USAGES AND CUSTOMS WITH RESPECT TO LANDS AND TO FOOD
THE OWNERSHIP OF LANDS IN COMMON.
Among the Iroquois the tribal domain was held and owned by the tribe
in common. Individual ownership, with the right to sell and convey
in fee-simple to any other person, was entirely unknown among them.
It required the experience and development of the two succeeding
ethnical periods to bring mankind to such a knowledge of property in
land as its individual ownership with the power of alienation in
fee-simple implies. No person in Indian life could obtain the
absolute title to land, since it was vested by custom in the tribe
as one body; and they had no conception of what is implied by a
legal title in severalty with power to sell and convey the fee. But
he could reduce unoccupied land to possession by cultivation, and so
long as he thus used it he had a possessory right to its enjoyment
which would be recognized and respected by his tribe. Gardens
planting-lots, apartments in a long-house, and, at a later day,
orchards of fruit were thus held by persons and by families. Such
possessory right was all that was needed for their full enjoyment
and for the protection of their interest in them. A person might
transfer or donate his rights to other persons of the same tribe,
and they also passed by inherence, under established customs, to his
gentile kin. This was substantially the Indian system in respect to
the ownership of lands and apartments in houses among the Indian
tribes within the areas of the United States and British America in
the Lower Status of barbarism. In later times, when the State or
National Government acquired Indian lands and made compensation
therefor, payment for the lands went to the tribe, and for
improvements to the individual who had the possessory right. At the
Tonawanda Reservation of the Seneca-Iroquois, a portion of the lands
are divided into separate farms, which are fenced and occupied in
severalty, while the remainder are owned by the tribe in common.
When a young man marries and has no land on which to subsist, the
chiefs may allot him a portion of these reserved lands. The title to
all these lands, occupied and unoccupied, remains in the tribe in
common. Individuals may sell or rent their possessory rights to each
other, or rent them to a white man. No white man can now acquire a
title from an Indian to Indian lands in any part of the United States.
A person could transfer his possessions to another, but apartments
in a house must remain to his gentile kindred. In the time of James
II the right to acquire lands was vested in the Crown exclusively as
a royal prerogative, to which prerogative our State and National
Governments succeeded.
The same usages prevail on the Tuscarora Reservation, near the
Niagara River, where this Iroquois tribe owns in common about 8,000
acres of fine agricultural land in one body. A part of this
reservation has long been parceled out to individuals in small farms,
fenced, and cultivated by the possessors. The remainder is
unparceled and under the control of the chiefs. The people are
allowed to remove from the wood-land of the reserve the dead wood
and litter but are not permitted to touch the standing timber. When
a young man marries, if he has no land the chiefs allot him forty
acres to cultivate for his subsistence; but, before giving him
possession, the lot is first open to all the tribe to cut off the
timber for fire-wood. Thus the double object is gained of supplying
the people with fire-wood and of clearing the land for cultivation
for the new family. These possessory rights pass by inheritance to
the recognized heirs. A person may transfer or rent his possession
to another person; he may rent to a white man, but in no case can he
sell to a white man.
And here I may be allowed a brief digression, to notice a recent
opinion of the late Secretary of the Interior, Hon. Carl Schurz,
shared in to some extent by the National Government, in relation to
the division of our Indian reservations into lots or tracts, and
their conveyance in severalty to the Indians themselves, with power
of alienation to white men after a short period, say twenty-five
years. It is to be hoped that this policy will never be adopted by
any National Administration, as it is fraught with nothing but
mischief to the Indian tribes. The Indian is still, as he always has
been, and will remain for many years to come, entirely incapable of
meeting the white man, with safety to himself, in the field of trade
and of resisting the arts and inducements which would be brought to
bear upon him. He is incapable of steadily attaching that value to
the ownership of land which its importance deserves, or of knowing
how far the best interests of himself and family are involved in its
continued possession. The result of individual Indian ownership,
with power to sell, would unquestionably be, that in a very short
time he would divest himself of every foot of land and fall into
poverty. The case of the Shawnee tribe of Kansas affords a perfect
illustration of this pernicious policy. The Shawnees were removed to
Kansas under the Jackson policy, so called, and occupied a splendid
reservation on the Kansas River, where they were told they were to
make their home forever. But after a few years of undisturbed
possession, our people, in the natural flow of population, reached
Kansas, where they found the Shawnees in possession of the best part
of what has since been the State of Kansas. Our people at once
wanted these Indian lands, and they determined to root out the
Shawnees in the interest of civilization and progress. They
accomplished this result in the most speedy and scientific manner,
using as their proposed lever this identical plan since adopted by
Mr. Schurz. First, the government was induced to re-purchase a part
of the reservation on the ground that they had more land than they
needed for cultivation; and, secondly, the government induced the
Indians to have the remainder divided up into farms and conveyed to
heads of families in severalty, with power of alienation. In 1859,
when this scheme was being worked out, I visited Kansas, and found
the Shawnee's cultivating and improving their farms, some of which
embraced a thousand acres, and owning them, too, like other farmers.
When next in Kansas, ten years later, the work was done. There was
not a Shawnee in Kansas, but American farmers were in possession of
all these lands. It was this individual ownership with power to sell
that had done the work.
In managing the affairs of our Indian tribes, we must apply a little
common sense to their condition. In their brains they are in the
same stage of growth and development with our remote forefathers
when they learned to domesticate animals, and, came to rely upon a
meat and milk subsistence. The next condition of advancement at
which the Indian would naturally reach is the pastoral, the raising
of flocks and herds of domestic animals. The Indian has taught
himself to raise the horse in herds, and some of the tribes raise
sheep and goats. A few of them raise cattle. If the government could
assist them in this until they were started, they would soon become
expert herdsmen; would make a proper use of the unoccupied prairie
area in the interior of the continent as well as of the reservations,
and would become prosperous and abundant in their resources.
Among the sedentary Village Indians of New Mexico, who were in the
Middle Status of barbarism, the land system is much the same in
principle, but with special usages adapted to a more advanced
condition. At Taos, the pueblo lands are held under a Spanish grant
of 1689, covering four Spanish square leagues. This grant was
afterward confirmed, as I am informed by David J. Miller, esq., of
the surveyor-general's office at Santa Fe, by letters patent of the
United States. It is, of course, to the Taos Indians in common as a
tribe, and without the power of alienation except among themselves.
These lands have been allotted from time to time to individuals, and
held in severalty for cultivation; but these allotments, so to call
them, are verbal, and the rights of persons to their possession are
settled and adjusted by the chiefs in case of disputes. Mr. Miller
wrote me from Taos, under date of December 5, 1877, that "A
land-owner cannot, under any circumstance, sell to any but a Pueblo
Indian, and one of this (Taos) pueblo. If he should do so he would
be banished the pueblo, and the sale be treated as void." There is
an instance now in this pueblo of a San Juan Indian man married here,
but he is not allowed to acquire land in the pueblo premises. His
wife has lands which he cultivates. A piece of land belonging to a
man may or may not be utilized by him, but it is recognized and
treated as his in fee until he sell it or dies. If a lad grows up
and marries, and his father or father-in-law has no land to give him,
he may purchase in the pueblo, or the pueblo may assign him land,
whereby the title in fee as private property remains in him until he
sells or dies. When he dies it is divided equally among widow and
children. If the children are small, his brother or other relatives
cultivate the land for them until they can do it for themselves; but
the right of property is in the children. When a piece of land is
sold it is done in the presence of witnesses, if it is so desired.
Oftener the sale and transfer are made by and between the parties
themselves. No documents are used. This is so in all the pueblos.
