THE AZTEC CONFEDERACY.
MISCONCEPTION OF AZTEC SOCIETY.—CONDITION OF
ADVANCEMENT.—NAHUATLAC TRIBES.—THEIR SETTLEMENT IN
MEXICO.—PUEBLO OF MEXICO FOUNDED, A. D., 1325.—AZTEC
CONFEDERACY ESTABLISHED, A. D., 1426.—EXTENT OF TERRITORIAL
DOMINATION.—PROBABLE NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE.—WHETHER OR NOT
THE AZTECS WERE ORGANIZED IN GENTES AND PHRATRIES.—THE
COUNCIL OF CHIEFS.—ITS PROBABLE FUNCTIONS.—OFFICE
HELD BY MONTEZUMA.—ELECTIVE IN TENURE.—DEPOSITION OF
MONTEZUMA.—PROBABLE FUNCTIONS OF THE OFFICE.—AZTEC
INSTITUTIONS ESSENTIALLY DEMOCRATICAL—THE GOVERNMENT A
MILITARY DEMOCRACY.
The Spanish adventurers, who captured the Pueblo of Mexico, adopted the
erroneous theory that the Aztec government was a monarchy, analogous in
essential respects to existing monarchies in Europe. This opinion was
adopted generally by the early Spanish writers, without investigating
minutely the structure and principles of the Aztec social system. A
terminology not in agreement with their institutions came in with
this misconception which has vitiated the historical narrative nearly
as completely as though it were, in the main, a studied fabrication.
With the capture of the only stronghold the Aztecs possessed, their
governmental fabric was destroyed, Spanish rule was substituted in its
place, and the subject of their internal organization and polity was
allowed substantially to pass into oblivion.[197]
The Aztecs and their confederate tribes were ignorant of iron and
consequently without iron tools; they had no money, and traded by
barter of commodities; but they worked the native metals, cultivated
by irrigation, manufactured coarse fabrics of cotton, constructed
joint-tenement houses of adobe-bricks and of stone, and made
earthenware of excellent quality. They had, therefore, attained to the
Middle Status of barbarism. They still held their lands in common,
lived in large households composed of a number of related families;
and, as there are strong reasons for believing, practiced communism in
living in the household. It is rendered reasonably certain that they
had but one prepared meal each day, a dinner; at which they separated,
the men eating first and by themselves, and the women and children
afterwards. Having neither tables nor chairs for dinner service
they had not learned to eat their single daily meal in the manner
of civilized nations. These features of their social condition show
sufficiently their relative status of advancement.
In connection with the Village Indians of other parts of Mexico and
Central America, and of Peru, they afforded the best exemplification
of this condition of ancient society then existing on the earth. They
represented one of the great stages of progress toward civilization
in which the institutions derived from a previous ethnical period are
seen in higher advancement, and which were to be transmitted, in the
course of human experience, to an ethnical condition still higher, and
undergo still further development before civilization was possible. But
the Village Indians were not destined to attain the Upper Status of
barbarism so well represented by the Homeric Greeks.
The Indian pueblos in the valley of Mexico revealed to Europeans a lost
condition of ancient society, which was so remarkable and peculiar that
it aroused at the time an insatiable curiosity. More volumes have been
written, in the proportion of ten to one, upon the Mexican aborigines
and the Spanish Conquest, than upon any other people of the same
advancement, or upon any event of the same importance. And yet, there
is no people concerning whose institutions and plan of life so little
is accurately known. The remarkable spectacle presented so inflamed
the imagination that romance swept the field, and has held it to the
present hour. The failure to ascertain the structure of Aztec society
which resulted was a serious loss to the history of mankind. It should
not be made a cause of reproach to any one, but rather for deep regret.
Even that which has been written, with such painstaking industry, may
prove useful in some future attempt to reconstruct the history of
the Aztec confederacy. Certain facts remain of a positive kind from
which other facts may be deduced; so that it is not improbable that a
well-directed original investigation may yet recover, measurably at
least, the essential features of the Aztec social system.
The “kingdom of Mexico” as it stands in the early histories, and the
“empire of Mexico” as it appears in the later, is a fiction of the
imagination. At the time there was a seeming foundation for describing
the government as a monarchy, in the absence of a correct knowledge of
their institutions; but the misconception can no longer be defended.
That which the Spaniards found was simply a confederacy of three Indian
tribes, of which the counterpart existed in all parts of the continent,
and they had no occasion in their descriptions to advance a step beyond
this single fact. The government was administered by a council of
chiefs, with the co-operation of a general commander of the military
bands. It was a government of two powers; the civil being represented
by the council, and the military by a principal war-chief. Since the
institutions of the confederate tribes were essentially democratical,
the government may be called a military democracy, if a designation
more special than confederacy is required.
Three tribes, the Aztecs or Mexicans, the Tezcucans and the Tlacopans,
were united in the Aztec confederacy, which gives the two upper
members of the organic social series. Whether or not they possessed
the first and the second, namely, the gens and the phratry, does not
appear in a definite form in any of the Spanish writers; but they have
vaguely described certain institutions which can only be understood
by supplying the lost members of the series. Whilst the phratry is
not essential, it is otherwise with the gens, because it is the unit
upon which the social system rests. Without entering the vast and
unthreadable labyrinth of Aztec affairs as they now stand historically,
I shall venture to invite attention to a few particulars only of the
Aztec social system, which may tend to illustrate its real character.
Before doing this, the relations of the confederated to surrounding
tribes should be noticed.
The Aztecs were one of seven kindred tribes who had migrated from the
north and settled in and near the valley of Mexico; and who were among
the historical tribes of that country at the epoch of the Spanish
Conquest. They called themselves collectively the Nahuatlacs in their
traditions. Acosta, who visited Mexico in 1585, and whose work was
published at Seville in 1589, has given the current native tradition of
their migrations, one after the other, from Aztlan, with their names
and places of settlement. He states the order of their arrival as
follows: 1. Sochimilcas, “Nation of the Seeds of Flowers,” who settled
upon Lake Xochimilco, on the south slope of the valley of Mexico; 2.
