''m
"S"
Oisr THE
'i
DISTRIBUTION AND TENURE "OF LANDS,
AND THE
CUSTOMS WITH RESPECT TO INHERITANCE
AMONG THE
ANCIENT MEXICANS.
By
AD. F. BANDELIER.
•'trai V^- ■
tej
I .
t*:
'i' .■■■, .lí -
[From the Eleventh Anmial'Report of the Peabody Museum of Archœology
and Ethnology. Cambridge. 1878.]^
M
KÄf-V
■.Ml
SALEM:
printed at the salem press.
1878.
ON" THE]
DI8TBIBUTI0N AND TENDEE OE LANDS,
AND THE
CUSTOMS WITH RESPECT TO INHERITANCE
AMONG THE
ANCIENT MEXICANS.
By
AD. F. BANDELIER.
[From the Eleventh Annual Eeport of thé Peahody Museum of Archaeology
and Ethnology. Cambridge. 1878.]
SALEM:
printed at the salem press.
1878.
ON THE DISTRIBUTION AND TENURE OF LANDS, AND THE
CUSTOMS WITH RESPECT TO INHERITANCE, AMONG
THE ANCIENT MEXICANS.
By Ad. F. Bandeliek.
In a previous paper we have endeavored to describe the warlike
customs and organization of the Mexican tribe.^ Our conclusions
in regard to them are somewhat at variance with those generally
adopted, since, instead of the military despotism which heretofore
has been admitted as existing in ancient Mexico, we found but the
military democracy peculiar to a warlike tribe.^ It is our purpose
now to investigate how far the Mexicans may have progressed in
their notions about the tenure and distribution of the soil.
The picture which nearly all the authors, ancient as well as
modern, trace of the condition of aboriginal Mexico is that of a
feudal monarchy.3 This alone should fix permanently the mode of
landed tenure. It implies also the notion of abstract ownership,
and thus indicates a high state of culture. But we have already
1 "On the Art of War and Mode of Warfare of the Ancient Mexicans," in 10th An¬
nual Report of the Peal)ody Museum of American Archseology and Ethnology.
2 " Art of War, etc., etc., of the Ancient Mexicans," pp. 113, 114,115, to 127 inclusive,
especially the notes. See also " Ancient Society," by Lewis H. Morgan. (N. York,
1877.) Part II, chapter VII, " The Aztec Confederacy," pp. 188-214 inclusive.
ä The first information tending to represent the condition of Mexico as a feudal
state was probably furnished by Cortés; or through his expedition at least. The re¬
ports of the preceding voyage of Grijalva (1518) contain no positive statements. On
the other hand the certificate issued by Cortés (probably about the 20 May, 1519, or 29
days after his landing at Ulna), to the chiefs of Axapusco and ^Tepeyahualco, already
speaks of " the great Montezuma, which resides in this great city of Tenochtitlán imd
all its provinces." We have not Cortés' first letter to the emperor, but in his second re¬
port, 30 Oct., 1520, he mentions "a great Lord called Muteziima." ( Vedia, " Historiadores
primitivos de Indias," Vol. I. Carta Segunda, pp. 12 and 13.) The same dispatch con¬
tains a number of details on Montezuma's power, from which a feudal empire was neces¬
sarily construed as lor inst. (p. 33) : " There are in this great city many vei-y large and
fine houses, the cause of it being that all the Lords of the land, vassal* of the said M%i-
teczuma, have their houses,in that city . . . ." "What has been ascertained is: that
his sovereignty was almost as large as Spain . . ." (p. 34.) Gomara, who published his
" Conquista de Méjico" in 1552, already mentions " thirty lords of one-hundred-thous-
and vassals each, and three-thousand lords of places." (Vedial, p. 345. " Corto y guarda
de Moteczuma.") Oviedo ("Historia general y natural da Indias," Vol. III, Lib.
Report Peabody Museum, II. 25.
386
seen that the institutions of the Mexicans were democratic and
not monarchical, that their chiefs and leaders filled elective, and
in no case hereditary positions.^ This latter fact whose final dis¬
cussion we reserve for another occasion, speaks strongly against
the existence of privileged classes, based upon territory and
landed property ; therefore it also militates against feudality
itself.
Still we cannot permit ourselves to become prejudiced by such
indications, against the views generally accepted. They merely
warn us of the difficulties of our task. These difficulties are
greater yet than those against which we contended in our first
essay. The military life of the Mexicans has furnished the bulk
of their history, and through it a number of facts, by which the
former could be almost restored. The question of distribution of
the soil, however, apparently relates to customs only ; broken up
and to a great extent obliterated centuries ago. Nevertheless,
accessory facts, and especially a merely cursory review of the
history of the Mexican tribe, may enable us yet to form an idea of
these customs. The Mexican rules of inheritance are in direct
connection with them also, and lastly, the acts of the Spaniards
during the first times after the conquest, when they more or less
suddenly overturned the ancient order of things, should bring to
light many forgotten features of aboriginal tenure and distribution
of the soil.