The rules and customs in the sale and delivery of rooms in a house
and of personal property, such as animals, are the same. There is no
preference, as to males or females, in the descent of property
rights and titles. There is a corn-field at each pueblo, cultivated
by all in common, and when grain is scarce the poor take from this
store after it is housed. It is in the charge of, and at the
disposal of, the cacique (called the governor). Land cannot be sold
to an alien; but an Indian coming from another pueblo to live at
this may acquire land to subsist upon, though such immigration is
rare. It is not allowed at any of the pueblos that a white person
acquire property therein. An Indian woman is not allowed to marry a
Mexican and live at the pueblo. A piece of land held and recognized
as belonging to a person is his property, whether he utilizes it or
not, and he may sell or donate it absolutely at his will to persons
within the community.
"At Jemes and Zia (other pueblos in New Mexico), when a woman dies
her property goes into the control of her husband; if a widow, it
descends to her children; if she has no children, it goes to her
brothers and sisters equally; and if none survive her, then to her
nearest relatives; if she has no relatives, then to such friends as
attend her in her last illness. It never reverts to the pueblo,
which as a corporate community owns no land."
What Mr. Miller refers to as property rights and titles, and
ownership in fee of land, is sufficiently explained by the
possessory right found among the Northern tribes. The limitations
upon its alienation to an Indian from another pueblo or to a white
man, not to lay any stress upon the absence of written conveyances
of titles made possible by Spanish and American intercourse, show
quite plainly that their ideas respecting the ownership of the
ultimate title to land, with power to alienate in fee, were entirely
below this conception of property in land. The more important ends
of individual ownership were obtained through the possessory right,
while the ultimate title remained in the tribe for the protection of
all. That the pueblo now owns no land, as Mr. Miller states, must
be understood to mean that all the lands of the original grant have
been parcelled out. The further statement of Mr. Miller, that if a
father dies his land is divided between his widow and children, and
that if a mother dies, leaving no husband, her land is divided
equally between her sons and daughters, is important, because it
shows an inheritance by the children from both father and mother, a
total departure from the principles of gentile inheritance. While
visiting the Taos pueblo in the summer of 1878 I was unable to find
among them the gentile organization, and from lack of sufficient
time could not inquire into their rules of descent and inheritance.
My friend, Mr. Ad. F. Bandelier, now recognized as our most eminent
scholar in Spanish American history, has recently investigated the
subject of the tenure of lands among the ancient Mexicans with great
thoroughness of research. The results are contained in an essay
published in the Eleventh Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology, p. 385 (Cambridge, 1878). It gives me
great pleasure to incorporate verbatim in this chapter, and with his
permission, so much of this essay as relates to the kinds or classes
of land recognized among them, the manner in which they were held,
and his general conclusions.
In the pueblo of Mexico (Tenochtitlan), he remarks, "Four quarters
had been formed by the localizing of four relationships composing
them respectively, and it is expressly stated that each one might
build in its quarter (barrio) as it liked." [Footnote: Duran (Cap V p.
42), Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. VII, p. 467), Herrera (Dec. III, Lib. II,
cap. XI, p. 61).]
The term for these relationships, in the Nahuatl tongue, and used
among all the tribes speaking it was 'calpulli.' It is also used to
designate a great hall or house and we may therefore infer that,
originally at least, all the members of one kinship dwelt under one
common roof.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 1 relocated to chapter end.]
The ground thus occupied by the 'calpulli' was NOT, as Torquemada
admits, assigned to it by a higher power; the tribal government
itself held NO DOMAIN which it might apportion among subdivisions or
to individuals, either gratuitously or on condition of certain
prestations, or barter against a consideration. [Footnote: The
division into "quarters" is everywhere represented as resulting from
common consent. But nowhere is it stated that the tribal government
or authority assigned locations to any of its fractions. This is
only attributed to the chiefs, on the supposition that they,
although elective, were still hereditary monarchs.]
The tribal territory was distributed, at the time of its occupancy,
into possessory rights held by the KINDRED GROUPS AS SUCH, by common
and tacit consent, as resulting naturally from their organization
and state of culture.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 2 relocated to chapter end.]
The patches of solid ground, on which these 'quarters' settled, were
gradually built over with dwellings, first made out of canes and
reeds, and latterly, as their means increased, of turf, 'adobe', and
light stone. These houses were of large size, since it is stated
that even at the time of the conquest 'there were seldom less than
two, four, and six dwellers in one house; thus there were infinite
people (in the pueblo) since, as there was no other way of providing
for them, many aggregated together as they might please.' Communal
living, as the idea of the 'calpulli' implies, seems, therefore, to
have prevailed among the Mexicans as late as the period of their
greatest power.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 3 relocated to chapter end.]
"The soil built over by each 'calpulli' probably remained for some
time the only solid expanse held by the Mexicans. Gradually, however,
the necessity was felt for an increase of this soil. Remaining
unmolested 'in the midst of canes and reeds,' their numbers had
augmented, and for residence as well as for food a greater area was
needed. Fishing and hunting no longer satisfied a people whose
original propensities were horticultural; they aspired to cultivate
the soil as they had once been accustomed to, and after the manner
of the kindred tribes surrounding them. For this purpose they began
throwing up little artificial garden beds, 'chinampas,' on which
they planted Indian corn and perhaps some other vegetables. Such
plots are still found as 'floating gardens,' in the vicinity of the
present city of Mexico and they are described as follows by a
traveler of this century:
"They are artificial gardens about fifty or sixty yards long, and
not more than four or five wide. They are separated by ditches of
three or four yards, and are made by taking the soil from the
intervening ditch and throwing it on the chinampa, by which means
the ground is raised generally about a yard, and thus forms a small
fertile garden, covered with the finest culinary vegetables, fruits,
and flowers...."
"Each consanguine relationship thus gradually surrounded the surface
on which it dwelt with a number of garden plots sufficient to the
wants of its members. The aggregate area thereof, including the
abodes, formed the 'calpullalli'--soil of the 'calpulli'--and was
held by it as a unit; the single tracts, however, being tilled and
used for the benefit of the single families. The mode of tenure of
land among the Mexicans at that period was therefore very simple.
The tribe claimed its territory, 'altephetlalli,' an undefined
expanse over which it might extend--the 'calpules,' however, held
and possessed within that territory such portions of it as were
productive; each 'calpulli' being sovereign within its limits, and
assigning to its individual members for their use the minor tracts
into which the soil was parcelled in consequence of their mode of
cultivation. If, therefore, the terms 'altepetlalli' and
'calpulalli' are occasionally regarded as identical, it is because
the former indicates the occupancy, the latter the distribution of
the soil. We thus recognize in the calpulli, or kindred group, the
unit of tenure of whatever soil the Mexicans deemed worthy of
definite possession. Further on we shall investigate how far
individuals, as members of this communal unit, participated in the
aggregate tenure." [Footnote: Alonzo de Zurita (p. 51).
Ixtlilxochitl ("Hist. des Chichim," cap. XXXV, p. 242). Torquemada
(Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545). Bustamante ("Tezcoco en los ultimos
Tiempos de sus antiguas Reyes" p 232).]
"In the course of time, as the population further increased,
segmentation occurred within the four original 'quarters,' new
'calpulli' being formed."
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 4 relocated to chapter end.]
For governmental purposes this segmentation produced a new result by
leaving, more particularly in military affairs, the first four
clusters as great subdivisions. [Footnote: "Art of War, etc.," pp.
115 and 120.]
But these, as soon as they had disaggregated, ceased to be any
longer units of territorial possession, their original areas being
held thereafter by the 'minor quarters' (as Herrera, for instance,
calls them), who exercised, each one within its limits, the same
sovereignty which the original 'calpulli' formerly held over the
whole.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 5 relocated to chapter end.]
A further consequence of this disaggregation was (by removing the
tribal council farther from the calpules) the necessity for an
official building, exclusively devoted to the business of the whole
tribe alone.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 6 relocated to chapter end.]
This building was the 'teepan' called, even by Torquemada, 'house of
the community'; it was, therefore, since the council of chiefs was
the highest authority in the government, the 'council house' proper.