Chalcas, “People of Mouths,” who came long after the former and settled
near them, on Lake Chalco; 3. Tepanecans, “People of the Bridge,” who
settled at Azcopozalco, west of Lake Tezcuco, on the western slope
of the valley; 4. Culhuas, “A Crooked People,” who settled on the
east side of Lake Tezcuco, and were afterwards known as Tezcucans; 5.
Tlatluicans, “Men of the Sierra,” who, finding the valley appropriated
around the lake, passed over the Sierra southward and settled upon the
other side; 6. Tlascalans, “Men of Bread,” who, after living for a
time with the Tepanecans, finally settled beyond the valley eastward,
at Tlascala; 7. The Aztecs, who came last and occupied the site of the
present city of Mexico.[198] Acosta further observes that they came
“from far countries which lie toward the north, where now they have
found a kingdom which they call New Mexico.”[199] The same tradition is
given by Herrera,[200] and also by Clavigero.[201] It will be noticed
that the Tlacopans are not mentioned. They were, in all probability,
a subdivision of the Tepanecans who remained in the original area of
that tribe, while the remainder seem to have removed to a territory
immediately south of the Tlascalans, where they were found under the
name of the Tepeacas. The latter had the same legend of the seven
caves, and spoke a dialect of the Nahuatlac language.[202]
This tradition embodies one significant fact of a kind that could not
have been invented; namely, that the seven tribes were of immediate
common origin, the fact being confirmed by their dialects; and a second
fact of importance, that they came from the north. It shows that they
were originally one people, who had fallen into seven and more tribes
by the natural process of segmentation. Moreover, it was this same fact
which rendered the Aztec confederacy possible as well as probable, a
common language being the essential basis of such organizations.
The Aztecs found the best situations in the valley occupied, and
after several changes of position they finally settled upon a small
expanse of dry land in the midst of a marsh bordered with fields of
pedregal and with natural ponds. Here they founded the celebrated
pueblo of Mexico (Tenochtitlan), A. D. 1325, according to Clavigero,
one hundred and ninety-six years prior to the Spanish Conquest.[203]
They were few in number and poor in condition. But fortunately for
them, the outlet of Lakes Xochimilco and Chalco and rivulets from the
western hills flowed past their site into Lake Tezcuco. Having the
sagacity to perceive the advantages of the location they succeeded,
by means of causeways and dikes, in surrounding their pueblo with
an artificial pond of large extent, the waters being furnished from
the sources named; and the level of Lake Tezcuco being higher then
than at present, it gave them, when the whole work was completed,
the most secure position of any tribe in the valley. The mechanical
engineering by which they accomplished this result was one of the
greatest achievements of the Aztecs, and one without which they would
not probably have risen above the level of the surrounding tribes.
Independence and prosperity followed, and in time a controlling
influence over the valley tribes. Such was the manner, and so recent
the time of founding the pueblo according to Aztec traditions which may
be accepted as substantially trustworthy.
At the epoch of the Spanish Conquest five of the seven tribes, namely,
the Aztecs, Tezcucans, Tlacopans, Sochimilcas, and Chalcans resided in
the valley, which was an area of quite limited dimensions, about equal
to the state of Rhode Island. It was a mountain or upland basin having
no outlet, oval in form, being longest from north to south, one hundred
and twenty miles in circuit, and embracing about sixteen hundred square
miles excluding the surface covered by water. The valley, as described,
is surrounded by a series of hills, one range rising above another
with depressions between, encompassing the valley with a mountain
barrier. The tribes named resided in some thirty pueblos, more or
less, of which that of Mexico was the largest. There is no evidence
that any considerable portion of these tribes had colonized outside of
the valley and the adjacent hill-slopes; but, on the contrary, there
is abundant evidence that the remainder of modern Mexico was then
occupied by numerous tribes who spoke languages different from the
Nahuatlac, and the majority of whom were independent. The Tlascalans,
the Cholulans, a supposed subdivision of the former, the Tepeacas, the
Huexotzincos, the Meztitlans, a supposed subdivision of the Tezcucans,
and the Tlatluicans were the remaining Nahuatlac tribes living without
the valley of Mexico, all of whom were independent excepting the
last, and the Tepeacas. A large number of other tribes, forming some
seventeen territorial groups, more or less, and speaking as many stock
languages, held the remainder of Mexico. They present, in their state
of disintegration and independence, a nearly exact repetition of the
tribes of the United States and British America, at the time of their
discovery, a century or more later.
Prior to A. D. 1426, when the Aztec confederacy was formed, very
little had occurred in the affairs of the valley tribes of historical
importance. They were disunited and belligerent, and without influence
beyond their immediate localities. About this time the superior
position of the Aztecs began to manifest its results in a preponderance
of numbers and of strength. Under their war-chief, Itzcoatl, the
previous supremacy of the Tezcucans and Tlacopans was overthrown, and
a league or confederacy was established as a consequence of their
previous wars against each other. It was an alliance between the three
tribes, offensive and defensive, with stipulations for the division
among them, in certain proportions, of the spoils, and the after
tributes of subjugated tribes.[204] These tributes, which consisted of
the manufactured fabrics and horticultural products of the villages
subdued, seem to have been enforced with system, and with rigor of
exaction.
The plan of organization of this confederacy has been lost. From
the absence of particulars it is now difficult to determine whether
it was simply a league to be continued or dissolved at pleasure; or
a consolidated organization, like that of the Iroquois, in which
the parts were adjusted to each other in permanent and definite
relations. Each tribe was independent in whatever related to local
self-government; but the three were externally one people in whatever
related to aggression or defense. While each tribe had its own council
of chiefs, and its own head war-chief, the war-chief of the Aztecs was
the commander-in-chief of the confederate bands. This may be inferred
from the fact that the Tezcucans and Tlacopans had a voice either
in the election or in the confirmation of the Aztec war-chief. The
acquisition of the chief command by the Aztecs tends to show that their
influence predominated in establishing the terms upon which the tribes
confederated.