Having thus sketched the programme — so to say — of our
work, we have yet to offer two explanations ere we proceed to
enter upon the discussion proper, itself.
In the first place : by " accessory facts," we refer to the social
organization of the Mexicans in particular. It is inseparable from
XXXIII, cap. XLVI, p. 503) again speaks of "more than three-thousand lords his sub-
Jectsf each one of many vassals, and each held his principal dwelling in Temistitan,
residing there certain,months each year." The author, a friend of Columbus, and
personally acquainted with all the eminent men of the conquest, resided at the West
•Indies and Nicaragua until 1556 (his stay though interrupted by at least six voyages to
Spain and back), was one of the most cautious and best situated of the old chroniclers.
-But the chief originator of the feudal view is Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl, a half
-breed of Tezcuco, and belonging to the kin of that tribe's chieftains. He wrote about
the year 1600, and both of his works, the " Relaciones históricas," and the " Historia
de los Chichimecos ó reyes antiguos de Tezouco," present, it should not be denied, a
picture of logical development of feudal institutions on Mexican soil. Torquemada of
course concurs. We hope to be able to investigate, elsewhere, the claims of Ixtlil¬
xochitl to the rank of a reliable source. Fairness, however, compels us here to men¬
tion the above authors, as the mainstays of current opinion.
* " Art of War," etc., pp. 96,128 and 161.
387
landed tenure, and we therefore must recur to it frequently in the
course of our allusions to the history of the tribe.
Secondly : we do not pretend to review the history of ancient
Mexico as fully as it should be done, but only as far as it touches
the subject of this paper.- Many points therefore, which ought to
be closely scrutinized, will be passed over lightly, or without any
discussion.
One of the most learned authors of the 16th century, on Amer¬
ican topics, — the Jesuit father Joseph de Acosta, says; "Learned
men affirm and write that the relations and the memories of these
Indians do not go further back than four-hundred years
Indeed, although much has been written about the aboriginal
history of Mexico, it appears as if the 12th century was the limit
of definite tradition.^ What lies beyond it is vague and uncertain,
remnants of traditions being intermingled with legends and myth¬
ological fancies. Nothing positive can be gathered except that,
even during the earliest times, Mexico was settled or overrun by
sedentary, as well as by nomadic tribes, — that both acknowledged
® " Historia natural y moral de las Indias," Lib. I, cap. XXV, p. 83. The passage
relates directly to Peru, but is just as applicable to Mexico.
6 " vVe venture to assume this period as the one during which traditional histoiy of
Mexico really begins. Of course, those writers who have made the fabrication of a Mex¬
ican chronology a special object, go much further back. The late Abbé Brasseur de
Bourbourg, for instance, quotes the " Codex Chimalpopoca," purported to bear date 22
May, 1558, and which begins as follows (History of the three suns). " This is the begin¬
ning of the histories ol all kinds which happened a long time ago, how the earth was
divided, and disti-ibuted to each one, its origin and foundation, how the sun began to
give to each one his share, assigning the limitsj there are now six times four-hundred
years, and one-hundred more, and thirteen more . . . The distinguished historian
concludes therefrom, that 955 B. C. there occurred already, in Middle America, a di¬
vision of lands according to a systematic register (" Popol-Vuh." Introduction, page
0X1). Clavigero's Chronology begins 596 A. D. (" Storia del Messico," Lib. 11, cap.
I). Don Mariano Veytia (•' Historia Antigua de Méjico," published by Sr. Ortega, 1836),
after fixing the date oí the establishment of " Huehuetlapallan," to the year 2237 of the
earth's creation (Vol. I, cap. II, p. 23), or 1796 B. C. (p. 219) begins for the settlement of
the Toltecs at Tolantzinco in 697 A. D. (Cap. XXII, p. 121, ot 1st volume). Ixtlilxochitl
("Histoire des Chichimëques ou des anciens rois de Tezcuco," translation by Mr.
Temaux Compans) says : (Cap. H p. 13) that the Toltecs founded Tollan 503 A. D. No
reliance can be placed on these statements and dates. They are not any longer tradi¬
tional, but mytiiical, and although we are far from disregarding the importance of
legends or myths for historical investigations, we still cannot accept them as chrono¬
logical bases. The oldest date in the history of Mexico which appears to be approxi¬
mately certain is that of the settlement of the Mexicans in the marsh where they subse¬
quently built the pueblo of Tenuchtitlan. It woqld about agree with A. D. 1325. Al¬
lowing two centuries more for the peiiod during which the Mexicans and their kindred
tribes reached the valley, we are carried to the twelfth century as the time from which
distinct tradition has yet reached us. What lies beyond can occasionally be rendered
of value for ethnological purposes, but it admits of no definite historical use.