It was erected near the center of the 'pueblo,' and fronting the
open space reserved for public celebrations. But, whereas formerly
occasional, gradually merging into regular, meetings of the chiefs
were sufficient, constant daily attendance at the 'teepan' became
required, even to such an extent that a permanent residence of the
head-chief there resulted from it and was one of the duties of the
office. Consequently the 'tlacatecuhtli, his family, and such
assistants as he needed (like runners), dwelt at the 'official house.'
But this occupancy was in no manner connected with a possessory
right by the occupant, whose family relinquished the abode as soon
as the time of office expired through death of its incumbent. The
'teepan' was occupied by the head war-chiefs only as long as they
exercised the functions of that office. [Footnote: Nearly every
author who attempts to describe minutely the "chief-house" (teepan)
mentions it as containing great halls (council-rooms). See the
description of the teepan of Tezcuco by Ixtlilxochitl ("Hist. des
Chichimbuques," cap. XXXVI, p. 247)]
"Of those tracts whose products were exclusively applied to the
governmental needs of the pueblo or tribe itself (taken as an
independent unit) there were, as we have already seen, two
particular classes:
"The first was the 'teepan-tlalli,' land of the house of the
community, whose crops were applied to the sustenance of such as
employed themselves in the construction, ornamentation, and repairs
of the public house. Of these there were sometimes several within
the tribal area. They were tilled in common by special families who
resided on them, using the crops in compensation for the work they
performed on the official buildings.
"The second class was called 'tlatoca-tlalli,' land of the speakers.
Of these there was but one tract in each tribe, which was to be
'four hundred of their measures long on each side, each measure
being equal to three Castilian rods."
[Footnote: Ixtlilxochitl ("Hist. des Chichim," cap. XXXV, p. 242).
Vedia (Lib. III, cap. VI, p. 195). "This had to be four hundred of
their measures in square ('encuadro,' each side long), each one of
these being equal to three Castilian rods".... See "Art of War"
(p. 944, note 183). "The rod" (vara) is equal to 2.78209 feet
English (Guyot).]
The crops raised on such went exclusively to the requirements of the
household at the 'teepan,' comprising the head-chief and his family
with the assistants. The tract was worked in turn by the other
members of the tribe, and it remained always public ground, reserved
for the same purposes. [Footnote: Veytia (Lib. III, cap. VI, p. 195).
It is superfluous to revert to the erroneous impression that the
chiefs might dispose of it.]
Both of these kinds were often comprised in one, and it is even not
improbable that the first one may have been but a variety of the
general tribute-lands devoted to the benefit of the conquering
confederates. Still the evidence on this point is too indefinite to
warrant such an assumption.
While the crops raised on the 'teepan-tlalli,' as well as on the
'tlatoca-tlalli,' were consumed exclusively by the official houses
and households of the tribe, the soil itself which produced these
crops was neither claimed nor possessed by the chiefs themselves or
their descendants. It was simply, as far as its products were
concerned, official soil.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 7 relocated to chapter end.]
The establishing and maintaining of these areal subdivisions was
very simple with the tribes of the mainland, since they all
possessed ample territories for their wants and for the requirements
of their organizations. Their soil formed a contiguous unit. It was
not so, however, with the Mexicans proper. With all their industry
in adding artificial sod to the patch on which they had originally
settled, the solid surface was eventually much too small for their
numbers, and they themselves put an efficient stop to further growth
thereof by converting, as we have seen elsewhere, for the purpose of
defence, their marshy surroundings into water-sheets, through the
construction of extensive causeways. [Footnote: "Art of War" (pp.
150 and 151). L. H. Morgan ("Ancient Society," Part II, cap. VII, pp.
190 and 191)].
While the remnants of the original 'teepantlalli' and of the
'tlatocatlalli' still remained visible in the gardens, represented
to us as purely ornamental, which dotted the pueblo of Mexico, the
substantial elements wherewith to fulfill a purpose for which they
were no longer adequate had, in course of time, to be drawn from the
mainland. But it was not feasible, from the nature of tribal
condition, to extend thither by colonization. The soil was held
there by other tribes, whom the Mexicans might well overpower and
render tributary, but whom they could not incorporate, since the
kinships composing these tribes could not be fused with their own.
Outposts, however, were established on the shores, at the outlets of
the dykes, at Tepeyacac on the north, at Iztapalapan, Mexicaltzinco,
and at Huitzilopocheo to the south, but these were only military
positions, and beyond them the territory proper of the Mexicans
never extended.
[Footnote: Humboldt ("Essai politique sur la Nouvelle Espagne," Vol.
II, Lib. III, cap. VIII, p. 50): Nearly all the old authors describe
the pueblo buildings as surrounded by pleasure-grounds or ornamental
gardens. It is very striking that, the pueblo having been founded in
1325, and nearly a century having been spent in adding sufficient
artificial soil to the originally small solid expanse settled, the
Mexicans could have been ready so soon to establish purely
decorative parks within an area, every inch of which was valuable to
them for subsistence alone!]
[Footnote: The Mexican tribe proper clustered extensively within the
pueblo of Tenuchtitlan. The settlements at Iztapalapan,
Huntzilopocheo, and Mexicaltzinco were but military stations--
outworks, guarding the issues of the causeways to the South.
Tepeyacac (Guadalupe Hidalgo) was a similar position--unimportant as
to population--in the north. Chapultepec was a sacred spot, not
inhabited by any number of people and only held by the Mexicans for
burial purposes, and on account of the springs furnishing fresh
water to their pueblo.]
Tribute, therefore, had to furnish the means for sustaining their
governmental requirements in the matter of food, and the tribute
lands had to be distributed and divided, so as to correspond
minutely to the details of their home organization. For this reason
we see, after the overthrow of the Tecpanecas, lands assigned
apparently to the head war-chiefs, to the military chiefs of the
quarters, 'from which to derive some revenue for their maintenance
and that of their children.' [Footnote: Tezozomoc (Cap. XV, p. 24)1]
These tracts were but 'official tracts,' and they were apart from
those reserved for the special use of the kinships. The latter may
have furnished that general tribute which, although given nominally
to the head war-chief, still was 'for all the Mexicans in common.'
The various classes of lands which we have mentioned were, as far as
their tenure is concerned, included in the 'calpulalli' or lands of
the kinships. Since the kin, or 'calpulli,' was the unit of
governmental organization, it also was the unit of landed tenure.
Clavigero says: 'The lands called altepetlalli, that is, those who
belonged to the communities of the towns and villages, were divided
into as many parts as there were quarters in a town, and each
quarter held its own for itself, and without the least connection
with the rest. Such lands could in no manner be alienated.'
[Footnote: "Storia del Messico" (Lib. VII, cap. XVI).] These
'quarters' were the 'calpulli'; hence it follows that the
consanguine groups held the altepetlalli or soil of the tribe.
"We have, therefore, in Mexico the identical mode of the tenure of
lands which Polo de Ondogardo had noted in Peru and reported to the
King of Spain, as follows.... 'Although the crops and other produce
of these lands were devoted to the tribute, the land itself belonged
to the people themselves. Hence a thing will be apparent which has
not hitherto been properly understood. When any one wants land, it
is considered sufficient if it can be shown that it belonged to the
Inca or to the sun. But in this the Indians are treated with great
injustice; for in those days they paid the tribute, and the land was
theirs."
[Footnote: "Narratives of the Rites and Laws of the Yncas,
translated from the original Spanish manuscripts, and edited by
Clement R. Markham." Publication of the "Hackluyt Society," 1873.
"Report of Polo de Ondegardo," who was "Regidor" of Cuzco in 1560,
and a very important authority (see Prescott, "History of the
Conquest of Peru," note to Book I, cap. V). Confirmed by Garcia
("El Origen de los Indios," Lib. IV, cap, XVI, p. 162).] ...