Nezahualcojotl had been deposed, or at least dispossessed of his
office, as principal war-chief of the Tezcucans, to which he was at
this time (1426) restored by Aztec procurement. The event may be taken
as the elate of the formation of the confederacy or league whichever it
was.
Before discussing the limited number of facts which tend to illustrate
the character of this organization, a brief reference should be made to
what the confederacy accomplished in acquiring territorial domination
during the short period of its existence.
From A. D. 1426 to 1520, a period of ninety-four years, the confederacy
was engaged in frequent wars with adjacent tribes, and particularly
with the feeble Village Indians southward from the valley of Mexico
to the Pacific, and thence eastward well toward Guatemala. They began
with those nearest in position whom they overcame, through superior
numbers and concentrated action, and subjected to tribute. The villages
in this area were numerous but small, consisting in many cases of a
single large structure of adobe-brick or of stone, and in some cases of
several such structures grouped together. These joint-tenement houses
interposed serious hinderances to Aztec conquest, but they did not
prove insuperable. These forays were continued from time to time for
the avowed object of gathering spoil, imposing tribute, and capturing
prisoners for sacrifice;[205] until the principal tribes within the
area named, with some exceptions, were subdued and made tributary,
including the scattered villages of the Totonacs near the present Vera
Cruz.
No attempt was made to incorporate these tribes in the Aztec
confederacy, which the barrier of language rendered impossible under
their institutions. They were left under the government of their own
chiefs, and to the practice of their own usages and customs. In some
cases a collector of tribute resided among them. The barren results
of these conquests reveal the actual character of their institutions.
A domination of the strong over the weak for no other object than to
enforce an unwilling tribute, did not even tend to the formation of a
nation. If organized in gentes, there was no way for an individual to
become a member of the government except through a gens, and no way for
the admission of a gens except by its incorporation among the Aztec,
Tezcucan, or Tlacopan gentes. The plan ascribed to Romulus of removing
the gentes of conquered Latin tribes to Rome might have been resorted
to by the Aztec confederacy with respect to the tribes overrun; but
they were not sufficiently advanced to form such a conception, even
though the barrier of language could have been obviated. Neither
could colonists for the same reason, if sent among them, have so far
assimilated the conquered tribes as to prepare them for incorporation
in the Aztec social system. As it was, the confederacy gained no
strength by the terrorism it created; or by holding these tribes under
burdens, inspired with enmity and ever ready to revolt. It seems,
however, that they used the military bands of subjugated tribes in
some cases, and shared with them the spoils. All the Aztecs could do,
after forming the confederacy, was to expand it over the remaining
Nahuatlac tribes. This they were unable to accomplish. The Xochimilcas
and Chalcans were not constituent members of the confederacy, but they
enjoyed a nominal independence, though tributary.
This is about all that can now be discovered of the material basis of
the so-called kingdom or empire of the Aztecs. The confederacy was
confronted by hostile and independent tribes on the west, northwest,
northeast, east, and southeast sides: as witness, the Mechoacans on the
west, the Otomies on the northwest, (scattered bands of the Otomies
near the valley had been placed under tribute), the Chichimecs or
wild tribes north of the Otomies, the Meztitlans on the northeast,
the Tlascalans on the east, the Cholulans and Huexotzincos on the
southeast, and beyond them the tribes of the Tabasco, the tribes of
Chiapas, and the Zapotecs. In these several directions the dominion of
the Aztec confederacy did not extend a hundred miles beyond the valley
of Mexico, a portion of which surrounding area was undoubtedly neutral
ground separating the confederacy from perpetual enemies. Out of such
limited materials the kingdom of Mexico of the Spanish chronicles was
fabricated, and afterwards magnified into the Aztec empire of current
history.
A few words seem to be necessary concerning the population of the
valley and of the pueblo of Mexico. No means exist for ascertaining the
number of the people in the five Nahuatlac tribes who inhabited the
valley. Any estimate must be conjectural. As a conjecture then, based
upon what is known of their horticulture, their means of subsistence,
their institutions, their limited area, and not forgetting the tribute
they received, two hundred and fifty thousand persons in the aggregate
would probably be an excessive estimate. It would give about a hundred
and sixty persons to the square mile, equal to nearly twice the present
average population of the state of New York, and about equal to the
average population of Rhode Island. It is difficult to perceive what
sufficient reason can be assigned for so large a number of inhabitants
in all the villages within the valley, said to have been from thirty
to forty. Those who claim a higher number will be bound to show how
a barbarous people, without flocks and herds, and without field
agriculture, could have sustained in equal areas a larger number of
inhabitants than a civilized people can now maintain armed with these
advantages. It cannot be shown for the simple reason that it could not
have been true. Out of this population thirty thousand may, perhaps, be
assigned to the pueblo of Mexico.[206]
It will be unnecessary to discuss the position and relations of the
valley tribes beyond the suggestions made. The Aztec monarchy should
be dismissed from American aboriginal history, not only as delusive,
but as a misrepresentation of the Indians, who had neither developed
nor invented monarchical institutions. The government they formed was
a confederacy of tribes, and nothing more; and probably not equal in
plan and symmetry with that of the Iroquois. In dealing with this
organization, War-chief, Sachem, and Chief will be sufficient to
distinguish their official persons.
The pueblo of Mexico was the largest in America. Romantically situated
in the midst of an artificial lake, its large joint-tenement houses
plastered over with gypsum, which made them a brilliant white, and
approached by causeways, it presented to the Spaniards, in the
distance, a striking and enchanting spectacle. It was a revelation of
an ancient society lying two ethnical periods back of European society,
and eminently calculated, from its orderly plan of life, to awaken
curiosity and inspire enthusiasm. A certain amount of extravagance of
opinion was unavoidable.