388
a common origin, while the sedentary tribes were still further con¬
nected together by the bond of language,— and that the original
home of these people lay to the north of Mexican territory. We
further can infer, that even the sedentary tribes, among which the
Toltecs are most conspicuous, had nowhere advanced to the con¬
dition of a nation or state; political society^ based upon territory
and landed property, being unknown to them. Their institutions
appear to have been democratic^ their manner of living communal,
thus excluding the idea of feudality altogether ; even at those re¬
mote periods of Mexican history.''' The usual inter-tribal wars,
^ Our information in regard to the Toltecs is limited and obscure. The name itself
appears to be a surname : " Toltecatl"— " official, de arte mecánica, o maestro " (Mo¬
lina, Vocabulario, Parte II. p. 149). Torqueraada (Eib. I, cap. XIV, p. 37) "I merely
say, that Tulteca signifies a skilled worker . . . ." Veytia (Vol. I, cap. XXI, pp.205
and 206). Sahagun ("Historia general de las cosas de Nueva-Espána," edited by Don
Carlos Maria de Bustamante, Vol. Ill, Lib. X, cap. XXIX, p. 106). " First the Tultecas,
signifying excellent workmen , . . (p. 107) " y no tenian otro nombre particular sino
este que tomaron de la curiosidad, y primor de las obras que hacían, que se llamaron
obras tultecas, ó sea como si digesemos, officiates pulidos y curiosos . . . ." Their
proper name, as we shall hereafter see, was " Chichimecas,"—in common with all the
aborigines of Mexico. Even such tribes as are reported to have preceded them, like the
Xicalancas and Olmecas, are connected with reports indicating the same origin. Thus
Motolinia ("Historia de los Indios de Nueva-España" in Sr. Icazbalceta's "Colección
de Documentos," Vol. I), says: ("Epístola proemial," p. 7), that the Xicalancas and
Mexicans descended from sons of the same father. Gomara ("Conquista de Méjico,"
Vedial, p. 432), says the same, and also that "Ulmecatlh" was one of their brothers,
and that from him the Olmecas descended. Sahagun, however (Lib. X, p. 147), contra¬
dicts, excluding the " Olmecas, Vistoti, and Nonooalca" from the general appellation
of Chichimecas, but includes nearly all the other tribes of Mexico under a common
origin. But Veytia seems to consider the Ulmecas and Xicalancas as descending from
the same stock as the Toltecs (Vol. I, c^P* XIII, p. 150); though his statements might be
more positive yet. The Toltec language was the " Nahuatl," a fact too frequently men¬
tioned to need any further quotations. Through it their connection with the tribes of
the valley of Mexico, with the Tlaxcallans, Huexotzincas, Cholullans,— and also the
Niquirans of Nicaragua is established beyond a doubt. Their division of time and
numeral system (as far as the language allows a judgment), was the same as that of the
natives of Michhuacan, Oajaca, Chiapas, Yucatan, and Guatemala. If we add to these
indications those derived from local myths and legends, we become inclined to believe
the reports, that the aborigines of Yucatan and Guatemala for instance, are direct de¬
scendants of the Toltecs, or at least from their original stock. This fact acquires a
certain importance, since it enables us, from the condition of these tribes at the time
of their first contact with the Spaniards, and from their local traditions, to judge partly
of the status of the Toltecs, and perhaps to reconstruct their condition and organiza¬
tion of society.
In order to attempt an investigation of the true condition of Toltec society, we have
to consider three different points which are the following: Reports about the Toltecs,
contained in Mexican sources ; since only in Mexico they were called by that name.
Reports about the condition of the Toltecs in Mexico aft&r their reported dispersion.
The condition and organization of such trilies, outside of direct Mexican influence,
which still acknowledged an original connection with what has been called the Toltecs
in Mexico.
If we follow the traditions current in the Mexican valley, as reported by father
389
as well between sedentary Indians and roving tribes, as among the
Sahagnn (hardly any of his predecessors mentioning the Toltecs,—a fact not devoid of
importance !) it simply appears that the Toltecs were sedentary people, therefore agri¬
cultural and proportionately skilled in the use of metals and stones (Lib. X, cap. XXIX,
Vol. S). The same author, in his tale about the fortunes of Quetzalcohuatl, whom he
acknowledged as distinctly connected with the fate of the Toltecs, says that (Lib. Ill,
cap. V, p. 248, of Vol. I) : the pueblo of Tollan had two chiefs,—that it was engaged in
war with another tribe not far distant (Coatepec, cap. VI, p. 249),— thus showing at the
same time : that the Toltecs were not subject to a ruler residing in Tula, as is commonly
reported, but that Tula (or Tollan), was the settlement of a tribe, without authority over
any others. There are other indications, in this very legend of Quetzalcohuatl, to show
that the Toltecs of Tula were very independent from their chiefs (See cap. VI to XI).