"The expanse held and occupied by the calpulli, and therefore called
'calpulalli' was possessed by the kin in joint tenure. It could
neither be alienated nor sold; in fact, there is no trace of barter
or sale of land previous to the conquest."
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 8 relocated to chapter end.]
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 9 relocated to chapter end.]
If, however, any calpulli weakened, through loss of numbers from any
cause whatever, it might farm out its area to another similar group,
deriving subsistence from the rent.
[Footnote: Zurita (p. 93): "In case of need it was permitted to farm
out the lands of a calpulli to the inhabitants of another quarter."
Herrera (Dec. III, lib. IV, cap, XV, p. 134): "They could be rented
out to another lineage."]
If the kinship died out, and its lands therefore became vacant, then
they were either added to those of another whose share was not
adequate for its wants or they were distributed among all the
remaining calpulli.' [Footnote: Zurita (p. 52): "When a family dies
out, its lands revert to the calpulli, and the chief distributes
them among such members of the quarter as are most in need of it."]
The calpulli was a democratic organization. Its business lay in the
hands of elective chiefs--'old men' promoted to that dignity, as we
intend to prove in a subsequent paper, for their merits and
experience, and after severe religious ordeals. These chiefs formed
the council of the kin or quarter, but their authority was not
absolute, since on all important occasions a general meeting of the
kindred was convened. [Footnote: Zurita (pp. 60, 61, 62). Ramirez de
Fuenleal ("Letter," etc., Ternaux-Compaus, p. 249).]
The council in turn selected an executive, the 'calpullec' or
'chinancallec,' who in war officiated as 'achcacauhtin' or
'teachcauhtin' (elder brother).
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 10 relocated to chapter end.]
This office was for life or during good behavior. [Footnote: Zurita
(pp. 60 and 61). Herrera (Dec. III, Lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 125):
"I le elegian entre si y tenian por maior."]
It was one of his duties to keep a reckoning of the soil of the
calpulli, or 'calpulalli,' together with a record of its members,
and of the areas assigned to each family, and to note also whatever
changes occurred in their distribution.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 11 relocated to chapter end.]
Such changes, if unimportant, might be made by him; more important
ones, or contested cases, had to be referred to the council of the
kinship, which in turn often appealed to a gathering of the entire
quarter. [Footnote: Zurita "Rapport," etc., pp. 56 and 62. We quote
him in preference, since no other author known to us has been so
detailed.]
The 'calpulalli' was divided into lots or arable beds, 'tlalmilli'.
[Footnote: "Tlalmilli: tierras, a heredades de particulares, que
estan juntas en alguna vega" (Molina, Part IIa, p. 124).] These were
assigned each to one of the married males of the kinship, to be
worked by him for his use and that of his family. If one of these
lots remained unimproved for the term of two consecutive years, it
fell back to the quarter for redistribution. The same occurred if
the family enjoying its possession removed from the calpulli. But it
does not appear that the cultivation had always to be performed by
the holders of the tract themselves. The fact of improvement under
the name of a certain tenant was only required to insure this
tenant's rights.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 12 relocated to chapter end.]
Therefore the chiefs and their families, although they could not,
from the nature of their duties, till the land themselves, still
could remain entitled to their share of 'tlalmilpa' as members of
the calpulli. Such tracts were cultivated by others for their use.
They were called by the specific name of 'pillali' (lands of the
chiefs or of the children, from 'piltontli,' boy, or 'piltzintli',
child), and those who cultivated them carried the appellation of
'tlalmaitl'--hands of the soil.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 13 relocated to chapter end.]
The 'tlalmilpa,' whether held by chiefs or by ordinary members of
the kin ('macehuales'), were, therefore, the only tracts of land
possessed for use by individuals in ancient Mexico. They were so far
distinguished from the 'tecpantlalli' and 'tlatocatlalli' in their
mode of tenure as, whereas the latter two were dependent from a
certain office, the incumbent of which changed at each election, the
'tlalmilli' was assigned to a certain family, and its possession,
therefore, connected with customs of inheritance.
Being thus led to investigate the customs of Inheritance of the
ancient Mexicans, we have to premise here, that the personal effects
of a deceased can be but slightly considered. The rule was, in
general, that whatever a man held descended to his offspring.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 14 relocated to chapter end.]
Among most of the northern Indians a large cluster participated.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 15 relocated to chapter end.]
In conformity with the organization of society based upon kin, when
in the first stage of its development, the kindred group inherited,
and the common ancestor of this kin being considered a female, it
follows that if a man died, not his children, still less his wife,
but his mother's descendants, that is, his brothers, sisters, in
fact the entire consanguine relationship from which he derived on
his mother's side, were his heirs. [Footnote: "Ancient Society"
(Part II, cap. II, p. 75; Part IV, cap. I, pp. 528, 530, 531, 536,
and 537).] Such may have been the case even among the Muysca of New
Granada.
[Footnote: Gomara ("Historia de las Indios," Vedia I, p. 201).
Garcia ("Origen de los Indios," Lib. IV, cap. 23, p. 247).
Piedrahita (Parte 1, Lib. I, cap. 5, p. 27). Joaquin Acosta
("Compredio historico del Descumbrimiento y Colonisazion de la
Nueva-Granada," Cap. XI, p. 201). Ternaux-Compans ("L'ancien
Cundinamarca," pp. 21 and 38).]
It was different, however, in Mexico, where we meet with traces of a
decided progress. Not only had descent been changed to the male line,
[Footnote: Motolinia (Trat. II, cap. V, p. 120). Gomara (p. 434).
Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap XIII). Zurita (pp. 12 and 43).] but
heirship was limited, to the exclusion of the kin and of the agnates
themselves, to the children of the male sex.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 16 relocated to chapter end.]
Whatever personal effects a father left, which were not offered up
in sacrifice at the ceremonies of his funeral, they were distributed
among his male offsprings, and if there were none, they went to his
brothers. Females held nothing whatever, beyond their wearing
apparel and some few ornaments for personal use.
[Footnote: Motolinia (Trat. II, cap. V, p. 120). Torquemada (Lib.
XIII, cap. XLII to XLVIII, pp. 515 to 529). Acosta (Lib. V, cap. VIII,
pp. 320, 321, and 322). Gomara (pp. 436 and 437, Vedra, I). Mendieta
(Lib. II, cap. XL, pp. 162 and 163). Clavigero (Lib. VI, cap. XXXIX).
"They burnt the clothes, arrows, and a portion of household
utensils ... "]
The 'tlalmilli' itself, at the demise of a father, went to his
oldest son, with the obligation to improve it for the benefit of the
entire family until the other children had been disposed of by
marriage.
[Footnote: Gomara ("Conq. de Mejico", p. 434): "It is customary
among tributary classes that the oldest son shall inherit the
father's property, real and personal, and shall maintain and support
all the brothers and nephews, provided they do what he commands
them. The reason why they do not partition the estates is in order
not to decrease it through such a partition...." Simancas M. S. S.
("Recueil," etc., etc., p. 224): "Relative to the calpulalli ... the
sons mostly inherited."]
But the other males could apply to the chief of the calpulli for a
'tlalmilli' of their own; the females went with their husbands.
Single blessedness, among the Mexicans, appears to have occurred
only in case of religious vows, and in which case they fell back for
subsistence upon the part allotted to worship, or in case of great
infirmities, for which the calpulli provided.
[Footnote: Zurita (p. 55): "He who has no land applies to the chief
of the tribe (calpulli), who, upon the advice of the other old men,
assigns to him a tract suitable for his wants, and corresponding to
his abilities and to his strength." Herrera (Dec. III, Lib. IV, cap.
XV, p. 135).]
[Footnote: Such unmarried females were the "nuns" frequently
mentioned by the old writers. We shall have occasion to investigate
the point in our paper on "The ancient Mexican priesthood." As
attendants to worship, they participated in the tributes furnished
towards it by each calpulli, of which we have spoken.]