A few particulars have been named tending to show the extent of Aztec
advancement to which some others may now be added. Ornamental gardens
were found, magazines of weapons and of military costumes, improved
apparel, manufactured fabrics of cotton of superior workmanship,
improved implements and utensils, and an increased variety of food;
picture-writing, used chiefly to indicate the tribute in kind each
subjugated village was to pay; a calendar for measuring time, and open
markets for the barter of commodities.
Administrative offices had been created to meet the demands of a
growing municipal life; a priesthood, with a temple worship and a
ritual including human sacrifices, had been established. The office of
head war-chief had also risen into increased importance. These, and
other circumstances of their condition, not necessary to be detailed,
imply a corresponding development of their institutions. Such are
some of the differences between the Lower and the Middle Status of
barbarism, as illustrated by the relative conditions of the Iroquois
and the Aztecs, both having doubtless the same original institutions.
With these preliminary suggestions made, the three most important and
most difficult questions with respect to the Aztec social system,
remain to be considered. They relate first, to the existence of Gentes
and Phratries; second, the existence and functions of the Council
of Chiefs; and, third, the existence and functions of the office of
General Military Commander, held by Montezuma.
I. _The Existence of Gentes and Phratries._
It may seem singular that the early Spanish writers did not discover
the Aztec gentes, if in fact they existed; but the case was nearly the
same with the Iroquois under the observation of our own people more
than two hundred years. 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.[207] The failure of the Spanish investigators to
notice the existence of the gentile organization among the tribes of
Spanish America would afford no proof of its non-existence; but if it
did exist, it would simply prove that their work was superficial in
this respect.
There is a large amount of indirect and fragmentary evidence in the
Spanish writers pointing both to the gens and the phratry, some of
which will now be considered. Reference has been made to the frequent
use of the term “kindred” by Herrera, showing that groups of persons
were noticed who were bound together by affinities of blood. This, from
the size of the group, seems to require a gens. The term “lineage” is
sometimes used to indicate a still larger group, and implying a phratry.
The pueblo of Mexico was divided geographically into four quarters,
each of which was occupied by a lineage, a body of people more
nearly related by consanguinity among themselves than they were to
the inhabitants of the other quarters. Presumptively, each lineage
was a phratry. Each quarter was again subdivided, and each local
subdivision was occupied by a community of persons bound together by
some common tie.[208] Presumptively, this community of persons was
a gens. Turning to the kindred tribe of Tlascalans, the same facts
nearly re-appear. Their pueblo was divided into four quarters, each
occupied by a lineage. Each had its own Teuctli or head war-chief, its
distinctive military costume, and its own standard and blazon.[209]
As one people they were under the government of a council of chiefs,
which the Spaniards honored with the name of the Tlascalan senate.[210]
Cholula, in like manner, was divided into six quarters, called wards by
Herrera, which leads to the same inference.[211] The Aztecs in their
social subdivisions having arranged among themselves the parts of the
pueblo they were severally to occupy, these geographical districts
would result from their mode of settlement. If the brief account of
these _quarters_ at the foundation of Mexico, given by Herrera, who
follows Acosta, is read in the light of this explanation, the truth of
the matter will be brought quite near. After mentioning the building
of a “chapel of lime and stone for the idol,” Herrera proceeds as
follows: “When this was done, the idol ordered a priest to bid the
chief men divide themselves, with their kindred and followers, into
four wards or quarters, leaving the house that had been built for him
to rest in the middle, and each party to build as they liked best.
These are the four quarters of Mexico now called St. John, St. Mary
the Round, St. Paul and St. Sebastian. That division being accordingly
made, their idol again directed them to distribute among themselves
the gods he should name, and each ward to appoint peculiar places
where the gods should be worshiped; and thus every quarter has several
smaller wards in it according to the number of their gods this idol
called them to adore.... Thus Mexico, Tenochtitlan, was founded....
When the aforesaid partition was made, those who thought themselves
injured, with their kindred and followers, went away to seek some
other place,”[212] namely, Tlatelulco, which was adjacent. It is a
reasonable interpretation of this language that they divided by kin,
first into four general divisions, and these into smaller subdivisions,
which is the usual formula for stating results. But the actual process
was the exact reverse; namely, each body of kindred located in an
area by themselves, and the several bodies in such a way as to bring
those most nearly related in geographical connection with each other.
Assuming that the lowest subdivision was a gens, and that each quarter
was occupied by a phratry, composed of related gentes, the primary
distribution of the Aztecs in their pueblo is perfectly intelligible.
Without this assumption it is incapable of a satisfactory explanation.
When a people, organized in gentes, phratries and tribes, settled in
a town or city, they located by gentes and by tribes, as a necessary
consequence of their social organization. The Grecian and Roman tribes
settled in their cities in this manner. For example, the three Roman
tribes were organized in gentes and curiæ, the curia being the analogue
of the phratry; and they settled at Rome by gentes, by curias and by
tribes. The Ramnes occupied the Palatine Hill. The Tities were mostly
on the Quirinal, and the Luceres mostly on the Esquiline. If the Aztecs
were in gentes and phratries, having but one tribe, they would of
necessity be found in as many quarters as they had phratries, with each
gens of the same phratry in the main locally by itself. As husband and
wife were of different gentes, and the children were of the gens of the
father or mother as descent was in the male or the female line, the
preponderating number in each locality would be of the same gens.
Their military organization was based upon these social divisions.
As Nestor advised Agamemnon to arrange the troops by phratries and by
tribes, the Aztecs seem to have arranged themselves by gentes and by
phratries. In the _Mexican Chronicles_, by the native author Tezozomoc
(for a reference to the following passage, in which I am indebted to my
friend Mr. Ad. F. Bandelier, of Highland, Illinois, who is now engaged
upon its translation), a proposed invasion of Michoacan is referred to.
Axaycatl “spoke to the Mexican captains Tlacatecatl and Tlacochcalcatl,
and to all the others, and inquired whether all the Mexicans were
prepared, after the usages and customs of each ward, each one with its
captains; and if so that they should begin to march, and that all were
to reunite at Matlatzinco Toluca.”[213] It indicates that the military
organization was by gentes and by phratries.
