system which we could not understand, except by reference to the
Maya system. It would bother us to explain why they should choose
the days Tochli, Acatl, Tecpatl, and Calli, to be the names of
their years, if we did not know how the Mayas proceeded. We would
be at a loss to explain why they choose the number of fifty-two
years for the cycle, and arranged their years in it as they did,
if we had not learned the secret from the construction of the
Mayas’ almanac. From this comparison, we should say the Mexican
calendar was the simpler of the two. As the Mayas had twenty days
in the month, and, for priestly use, weeks of thirteen days, so
they took twenty years, which, as they imagined, were supported
by four other years, as a pedestal for their next longer period,
the ahau; and for apparently no other reason than that they had
weeks of thirteen days, they took thirteen of these ahuas for
their longest period of time. They did not use the cycle of
fifty-two years, but they numbered their years in such a way
that, in effect, they were possessed of it. The Mexican did away
with all but the cycle of fifty-two years.
Calendar Stone.
No account of the calendar system of the Mexicans would be
complete without reference to the so-called calendar stone. The
stone, the face of which is sculptured as represented in this
cut, was dug up from the square in front of the cathedral of the
City of Mexico, where it had been buried in 1557. When the temple
was destroyed, this stone still remained entire. Finally the
authorities, fearing it attracted too much attention from the
natives, ordered it buried. It was brought to light again in
1790, but its early history was completely forgotten. The
astronomer Gama pronounced it a calendar stone, and his
interpretation of the characters engraved on it have been the
foundation for the idea that the Mexicans had considerable
knowledge of astronomy.79 Prof. Valentine and others have,
however, shown that it was simply a sacrificial stone, which the
artist had decorated in a peculiar manner. This stone is
considered by some to be so important that we will condense Prof.
Valentine’s description of it as being the best at hand. Not all
of out scholars accept it, however. The central figure is the
face of the sun-god. It is decorated in a truly savage style. It
has ear-rings, neck-chain, lip-pendant, feathers, etc. The
artist’s design has been to surround this central figure with all
the symbols of time. We notice on each side of the sun a small
circle or oval with hieroglyphics resembling claws. In Mexican
traditions these represent two ancient astrologers who were
supposed to have invented the calendar. According to Nahua
traditions of the world, there had been four ages of the world;
at the end of each age, the world was destroyed. Right above and
below the ovals with the claws, we see four squares containing
hieroglyphics.
Each of these squares refers to one of the destructions of the
world. The upper right hand square contains the head of a tiger.
This represents the first destruction of the world, which was by
tigers. The four dots seen, in this square do not refer to a date
as they generally do; it is a sacred number, and constantly
reappears in all hieroglyphics referring to feasts of the sun. To
the left of this square, crowded between it and the pointer, can
be seen the hieroglyphic of the day Tecpatl. The little dot is
one, so this day one tecpatl probably refers to the day in which
the feast in reference to this destruction was celebrated. The
second age was terminated by a hurricane. The upper left hand
square containing the hieroglyphic for wind refers to this
destruction. Between this square and the pointer is crowded in
the hieroglyphic of one Calli, referring to the feast in memory
of this destruction. The third destruction of the world was by
rain, the lower left hand square containing the hieroglyphic of
rain. Below, not very distinctly, is the date of this feast, one
quiahuitl. The last destruction was by water, represented by the
lower right hand square. The date of this feast as represented
below is seven Ozomatl.80
Passing out of this central zone we notice the hieroglyphics for
the days of the month arranged in a circle. The A shaped ray from
the head of the sun indicates where we are to commence to read;
and we notice they must be read from right to left. Resting on
this circle of day, we notice four great pointers not unlike a
large capital A. They are supposed to refer to sunrise, noon,
sunset, and midnight. Next in order after the days we notice a
circle of little squares, each containing five dots. Making
allowance for the space covered by the legs of the pointers just
mentioned, there are found to be two hundred and sixty of these
days; they, therefore, refer to the days of the moon reckoning.
We notice four smaller pointers not quite so elaborate as those
already referred to, resting in this circle. They probably refer
to smaller divisions of the days. The next circle contains a row
of glyphs not unlike kernels of corn. One hundred and five are
represented on this circle; they refer to the days of the sun
reckoning.
Sign of Rain.
Resting on this circle of days are small towers; they, like the
smaller pointers, refer to divisions of the day. Adjoining each
of these little towers is a figure; this cut represents one of
them. We notice they form a circle extending clear around the
stone. The meaning of this circle is gathered from other painted
records. It represents a rain storm; four drops are seen falling
to the ground. The ground is cultivated, as shown by the three
ridges; a grain of corn is represented lying on the ground. This
band on the stone is in honor of the rain-god.
Sign of a Cycle.
There remains only to explain the outer row or band. At the
bottom is a rude representation of two heads with helmets. The
meaning of these figures is unknown. From each of these figures
extend in a semicircle a row of figures of this shape, ending
with pointers at the top, between which is a year-date. Near the
points on each side is what might be described as four bundles
tied together. Each of the small figures just described is the
representation of a cycle of fifty-two years.