No mention is made of the widow participating in the products of the
'tlalmilli,' still it is presumable that she was one of those whom
the oldest son had to support. There are indications that the widow
could remarry, in which case her husband, of course, provided for her.
"The customs of Inheritance, as above reported, were the same with
chiefs as well as with the ordinary members of the tribe. Of the
personal effects very little remained, since the higher the office
was which the deceased had held, the more display was made at his
cremation, and consequently the more of his dresses, weapons, and
ornaments were burnt with the body. Of lands, the chiefs only held
each their 'tlalmilli' in the usual way, as members of their kin,
whereas the other 'official' lots went to the new incumbents of the
offices. It should always be borne in mind that none of these
offices were hereditary themselves. Still, a certain 'right of
succession' is generally admitted as having existed. Thus, with the
Tezcucans, the office of head war-chief might pass from father to son,
at Mexico from brother to brother, and from uncle to nephew."
[Footnote: Zurita (p. 12). Gomara (Vedia I, p. 434). Torquemada
(Lib. IX, cap. IV, p. 177; Lib. XI, cap. 27, p. 356, etc. etc.).]
[Footnote: This fact is too amply proven to need special references.
We reserve it for final discussion in our proposed paper on the
chiefs of the Mexicans, and the duties, powers and functions of
their office.]
This might, eventually, have tended to perpetuate the office in the
family, and with it also the possession of certain lands, attached
to that officer's functions and duties. But it is quite certain too
that this stage of development had not yet been reached by any of
the tribes of Mexico at the time of its conquest by the Spaniards.
The principal idea had not yet been developed, namely, that of the
domain, which, in eastern countries at least, gradually segregated
into individually hereditary tenures and ownerships.
"Out of the scanty remains thus left of certain features of
aboriginal life in ancient Mexico, as well as out of the conflicting
statements about that country's early history, we have now attempted
to reconstruct the conceptions of the Mexican aborigines about
tenure of lands, as well as their manner of distribution thereof.
Our inquiries seem to justify the following conclusions:
"1. The notion of abstract ownership of the soil, either by a nation
or state, or by the head of its government, or by individuals, was
unknown to the ancient Mexicans.
"2. Definite possessory right was vested in the kinships composing
the tribe; but the idea of sale, barter, or conveyance or alienation
of such by the kin had not been conceived.
"3. Individuals, whatever might be their position or office, without
any exception, held but the right to use certain defined lots for
their sustenance, which right, although hereditary in the male line,
was nevertheless limited to the conditions of residence within the
area held by the kin, and of cultivation either by or in the name of
him to whom the said lots were assigned.
"4. No possessory rights to land were attached to any office or
chieftaincy. As members of a kin, each chief had the use of a
certain lot, which he could rent or farm to others, for his benefit.
"5. For the requirements of tribal business, and of the governmental
features of the kinships (public hospitality included), certain
tracts were set apart as official lands, out of which the official
households were supplied and sustained; but these lands and their
products were totally independent from the persons or families of
the chiefs themselves.
"6. Conquest of any tribe by the Mexicans was not followed by an
annexation of that tribe's territory, nor by an apportionment of its
soil among the conquerors. Tribute was exacted, and, for the purpose
of raising that tribute (in part), special tracts were set off; the
crops of which were gathered for the storehouses of Mexico.
"7. Consequently, as our previous investigations (of the warlike
institutions and customs of the ancient Mexicans) have disproved the
generally received notion of a military despotism prevailing among
them, so the results of his review of Tenure and distribution of
lands tend to establish 'that the principle and institution of
feudality did not exist in aboriginal Mexico.'"
Among the Peruvians their land system was probably much the same as
among the ancient Mexicans. But according to Garcilapo de la Vega,
they had carried their system with respect to lands a little farther.
Their lands, he remarks, were "divided into three parts and applied
to different uses. The first was for the Sun, his priests and
ministers; the second was for the King, and for the support and
maintenance of his governors and officers.... And the third was for
the natives and sojourners of the provinces, which was divided
equally according to the needs which each family required."
[Footnote: Royal Commentaries of Peru, Lond. ed., 1688. Rycaut,
trans., p. 154.]
While these several statements may not present the exact case in all
respects in Peru, Mexico, or among the Northern Indian tribes, they
sufficiently indicate the ownership of land by communities of persons,
larger or smaller, with a system of tillage that points to large
households. Neither the Peruvians, nor the Aztecs, nor any Indian
tribe had attained to a knowledge of the ownership of land in
severalty in fee simple at the period of their discovery. This
knowledge belongs to the period of civilization. There is not the
slightest probability that any Indian, whether Iroquois, Mexican, or
Peruvian, owned a foot of land that he could call his own, with
power to sell and convey the same in fee simple to whomsoever he
pleased.
THE CUSTOM OF HAVING BUT ONE PREPARED MEAL EACH DAY--A DINNER--AND
THEIR SEPARATION AT MEALS, THE MEN EATING FIRST AND THE WOMEN AND
CHILDREN AFTERWARDS.
This was the usage among the Indian tribes in the Lower Status of
barbarism. In the Middle Status there seems to have been more method
and regularity of life, but no change in their customs with respect
to food, so marked in character that we are forced to recognize a
new plan of domestic life among them. The Iroquois had but one
cooked meal each day. It was as much as their resources and
organization for housekeeping could furnish, and was as much as they
needed. It was prepared and served usually before the noon-day hour,
ten or eleven o'clock, and may be called a dinner. At this time the
principal cooking for the day was done. After its division at the
kettle, among the members of the household, it was served warm to
each person in earthen or wooden bowls. They had neither tables, nor
chairs, nor plates, in our sense, nor any room in the nature of a
kitchen or a dining room, but ate each by himself, sitting or
standing, and where most convenient to the person. They also
separated as to the time of eating, the men eating first and by
themselves, and the women and children afterwards and by themselves.
That which remained was reserved for any member of the household
when hungry. Towards evening the women cooked hominy, the maize
having been pounded into bits the size of a kernel of rice, which
was boiled and put aside to be used cold as a lunch in the morning
or evening, and for the entertainment of visitors. They had neither
a formal breakfast nor a supper. Each person, when hungry, ate of
whatever food the house contained. They were moderate eaters. This
is a fair picture of Indian life in general in America, when
discovered. After intercourse commenced with whites, the Iroquois
gradually began to adopt our mode of life but very slowly. One of
the difficulties was to change the old usage and accustom themselves
to eat together. It came in by degrees, first with the breaking up
of the old plan of living together in numbers in the old long-houses,
and with the substitution of single houses for each family, which
ended communism and living in the large household, and substituted
the subsistence of a single family through individual effort. After
many years came the use of the table and chairs among the more
advanced families of the Iroquois tribes. There are still upon the
Iroquois reservations in this State many log homes or cabins with
but a single room on the ground floor and a loft above, with neither
a table or chair in their scanty furniture. A portion of them still
live very much in the old style, with perhaps two regular meals
daily instead of one. That they have made this much of change in the
course of two centuries must be accounted remarkable, for they have
been compelled, so to speak, to jump one entire ethnical period,
without the experience or training of so many intervening generations,
and without the brain-growth such a change of the plan of domestic
life implies, when reached through natural individual experience.
There is a tradition still current among the Seneca-Iroquois, if the
memory of so recent an occurrence may be called traditional, that
when the proposition that man and wife should eat together, which
was so contrary to immemorial usage, was first determined in the
affirmative, it was formally agreed that man and wife should sit
down together at the same dish and eat with the same ladle, the man
eating first and then the woman, and so alternately until the meal
was finished.
The testimony of such writers as have noticed the house-life of the
Indian tribes is not uniform in respect to the number of meals a day.