An inference of the existence of Aztec gentes arises also from their
land tenure. Clavigero remarks that “the lands which were called
_Altepetlalli_ [altepetl = pueblo] that is, those of the communities
of cities and villages, were divided into as many parts as there were
districts in a city, and every district possessed its own part entirely
distinct from, and independent of every other. These lands could not
be alienated by any means whatever.”[214] In each of these communities
we are led to recognize a gens, whose localization was a necessary
consequence of their social system. Clavigero puts the districts for
the community, whereas it was the latter which made the district, and
which owned the lands in common. The element of kin which united each
community, omitted by Clavigero, is supplied by Herrera. “There were
other lords, called major parents [sachems], whose landed property all
belonged to one lineage [gens], which lived in one district, and there
were many of them when the lands were distributed at the time New Spain
was peopled; and each lineage received its own, and have possessed them
until now; and these lands did not belong to any one in particular,
but to all in common, and he who possessed them could not sell them,
although he enjoyed them for life and left them to his sons and heirs;
and if a house died out they were left to the nearest parent to whom
they were given and to no other, who administered the same district or
lineage.”[215] In this remarkable statement our author was puzzled to
harmonize the facts with the prevailing theory of Aztec institutions.
He presents to us an Aztec lord who held the fee of the land as a
feudal proprietor, and a title of rank pertaining to it, both of which
he transmitted to his son and heir. But in obedience to truth he states
the essential fact that the lands belonged to a body of consanguinei
of whom he is styled the major parent, _i. e._, he was the sachem, it
may be supposed, of the gens, the latter owning these lands in common.
The suggestion that he held the lands in trust means nothing. They
found Indian chiefs connected with gentes, each gens owning a body of
lands in common, and when the chief died, his place was filled by his
son, according to Herrera. In so far it may have been analogous to a
Spanish estate and title; and the misconception resulted from a want
of knowledge of the nature and tenure of the office of chief. In some
cases they found the son did not succeed his father, but the office
went to some other person; hence the further statement, “if a house
(_alguna casa_, another feudal feature) died out, they [the lands] were
left to the nearest major parent;” _i. e._, another person was elected
sachem, as near as any conclusion can be drawn from the language. What
little has been given to us by the Spanish writers concerning Indian
chiefs, and the land tenure of the tribes is corrupted by the use of
language adapted to feudal institutions that had no existence among
them. In this _lineage_ we are warranted in recognizing an Aztec gens;
and in this _lord_ an Aztec sachem, whose office was hereditary in the
gens, in the sense elsewhere stated, and elective among its members.
If descent was in the male line, the choice would fall upon one of
the sons of the deceased sachem, own or collateral, upon a grandson,
through one of his sons, or upon a brother, own or collateral. But
if in the female line it would fall upon a brother or nephew, own or
collateral, as elsewhere explained.
The sachem had no title whatever to the lands, and therefore none to
transmit to any one. He was thought to be the proprietor because he
held an office which was perpetually maintained, and because there was
a body of lands perpetually belonging to a gens over which he was a
sachem. The misconception of this office and of its tenure has been the
fruitful source of unnumbered errors in our aboriginal histories. The
_lineage_ of Herrera, and the _communities_ of Clavigero were evidently
organizations, and the same organization. They found in this body of
kindred, without knowing the fact, the unit of their social system—a
gens, as we must suppose.
Indian chiefs are described as lords by Spanish writers, and invested
with rights over lands and over persons they never possessed. It
is a misconception to style an Indian chief a lord in the European
sense, because it implies a condition of society that did not exist.
A lord holds a rank and a title by hereditary right, secured to him
by special legislation in derogation of the rights of the people as a
whole. To this rank and title, since the overthrow of feudalism, no
duties are attached which may be claimed by the king or the kingdom as
a matter of right. On the contrary, an Indian chief holds an office,
not by hereditary right, but by election from a constituency, which
retained the right to depose him for cause. The office carried with
it the obligation to perform certain duties for the benefit of the
constituency. He had no authority over the persons or property or lands
of the members of the gens. It is thus seen that no analogy exists
between a lord and his title, and an Indian chief and his office. One
belongs to political society, and represents an aggression of the
few upon the many; while the other belongs to gentile society and is
founded upon the common interests of the members of the gens. Unequal
privileges find no place in the gens, phratry or tribe.
Further traces of the existence of Aztec gentes will appear. A _prima
facie_ case of the existence of gentes among them is at least made
out. There was also an antecedent probability to this effect, from the
presence of the two upper members of the organic series, the tribe, and
the confederacy, and from the general prevalence of the organization
among other tribes. A very little close investigation by the early
Spanish writers would have placed the question beyond a doubt, and, as
a consequence, have given a very different complexion to Aztec history.
The usages regulating the inheritance of property among the Aztecs have
come down to us in a confused and contradictory condition. They are
not material in this discussion, except as they reveal the existence
of bodies of consanguinei, and the inheritance by children from their
fathers. If the latter were the fact it would show that descent was
in the male line, and also an extraordinary advance in a knowledge
of property. It is not probable that children enjoyed an exclusive
inheritance, or that any Aztec owned a foot of land which he could call
his own, with power to sell and convey to whomsoever he pleased.
II. _The Existence and Functions of the Council of Chiefs._
The existence of such a council among the Aztecs might have been
predicted from the necessary constitution of Indian society.
Theoretically, it would have been composed of that class of chiefs,
distinguished as sachems, who represented bodies of kindred through an
office perpetually maintained. Here again, as elsewhere, a necessity is
seen for gentes, whose principal chiefs would represent the people in
their ultimate social subdivisions as among the Northern tribes. Aztec
gentes are fairly necessary to explain the existence of Aztec chiefs.