Thus Catlin remarks, "As I have before observed these men (the
Mandans) generally eat but twice a day, and many times not more than
once, and these meals are light and simple.... The North American
Indians, taking them in the aggregate, even when they have an
abundance to subsist on, eat less than any civilized population of
equal numbers that I have ever traveled among." [Footnote: North
American Indians, Philadelphia ed., 1857, i, 203.]
And Heckewelder, speaking of the Delawares and other tribes, says:
"They commonly make two meals every day, which they say is enough.
If any one should feel hungry between meal-times, there is generally
something in the house ready for him."
[Footnote: Indian Nations, 193.] Adair contents himself with stating
of the Chocta and Cherokee tribes that "they have no stated meal time."
[Footnote: History of the American Indian, Lond. ed., 1775, p. 17.]
There was doubtless some variation in different localities, and even
in the same household; but as a general rule, from what is known of
their mode of life, one prepared meal each day expresses very nearly
all the people in this condition of society can do for the
sustenance of mankind.
Although the sedentary Village Indians were one ethnical period in
advance of the Northern Indians, there can be but little doubt that
their mode of life in this respect was substantially the same. Among
the Aztecs or ancient Mexicans a dinner was provided about midday,
but we have no satisfactory account of a breakfast or a supper
habitually and regularly prepared. Civilization, with its
diversified industries, its multiplied products, and its monogamian
family, affords a breakfast and supper in addition to a dinner. It
is doubtful whether they are older than civilization; and even if
they can be definitely traced backward into the older period of
barbarism, there is little probability of their being found in the
Middle period. Clavigero attempts to invest the Aztecs with a
breakfast, but he was unable to find any evidence of a supper.
"After a few hours of labor in the morning," he observes, "they took
their breakfast, which was most commonly atolli, a gruel of maize,
and their dinner after midday; but among all the historians we can
find no mention of their supper." [Footnote: History of Mexico, ii,
262.]
The "gruel of maize" here mentioned as forming usually the Aztec
breakfast suggests the "hominy of the Iroquois," which, like it, was
not unlikely kept constantly prepared in every Mexican house as a
lunch for the hungry. Two meals each day are mentioned by other
Spanish authors, but as the Aztecs, as well as the tribes in Yucatan
and Central America, were ignorant of the use of tables and chairs
in eating their food, divided their food from the kettle, placing
the dinner of each person usually in a separate bowl, and separated
at their meals, the men eating first and by themselves, and the
women and children afterwards, this similarity of usage renders it
probable they were not far removed from the Iroquois in respect to
the time and manner of taking their food. Montezuma's dinner,
witnessed by Bernal-Diaz and others, and elaborately described by a
number of authors, shows that the Aztecs had a smoking hot dinner
each day, prepared regularly, and on a scale adequate to a large
household; that the dinner of each person was placed in one bowl,
and all these bowls to the number of several hundred were brought in
and set down together upon the floor of one room, where they were
taken up one by one by the male members of the household, and the
contents eaten sitting down upon the floor or standing in the open
court, as best suited them. The breakfast that preceded it, and the
supper that follows, are not mentioned, from which we infer that
there was neither a breakfast nor a supper for these inquisitive
observers to see. Neither is the subsequent dinner of the women and
children of the household mentioned, from which it may be inferred
that as the men ate their dinner first in a particular hall by
themselves, the women and children took their dinner later in
another hall, not seen by the Spaniards.
In the accounts of Montezuma's dinner a cook-house or kitchen is
mentioned, in which the dinner for the large household of the
"Tecpan" or "official house," so fully explained above by Mr.
Bandelier, was prepared. This kitchen, and the use of another room,
where the bowls containing the dinner of each person separately were
set down on the floor in a mass by themselves--an incipient
dining-room--make their first appearance in the Middle Status of
barbarism. But, as will be noticed, they are but rude realizations
of the kitchen and dining-room of civilized man. The pueblo houses
in Yucatan and Chiapas, now in ruins, are without chimneys, from
which it may be inferred that no cooking was done within them. At
Uxmal we recognize in the Governor's House, the Tecpan or
official-house, and in the House of the Nuns, and other structures
which formed the pueblo, the joint-tenement houses in which the body
of the tribe resided. If the truth of the matter is ever ascertained,
it will probably be found that the dinner for each household group,
consisting of several families, was prepared in a common cook-house
outside of the main structure, and that it was divided at the kettle
to the individuals of each household.
The separation of the sexes at their meals has been sufficiently
referred to among the Iroquois. Robertson states the usage as general.
"They must approach their lords with reverence; they must regard
them as more exalted beings, and are not permitted to eat in their
presence." [Footnote: History of America, New York ed., 1856, 178.]
Catlin the same: "These women, however, although graceful and civil,
and ever so beautiful, or ever so hungry, are not allowed to sit in
the same group with the men while at their meals. So far as I have
yet traveled in the Indian country, I have never seen an Indian
woman eating with her husband. Men form the first group at the
banquet, and women and children and dogs all come together at the
next." [Footnote: North American Indians, i, 202.] And Adair
"for the men feast by themselves and the women eat the remains."
[Footnote: History of the American Indians, p. 140.]
Herrera remarks that "the woman of Yucatan are rather larger than
the Spanish and generally have good faces ... but they would
formerly be drunk at their festivals, though they did eat apart."
[Footnote: History of America, iv, 175.] And Sahagun, speaking
of the ceremony of baptism among the Aztecs, observes that "to
the women, who ate apart, they did not give cacao to drink."
[Footnote: Historia General, lib. iv, 36]
With these general references to the universality of the practice on
the part of the men of eating first, and leaving the women and
children to come afterwards, according to the manners of barbarism,
we leave the subject.
[Relocated Footnote 1: Torquemada (Lib. II, cap. LXVIII, p. 194)
"Estaba de ordinario, recogido en una grande Sala (el calpul)."
(Lib. III, cap. XXVII, p. 305. Lib. IV, cap. XIX, p. 396) (que asi
llaman las Salas grandes de Comunidad, o de Cabildo). We find, under
the corrupted name of "galpon," the "calpulli" in Nicaragua among
the Niquirans, which speak a dialect of the Mexican (Nahuatl)
language. See E. G. Squier ("Nicaragua," Vol. II, p. 342). "The
council-houses were called grepons, surrounded by broad corridors
called galpons, beneath which the arms were kept, protected by
a guard of young men". Mr. Squier evidently bases upon Oviedo
("Hist. general," Lib. XLII, cap. III, p. 52). "Esta casa de cabildo
llaman galpon...." It is another evidence in favor of our statements,
that the kinship formed the original unit of the tribe, and at the
same time a hint that, as in New Mexico, originally, an entire kin
inhabited a single large house. See Molina's Vocab. (p. 11).]
[Relocated Footnote 2: There is no evidence of any tribute or
prestation due by the quarters to the tribe. The custom always
remained, that the "calpulli" was sovereign within its limits. See
Alonzo de Zunta ("Rapport sur les differentes classes de chefs
de la Nouvelle-Espagne," pp. 51-65). Besides, Ixtlilxochitl says:
("Hist. des Chichim," cap. XXXV, p. 242), "Other fields were called
Calpolalli or Altepetlalli." Now calpulalli (from "calpulli,"
quarter or kinship, and "tlalli," soil), means soil of the kin,
and altepetalli ("altepetl," tribe), soil of the tribe. Clavigero
even says that the lands called "altepetlalli," belonging to the
communities "of the towns and villages, were divided into so many
parts as there were quarters in the town, each quarter having its own,
without the least connection with the other." (Lib. VII, cap. XIV.)
This indicates plainly that the kinships held the soil, whereas the
tribe occupied the territorial expanse. The domain, either as
pertaining to a "lord," or to a "state", was unknown among the
Indians in general. Even among the Peruvians, who were more advanced
than the Mexicans in that respect, there was no domain of the tribe.]