Of the presence of an Aztec council there is no doubt whatever; but of
the number of its members and of its functions we are left in almost
total ignorance. Brasseur de Bourbourg remarks generally that “nearly
all the towns or tribes are divided into four clans or quarters whose
chiefs constitute the great council.”[216] Whether he intended to limit
the number to one chief from each quarter is not clear; but elsewhere
he limits the Aztec council to four chiefs. Diego Duran, who wrote his
work in 1579-1581, and thus preceded both Acosta and Tezozomoc, remarks
as follows: “First we must know, that in Mexico after having elected a
king they elected four lords of the brothers or near relations of this
king to whom they gave the titles of princes, and from whom they had to
choose the king. [To the offices he gives the names of Tlacachcalcatl,
Tlacatecal, Ezuauacatl, and Fillancalque].... These four lords and
titles after being elected princes, they made them the royal council,
like the presidents and judges of the supreme council, without whose
opinion nothing could be done.”[217] Acosta, after naming the same
offices, and calling the persons who held them “electors,” remarks that
“all these four dignities were of the great council, without whose
advice the king might not do anything of importance.”[218] And Herrera,
after placing these offices in four grades, proceeds: “These four
sorts of noblemen were of the supreme council, without whose advice
the king was to do nothing of moment, and no king could be chosen but
what was of one of these four orders.”[219] The use of the term king
to describe a principal war-chief and of princes to describe Indian
chiefs cannot create a state or a political society where none existed;
but as misnomers they stilt up and disfigure our aboriginal history
and for that reason ought to be discarded. When the Huexotzincos sent
delegates to Mexico proposing an alliance against the Tlascalans,
Montezuma addressed them, according to Tezozomoc, as follows: “Brothers
and sons, you are welcome, rest yourselves awhile, for although I am
king indeed I alone cannot satisfy you, but only together with all the
chiefs of the sacred Mexican senate.”[220] The above accounts recognize
the existence of a supreme council, with authority over the action of
the principal war-chief, which is the material point. It tends to show
that the Aztecs guarded themselves against an irresponsible despot,
by subjecting his action to a council of chiefs, and by making him
elective and deposable. If the limited and incomplete statements of
these authors intended to restrict this council to four members, which
Duran seems to imply, the limitation is improbable. As such the council
would represent, not the Aztec tribe, but the small body of kinsmen
from whom the military commander was to be chosen. This is not the
theory of a council of chiefs. Each chief represents a constituency,
and the chiefs together represent the tribe. A selection from their
number is sometimes made to form a general council; but it is through
an organic provision which fixes the number, and provides for their
perpetual maintenance. The Tezcucan council is said to have consisted
of fourteen members,[221] while the council at Tlascala was a numerous
body. Such a council among the Aztecs is required by the structure and
principles of Indian society, and therefore would be expected to exist.
In this council may be recognized the lost element in Aztec history.
A knowledge of its functions is essential to a comprehension of Aztec
society.
In the current histories this council is treated as an advisory board
of Montezuma’s, as a council of ministers of his own creation; thus
Clavigero: “In the history of the conquest we shall find Montezuma
in frequent deliberation with his council on the pretensions of
the Spaniards. We do not know the number of each council, nor do
historians furnish us with the lights necessary to illustrate
such a subject.”[222] It was one of the first questions requiring
investigation, and the fact that the early writers failed to ascertain
its composition and functions is proof conclusive of the superficial
character of their work. We know, however, that the council of chiefs
is an institution which came in with the gentes, which represents
electing constituencies, and which from time immemorial had a vocation
as well as original governing powers. We find a Tezcucan and Tlacopan
council, a Tlascalan, a Cholulan and a Michoacan council, each composed
of chiefs. The evidence establishes the existence of an Aztec council
of chiefs; but so far as it is limited to four members, all of the
same lineage, it is presented in an improbable form. 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. The council of chiefs
is the oldest institution of government of mankind. It can show an
unbroken succession on the several continents from the Upper Status of
savagery through the three sub-periods of barbarism to the commencement
of civilization, when, having been changed into a preconsidering
council with the rise of the assembly of the people, it gave birth to
the modern legislature in two bodies.
It does not appear that there was a general council of the Aztec
confederacy, composed of the principal chiefs of the three tribes,
as distinguished from the separate councils of each. A complete
elucidation of this subject is required before it can be known whether
the Aztec organization was simply a league, offensive and defensive,
and as such under the primary control of the Aztec tribe, or a
confederacy in which the parts were integrated in a symmetrical whole.
This problem must await future solution.
III. _The Tenure and Functions of the Office of Principal War-chief._
The name of the office held by Montezuma, according to the best
accessible information, was simply _Teuctli_, which signifies a
_war-chief_. As a member of the council of chiefs he was sometimes
called _Tlatoani_, which signifies _speaker_. This office of a general
military commander was the highest known to the Aztecs. It was the same
office and held by the same tenure as that of principal war-chief in
the Iroquois confederacy. It made the person, _ex officio_, a member
of the council of chiefs, as may be inferred from the fact that in
some of the tribes the principal war-chief had precedence in the
council both in debate and in pronouncing his opinion.[223] None of
the Spanish writers apply this title to Montezuma or his successors.
It was superseded by the inappropriate title of king. _Ixtlilxochitl_,
who was of mixed Tezcucan and Spanish descent, describes the head
war-chiefs of Mexico, Tezcuco and Tlacopan, by the simple title of
war-chief, with another to indicate the tribe. After speaking of the
division of powers between the three chiefs when the confederacy was
formed, and of the assembling of the chiefs of the three tribes on that
occasion, he proceeds: “The king of Tezcuco was saluted by the title
of _Aculhua Teuctli_, also by that of _Chichimecatl Teuctli_ which his
ancestors had worn, and which was the mark of the empire; _Itzcoatzin_,
his uncle, received the title of _Culhua Teuctli_, because he reigned
over the Toltecs-Culhuas; and _Totoquihuatzin_ that of _Tecpanuatl
Teuctli_, which had been the title of _Azcaputzalco_. Since that
time their successors have received the same title.”[224] _Izcoatzin
(Itzcoatl)_, here mentioned, was war-chief of the Aztecs when the
confederacy was formed. As the title was that of war-chief, then held
by many other persons, the compliment consisted in connecting with it a
tribal designation. In Indian speech the office held by Montezuma was
equivalent to head war-chief, and in English to general.
Clavigero recognizes this office in several Nahuatlac tribes, but
never applies it to the Aztec war-chief. “The highest rank of nobility
in Tlascala, in Huexotzinco and in Cholula was that of _Teuctli_. To
obtain this rank it was necessary to be of noble birth, to have given
proofs in several battles of the utmost courage, to have arrived at
a certain age, and to command great riches for the enormous expenses
which were necessary to be supported by the possessor of such a
dignity.”[225] After Montezuma had been magnified into an absolute
potentate, with civil as well as military functions, the nature and
powers of the office he held were left in the background—in fact
uninvestigated. As their general military commander he possessed the
means of winning the popular favor, and of commanding the popular
respect. It was a dangerous but necessary office to the tribe and to
the confederacy. Throughout human experience, from the Lower Status of
barbarism to the present time, it has ever been a dangerous office.
Constitutions and laws furnish the present security of civilized
nations, so far as they have any. A body of usages and customs grew
up, in all probability, among the advanced Indian tribes and among the
tribes of the valley of Mexico, regulating the powers and prescribing
the duties of this office. There are general reasons warranting the
supposition that the Aztec council of chiefs was supreme, not only in
civil affairs, but over military affairs, the person and direction
of the war-chief included. The Aztec polity under increased numbers
and material advancement, had undoubtedly grown complex, and for that
reason a knowledge of it would have been the more instructive. Could
the exact particulars of their governmental organization be ascertained
they would be sufficiently remarkable without embellishment.
The Spanish writers concur generally in the statement that the
office held by Montezuma was elective, with the choice confined to
a particular family. The office was found to pass from brother to
brother, or from uncle to nephew. They were unable, however, to explain
why it did not in some cases pass from father to son. Since the mode of
succession was unusual to the Spaniards there was less possibility of
a mistake with regard to the principal fact. Moreover, two successions
occurred under the immediate notice of the conquerors. Montezuma was
succeeded by Cuitlahua. In this case the office passed from brother to
brother, although we cannot know whether they were own or collateral
brothers without a knowledge of their system of consanguinity. Upon the
death of the latter Guatemozin was elected to succeed him. Here the
office passed from uncle to nephew, but we do not know whether he was
an own or a collateral nephew. (See Part Third, ch. iii.) In previous
cases the office had passed from brother to brother and also from
uncle to nephew.[226] An elective office implies a constituency; but
who were the constituents in this case? To meet this question the four
chiefs mentioned by Duran (_supra_) are introduced as electors, to whom
one elector from Tezcuco and one from Tlacopan are added, making six,
who are then invested with power to choose from a particular family
the principal war-chief. This is not the theory of an elective Indian
office, and it may be dismissed as improbable. Sahagun indicates a much
larger constituency. “When the king or lord died,” he remarks, “all the
senators called _Tecutlatoques_, and the old men of the tribe
called _Achcacauhiti_, and also the captains and old warriors called
_Yautequioaques_, and other prominent captains in warlike matters,
and also the priests called _Tlenamacaques_, or _Papasaques_—all
these assembled in the royal houses. Then they deliberated upon and
determined who had to be lord, and chose one of the most noble of the
lineage of the past lords, who should be a valiant man, experienced in
warlike matters, daring and brave.... When they agreed upon one they
at once named him as lord, but this election was not made by ballot
or votes, but all together conferring at last agreed upon the man.
The lord once elected they also elected four others which were like
senators, and had to be always with the lord, and be informed of all
the business of the kingdom.”[227] This scheme of election by a large
assembly, while it shows the popular element in the government which
undoubtedly existed, is without the method of Indian institutions.
Before the tenure of this office and the mode of election can be
made intelligible, it is necessary to find whether or not they were
organized in gentes, whether descent was in the female line or the
male, and to know something of their system of consanguinity. If they
had the system found in many other tribes of the Ganowánian family,
which is probable, a man would call his brother’s son his son, and his
sister’s son his nephew; he would call his father’s brother his father,
and his mother’s brother his uncle; the children of his father’s
brother his brothers and sisters, and the children of his mother’s
brother his cousins, and so on. If organized into gentes with descent
in the female line, a man would have brothers, uncles and nephews,
collateral grandfathers and grandsons within his own gens; but neither
own father, own son, or lineal grandson. His own sons and his brother’s
sons would belong to other gentes. It cannot as yet be affirmed that
the Aztecs were organized in gentes; but the succession to the office
of principal war-chief is of itself strong proof of the fact, because
it would explain this succession completely. Then with descent in the
female line the office would be hereditary in a particular gens, but
elective among its members. In that case the office would pass, by
election within the gens, from brother to brother, or from uncle to
nephew, precisely as it did among the Aztecs, and never from father to
son. Among the Iroquois at that same time the offices of sachem and of
principal war-chief were passing from brother to brother or from uncle
to nephew, as the choice might happen to fall, and never to the son. It
was the gens, with descent in the female line, which gave this mode of
succession, and which could have been secured in no other conceivable
way. It is difficult to resist the conclusion, from these facts alone,
that the Aztecs were organized in gentes, and that in respect to this
office at least descent was still in the female line.
It may therefore be suggested, as a probable explanation, that the
office held by Montezuma was hereditary in a gens (the eagle was the
blazon or totem on the house occupied by Montezuma), by the members
of which the choice was made from among their number; that their
nomination was then submitted separately to the four lineages or
divisions of the Aztecs (conjectured to be phratries), for acceptance
or rejection; and also to the Tezcucans and Tlacopans, who were
directly interested in the selection of the general commander. When
they had severally considered and confirmed the nomination each
division appointed a person to signify their concurrence; whence the
six miscalled electors. It is not unlikely that the four high chiefs
of the Aztecs, mentioned as electors by a number of authors, were in
fact the war-chiefs of the four divisions of the Aztecs, like the
four war-chiefs of the four lineages of the Tlascalans. The function
of these persons was not to elect, but to ascertain by a conference
with each other whether the choice made by the gens had been concurred
in, and if so to announce the result. The foregoing is submitted as a
conjectural explanation, upon the fragments of evidence remaining, of
the mode of succession to the Aztec office of principal war-chief. It
is seen to harmonize with Indian usages, and with the theory of the
office of an elective Indian chief.