[Relocated Footnote 3: See Torquemada (Lib. II, cap. XI, and Lib. III,
cap. XXII). Duran (cap. V). The quotation is from Herrera (Dec. II,
Lib. VII, cap. XIII, p. 190), and is confirmed by Torquemada (Lib.
III, cap. XXIII, p. 291), and especially by Gomara ("Conquista de
Mejico," p. 443. Vedia, I.) "Many married people ('muchos casados')
live in one house, either on account of the brothers and relations
being together, as they do not divide their grounds ('heredades'),
or on account of the limited space of the pueblos; although the
pueblos are large, and even the houses." Peter Martyr of Angleria
("De Novo Orbe," translated by Richard Eden and Michael Lok, London,
1612, Dec. V, cap. X, p. 228), says: "But the common houses
themselves as high as a mannes Girdle, were also built of stone, by
reason of the swelling of the lake through the flood, or washing
float of the Ryvers falling into it. Upon those greate foundations,
they builded the reste of the house, with Bricke dryed, or burned in
the sunne, intermingled with Beames of Tymber, and the common houses
have but one floore or planchin." We are forcibly reminded here
of the houses of Itza on Lake Peten, which were found in 1695.
("Hist. de la Conq. de los Itzaex," Lib. VIII, cap. XII, p. 494.)
"It was all filled with houses, some with stone walls more than one
rod high, and higher up of wood, and the roofs of straw, and some
only of wood and straw. There lived in them all the Inhabitants of
the Island brutally together, one relationship occupying a single
house." See also the highly valuable Introduction to the second
Dialogue of Cervantes-Salazar ("Mexico in 1554") by my excellent
friend Sr. Icazbalceta (pp. 73 and 74).]
[Relocated Footnote 4: This successive formation of new "calpulli" is
nowhere explicitly stated, but it is implied by the passage of Duran
which we have already quoted (Cap. V, p. 42). It also results from
their military organization as described in the "Art of War" (p. 115).
With the increase of population, the original kinships necessarily
disaggregated further, as we have seen it to have occurred among the
Quiche (see "Popul-Vuh," quoted in our note 7), forming smaller
groups of consanguinei. After the successful war against the
Tecpanecas, of which we shall speak hereafter, we find at least
twenty chiefs, representing as many kins (Duran, cap. XI, p. 97),
besides three more, adopted then from those of Culhuscan (Id., pp.
98 and 99). This indicates an increase.]
[Relocated Footnote 5: Torquemada (Lib. III, cap. XXIV, p. 295):
"I confess it to be truth that this city of Mexico is divided into
four principal quarters, each one of which contains others, smaller
ones, included, and all, in common as well as in particular, have
their commanders and leaders...." Zurita ("Rapport," p. 58-64).
That the smaller subdivisions were those who held the soil, and not
the four original groups, must be inferred from the fact that the
ground was attached to the calpulli. Says Zurita (p. 51), "They
(the lands) do not belong to each inhabitant of the village, but to
the calpulli, which possesses them in common." On the other hand,
Torquemada states (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545), "That in each pueblo,
according to the number of people, there should be (were) clusters
('parcialidades') of diverse people and families.... These clusters
were distributed by calpules, which are quarters ('barrios'), and it
happened that one of the aforesaid clusters sometimes contained three,
four, and more calpules, according to the population of the place
('pueblo') or tribe." The same author further affirms: "These
quarters and streets were all assorted and leveled with so much
accuracy that those of one quarter or street could not take a palm
of land from those of another, and the same was with the streets,
their lots running (being scattered) all over the pueblo."
Consequently there were no communal lands allotted to the four great
quarters of Mexico as such, but each one of the kinships (calpules)
held its part of the original aggregate. Compare Gomara (Vedia, Vol.
I, "Conq. de Mejico," p. 434: "Among tributaries it is a custom, etc.,
etc." Also p. 440). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. XIV): "Each quarter
has its own tract, without the least connection with the others."]
[Relocated Footnote 6: Compare Duran (Cap XI, p. 87). Acosta (Lib.
VII, cap, XXXI, p. 470). It appears as if the "teepan" had not been
constructed previous to the middle of the 14th century, the meetings
of the tribe being previously called together by priests, and
probably in the open space around the main house of worship. The
fact of the priests calling the public meetings is proved by Duran
(Cap. IV, p. 42). Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. VII, p. 468). Veytia
(Lib. II, cap. XVIII, pp. 156,159. Cap. XXI, p. 186). Acosta first
mentions "unos palacios, aunque harto pobres." (Lib. VII, cap. 8,
p. 470), on the occasion of the election of the first regular
"tlacatecuhtli:" Acamapichtli--Torquemada says (Lib. XII, cap. XXII,
p. 290) that they lived in miserable huts of reeds and straw,
erected around the open space where the altar or place of worship
of Huitzilopochtli was built. The public building was certainly
their latest kind of construction.]
[Relocated Footnote 7: "Patronomial Estates" are mentioned
frequently, but the point is, where are they to be found?
Neither the "teepan-tlalli" nor the "tlatoca-tlalli," still
less the "calpulalli," show any trace of individual ownership.
"Eredad" (heirloom) is called indiscriminately "milli" and
"cuemitl" (Molina, Parte Ia, p. 57). The latter is also rendered
as "tierra labrada, o camellon" (Molina, Parte IIa, p. 26). It
thus reminds us of the "chinamitl" or garden-bed (as the name
"camellon" also implies), and reduces it to the proportion of
an ordinary cultivated lot among the others contained within the
area of the calpulli. It is also called "tlalli," but that is
the general name for soil or ground. "Tierras o eredades de
particulares, juntas an alguna vega," is called "tlalmilli".
This decomposes into "tlalli" soil and "milli." But "vega"
signifies a fertile tract or field, and thus we have again
the conception of communal lands, divided into lots improved by
particular families, as the idea of communal tenure necessarily
implies.]
[Relocated Footnote 8: Zurita ("Rapport," etc., etc., p. 50):
"The chiefs of the second class are yet called calpullec in the
singular and chinancallec in the plural." (This is evidently
incorrect, since the words 'calpulli' and 'chinancalli' can easily
be distinguished from each other.) "'Chinancalli', however after
Molina means 'cercado de seto' (Parte IIa, p. 21), or an inclosed
area, and if we connect it with the old original 'chinamitl' we are
forcibly carried back to the early times, when the Mexicans but
dwelt on a few flakes of more or less solid ground. This is an
additional evidence in favor of the views we have taken of the
growth of landed tenure among the Mexican tribe. We must never
forget that the term is 'Nahuatl,' and as such recognized by all the
other tribes, outside of the Mexicans proper. The interpretation as
'family' in the Quiche tongue of Guatemala, which we have already
mentioned, turns up here as of further importance; that is: chiefs
of an old race or family, from the word calpulli or chinancalli,
which is the same, and signifies a quarter (barrio), inhabited by a
family known, or of old origin, which possesses since long time a
territory whose limits are known, and whose members are of the same
lineage."
"The calpullis, families or quarters, are very common in each
province. Among the lands which were given to the chefs of the
second class there were also calpullis. These lands are the property
of the people in general ('de la masse du peuple') from the time the
Indians reached this land. Each family or tribe received a portion
of the soil for perpetual enjoyment. They also had the name of
calpulli, and until now this property has been respected. They do
not belong to each inhabitant of the village in particular, but to
the calpulli, which possesses them in common." Don Ramirez de
Fuenleal, letter dated Mexico, 3 Nov., 1532 ("Recueil de pieces,"
etc, Ternaux-Compans, p. 253): "There are very few people in the
villages which have lands of their own ... the lands are held in
common and cultivated in common." Herrera (Dec. III, Lib. IV, cap. XV,
p. 135) confirms, in a condensed form, the statement of Zurita,
"and they are not private lands of each one, but held in common."
Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545.) Veytia (Lib. III, cap. VI,
p. 196). "Finally, there were other tracts of lands in each tribe,
called calpulalli, which is land of the calpules (barrios), which
also were worked in common." Oviedo (Lib. XXXII, cap. LI, pp. 536 and
537). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. XIV). Bustamante ("Tezcoco," etc.,
Parte IIIa, cap. V. p. 232).]
[Relocated Footnote 9: Zurita (p. 52): "He who obtained them from the
sovereign has not the right to dispose of them." Herrera (Dec. III,
Lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 135): "He who possessed them could not alienate
them, although he enjoyed their use for his lifetime." Torquemada
(Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545): "Disputes about lands are frequently
mentioned, but they refer to the enjoyment and possession, and not
the transfer of the land." Baron Humboldt ("Unes des Cordilleres et
monuments indigenes des peuples de l'Amerique", Vol. I, Tab. V)
reproduces a Mexican painting representing a litigation about land.
But this painting was made subsequent to the Conquest, as the fact
that the parties contending are Indians and Spaniards sufficiently
asserts. Occasional mention is made that certain lands "could be sold."
All such tracts, however, like the "pallali", have been shown by us
to be held in communal tenure of the soil, there enjoyment alone
being given to individuals and their families.]
[Relocated Footnote 10: Zurita (p. 60): "The calpulli have a chief
taken necessarily from among the tribe; he must be one of the
principal inhabitants, an able man who can assist and defend the
people. The election takes place among them.... The office of this
chief is not hereditary; when any one dies, they elect in his place
the most respected old man.... If the deceased has left a son who is
able the choice falls upon him, and a relative of the former
incumbent is always preferred." (Id., pp. 50 and 222). Simancas
M. S. S. ("De l'ordre de succession," etc., "Recucil," p. 225): As
to the mode of regulating the jurisdiction and election of the
alcaldes and regidors of the villages, "they nominated men of note
who had the title of achcatanlitin.... There were no other elections
of officers...." ('Art of War,' etc. pp. 119 and 120).]
[Relocated Footnote 11: Zurita (pp. 61 and 62): "This chief has
charge of the lands of the calpulli. It is his duty to defend their
possession. He keeps paintings showing the tracts, the names of
their holders, the situation, the limits, the number of men tilling
them, the wealth of private individuals, the designations of each as
are vacant, of others that belong to the Spaniards, the date of
donation, to whom and by whom they were given. These paintings he
constantly renews, according to the changes occurring, and in this
they are very skillful." It is singular that Motolinia, in his
"Epistola proemial" ("Col. de Doc."; Icazbalceta, Vol. I, p. 5),
among the five "books of paintings" which he says the Mexicans had,
makes no mention of the above. Neither does he notice it in his
letter dated Cholala, 27 Aug., 1554 ("Recueil de pieces," etc.,
Teruaux-Compans).]
[Relocated Footnote 12: Each family, represented by its male head,
obtained a certain tract or lot for cultivation and use, Zurita
(p. 55). "The party (member of the calpulli, because no member of
another one had the right to settle within the area of it--see Id.,
p. 53), who has no lands applies to the chief of the calpulli, who,
upon the advice of the other old men, assigns to him such as
corresponds to his ability and wants. These lands go to his
heirs...." (id., p. 56). "The proprietor who did not cultivate
during two years, either through his own fault or through
negligence, without just cause ... he was called upon to improve
them, and if he failed to do so they were given to another the
following year." Bustamante (Tezcoco, etc., Parte IIIa, p. 190,
cap I): "The fact that any holder of a 'tlalmilli' might rent out
his share, if he himself was occupied in a line precluding him from
actual work on it, results from the lands of the 'calpulli' being
represented alternately treated as communal and again as private
lands. Besides, it is said of the traders who, from the nature of
their occupation, were mostly absent, that they were also members
and participants of a 'calpulli'" (Zurita, p. 223. Sahagun, Lib.
VIII, cap. III, p. 349). Now, as every Mexican belonged to a kinship,
which held lands after the plan exposed above, it follows that such
as were not able to work themselves, on account of their performing
other duties subservient to the interests of the community still
preserved their tracts by having others to work them for their
benefit. It was not the right of tenancy which authorizes the
improvement, but the fact of improvement for a certain purpose and
benefit, which secured the possession or tenancy.]
[Relocated Footnote 13: From "tlalli" soil, and "maitl" hand. Hands
of the soil. Molma (Parte IIa, p. 124) has: "tlalmaitl"--"labrador, y
ganyan." This name is given in distinction of the "macehuales" or
people working the soil in general. The tlalmaites are identical
with the "mayeques." (See Zurita, p. 224): "tlalmaites or mayeques,
which signifies tillers of the soil of others...." He distinguishes
them plainly from the 'teccallec,' which are the 'tecpanpouhque' or
"tecpantlaca" formerly mentioned as attending to a class official
lands (p. 221, Zurita). Herrera (Dec. III, Lib. IV, cap. XVII, p. 138):
"These mayeques could not go from one tract to another, neither
leave those which they cultivated, and raised. They paid tribute to
nobody else but the master of the land." This tends to show that
there existed not an established obligation, a serfdom, but a
voluntary contract, that the "tlalmaites" were not serfs, but simply
renters.]
[Relocated Footnote 14: Motolinia (Tratado II, cap. V, p. 120):
"But they left their houses and lands to their children" ... Gomara
(p. 434): "Es costumbre de pecheros que el hijo mayor herede al
padre en toda la hacienda raiz y mueble, y que tenga y mantenga
todos los hermanos y sobrinos, con tal que haganellos lo que el les
mandare." Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. XIII): "In Mexico, and nearly
the entire realm, the royal family excepted as already told, the
sons succeeded to the father's rights; and if there were no sons,
then the brothers, and the brothers' sons inherited." Bustamante
("Tezcoco," etc., p. 219): In all these cases, Bustamante only
speaks of chiefs; but the quotations from Motolinia and Gomara
directly apply to the people in general.]
[Relocated Footnote 15: Mr. L. H. Morgan has investigated the custom
of inheritance, not only among the northern Indians, but also among
the pueblo Indians of New Mexico. He establishes the fact, that the
"kinship" or "gens," which we may justly consider as the unit of
organization in American aboriginal society, participated in the
property of the deceased. He proves it among the Iroquois ("Ancient
Society," Part II, cap. II, pp. 75 and 76). Wyandottes, Id., cap. VII,
p. 153. Missouri-tribes, p. 155. Winnebagoes, p 157. Mandans, p 158.
Minnitarees, p. 159. Creeks, p. 161. Choctas, p. 162. Chickasas, p.
163. Ojibwas, p. 167; also Potowattomies and Crees, Miamis, p. 168.
Shawnees, p. 169. Sauks, Foxes and Menominies, p. 170. Delawares, p.
172. Munsees and Mohegans, p. 173. Finally, the pueblo Indians of
New Mexico are shown to have, if not the identical at least a
similar mode of inheritance. It would be easy to secure further
evidence, from South America also.]
[Relocated Footnote 16: Letter of Motolinia and Diego d'Olarte, to
Don Luis de Velasco, Cholula, 27 Aug., 1554 ("Recueil," etc., etc., p.
407): "The daughters did not inherit; it was the principal, wife's
son" ... "Besides, nearly every author designates but a son, or sons,
as the heirs. There is no mention made of daughters at all. In
Tlaxcallan, it is also expressly mentioned that the daughters did
not inherit" (Torquemada, Lib. XI, cap. XXII, p. 348). In general,
the position of woman in ancient Mexico was a very inferior one, and
but little above that which it occupies among Indians in general.
(Compare the description of Gomara, p. 440, Vedia I, with those of
Sahagun. Lib. X, cap. I, p. 1; cap. XIII, pp. 30, 31, 32, and 33.
The fact is generally conceded). H. H. Bancroft "Native Races," Vol.
II, cap. VI, p. 224, etc.]