The right to depose from office follows as a necessary consequence of
the right to elect, where the term was for life. It is thus turned
into an office during good behavior. In these two principles of
electing and deposing, universally established in the social system
of the American aborigines, sufficient evidence is furnished that the
sovereign power remained practically in the hands of the people. This
power to depose, though seldom exercised, was vital in the gentile
organization. Montezuma was no exception to the rule. It required time
to reach this result from the peculiar circumstances of the case, for
a good reason was necessary. When Montezuma allowed himself, through
intimidation, to be conducted from his place of residence to the
quarters of Cortes where he was placed under confinement, the Aztecs
were paralyzed for a time for the want of a military commander. The
Spaniards had possession both of the man and of his office.[228] They
waited some weeks, hoping the Spaniards would retire; but when they
found the latter intended to remain they met the necessity, as there
are sufficient reasons for believing, by deposing Montezuma for want
of resolution, and elected his brother to fill his place. Immediately
thereafter they assaulted the Spanish quarters with great fury, and
finally succeeded in driving them from their pueblo. This conclusion
respecting the deposition of Montezuma is fully warranted by Herrera’s
statement of the facts. After the assault commenced, Cortes, observing
the Aztecs obeying a new commander, at once suspected the truth of the
matter, and “sent Marina to ask Montezuma whether he thought they had
put the government into his hands,”[229] _i. e._, the hands of the
new commander. Montezuma is said to have replied “that they would not
presume to choose a king in Mexico whilst he was living.”[230] He then
went upon the roof of the house and addressed his countrymen, saying
among other things, “that he had been informed they had chosen another
king because he was confined and loved the Spaniards;” to which he
received the following ungracious reply from an Aztec warrior: “Hold
your peace, you effeminate scoundrel, born to weave and spin; these
dogs keep you a prisoner, you are a coward.”[231] Then they discharged
arrows upon him and stoned him, from the effects of which and from deep
humiliation he shortly afterwards died. The war-chief in the command of
the Aztecs in this assault was Cuitlahua, the brother of Montezuma and
his successor.[232]
Respecting the functions of this office very little satisfactory
information can be derived from the Spanish writers. There is no
reason for supposing that Montezuma possessed any power over the civil
affairs of the Aztecs. Moreover, every presumption is against it. In
military affairs when in the field he had the powers of a general; but
military movements were probably decided upon by the council. It is
an interesting fact to be noticed that the functions of a priest were
attached to the office of principal war-chief, and, as it is claimed,
those of a judge.[233] The early appearance of these functions in
the natural growth of the military office will be referred to again
in connection with that of basileus. Although the government was of
two powers it is probable that the council was supreme, in case of
a conflict of authority, over civil and military affairs. It should
be remembered that the council of chiefs was the oldest in time, and
possessed a solid basis of power in the needs of society and in the
representative character of the office of chief.
The tenure of the office of principal war-chief and the presence of
a council with power to depose from office, tend to show that the
institutions of the Aztecs were essentially democratical. The elective
principle with respect to war-chief, and which we must suppose existed
with respect to sachem and chief, and the presence of a council of
chiefs, determine the material fact. A pure democracy of the Athenian
type was unknown in the Lower, in the Middle, or even in the Upper
Status of barbarism; but it is very important to know whether the
institutions of a people are essentially democratical, or essentially
monarchical, when we seek to understand them. Institutions of the
former kind are separated nearly as widely from those of the latter,
as democracy is from monarchy. Without ascertaining the unit of their
social system, if organized in gentes as they probably were, and
without gaining a knowledge of the system that did exist, the Spanish
writers boldly invented for the Aztecs an absolute monarchy with high
feudal characteristics, and have succeeded in placing it in history.
This misconception has stood, through American indolence, quite as
long as it deserves to stand. The Aztec organization presented itself
plainly to the Spaniards as a league or confederacy of tribes. Nothing
but the grossest perversion of obvious facts could have enabled the
Spanish writers to fabricate the Aztec monarchy out of a democratic
organization.
Theoretically, the Aztecs, Tezcucans and Tlacopans should severally
have had a head-sachem to represent the tribe in civil affairs when
the council of chiefs was not in session, and to take the initiative
in preparing its work. There are traces of such an officer among the
Aztecs in the _Ziahuacatl_, who is sometimes called the second chief,
as the war-chief is called the first. But the accessible information
respecting this office is too limited to warrant a discussion of the
subject.
It has been shown among the Iroquois that the warriors could appear
before the council of chiefs and express their views upon public
questions; and that the women could do the same through orators of
their own selection. This popular participation in the government led
in time to the popular assembly, with power to adopt or reject public
measures submitted to them by the council. Among the Village Indians
there is no evidence, so far as the author is aware, that there was an
assembly of the people to consider public questions with power to act
upon them. The four lineages probably met for special objects, but this
was very different from a general assembly for public objects. From the
democratic character of their institutions and their advanced condition
the Aztecs were drawing near the time when the assembly of the people
might be expected to appear.
The growth of the idea of government among the American aborigines,
as elsewhere remarked, commenced with the gens and ended with the
confederacy. Their organizations were social and not political.
Until the idea of property had advanced very far beyond the point
they had attained, the substitution of political for gentile society
was impossible. There is not a fact to show that any portion of the
aborigines, at least in North America, had reached any conception
of the second great plan of government founded upon territory and
upon property. The spirit of the government and the condition of the
people harmonize with the institutions under which they live. When the
military spirit predominates, as it did among the Aztecs, a military
democracy rises naturally under gentile institutions. Such a government
neither supplants the free spirit of the gentes, nor weakens the
principles of democracy, but accords with them harmoniously.