Further on, if we follow the peregrinations of Quetzalcohuatl after the same authority,
it strikes us that this mythical personage travels through a singularly disjointed coun¬
try. Everywhere he meets strange places (Cap. XII to XIV), not subject to the ti-ibe
from which he originally went out.
Torquemada (" Monarchia Indiana," Lib. I, cap. XIV, p. 37), is more detailed. He
asserts that the Toltecs were originally led by seven chiefs, but that after their settle¬
ment at Tulantzinco they elected a " king," establishing as a rule that no one of these
so-called monarchs should " rule" any longer than fifty-two years, and that if he died
previously " the republic governed until the expiration of the time." In his relation of
the history of Quetzalcohuatl (Lib. Ill, cap. VII, pp. 254, 255, and 256), whom he dis¬
tinctly connects with Tula, the same fact is mentioned as in Sahagun, namely; that the
inhabitants of the country were divided into independent tribes, such as Tula, Cholula,
Quauhquechollan and others.
It is, however, Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl, whose writings have furnished the
chief material for the Toltec history. He gathered his facts from his kinsmen, and, he
says, from ancient picture-writings which they explained to him (" Hist, des Chichi-
mëques" Dedication to the vice-roy of Mexico p. XIII, and XIV). Also from songs. It
is a slender basis for his otherwise very positive statements, since it may well be ac¬
cepted that Toltec picture-writings did scarcely exist any more at his time, unless we
except such as are analogous to the Dresden-Codex (Humboldt " Vues des Cordillères
et monuments des peuples indigènes, etc." Plate XLV of the atlas in folio), regarding
them as of Toltec origin. These, however, no Mexican native could have interpreted
at that time.
Ixtlilxochitl also speaks of seven chiefs of the Toltecs ("lis avaient sept chefs, et
choisissaient alternativement un d'entreux pour les gouverner." Hist, des Chichi-
mëques," Cap. II, p. 13; also "Segunda Eelacion" in Vol. IX, p. 323, of Lord Kings-
borough's " Antiquities of Mexico.") He equally mentions the 52 year period of the
head-chief (Cap. H, p. 13), and in his " Tercera Eelacion " (p. 325), but adds in the " Cu¬
arta Eelacion" (p. 326) : "Este Mitl gobernó 59 años y quebró en la orden antigua de
los Tultecas de gobernar 52 años."
But he also tells us in his Second " Eelation " that at Tollantzinco " they constructed
of planks a house large enough to accommodate the entire nation," and hints at a number
of scattered settlements springing up, though he insists that these were all dependen¬
cies of a great Toltec "empire." Nevertheless, his description of the wars among the
Toltecs (" quinta Eelacion " ) is not in favor of the latter assumption.
It is mostly on such statements that Don Mariano Veytia has based the Toltec history
which foi-ms the beginning of the "Historia antigua de Méjico."—But the eminent Mex¬
ican scholar (he wrote about the middle of the 18th century) has added some other de
tails, which we dare not neglect here.
In common with all the others, Veytia places the origin of the Toltecs to the North,
where he locates the great city of Huehuetlapallan. Of this great city he says : " The
houses in which they dwelt, as well in the city as in the other settlements were then (and
for many centuries afterwards, although they had Kings and governments already) but
natural caverns, which they also imitated. These were all their dwellings, they sub-
390
village-Indians themselves, were waged during these early periods.
eisted on finiits, herbs and the chase, and dressed in the skins of wild beasts "
(Vol. I, cap. Ill, p. 25.) — From' this place there went out bands or families (Cap. II, p.
24), " taking each one a different name, after that of the chief or father of the family
leading them,"' and one of these bands were the Toltecs.
These were again composed of seven lineages (Cap. XXI, p. 207), and the govern¬
ment "resided in the seven principal chiefs ""(Cap, XXII, p. 214). Describing the per¬
egrinations of this tribe until they reached central Mexico, he again mentions the large
house made at Tollantzinco "in which when completed, all the people found room"
(Cap. XXII, p. 221), and finally (Cap. XXIV, p. 227), the formal change made by free
common consent of all the Toltecs, of their heretofore democratic government into a
despotic monarchy, with descent in the male line, but the term of office of each of these
despots limited to fifty-two years (Cap. XXV). We also read of a number of pueblos
co-existing with Tollan, but reputed subject to it, in direct opposition to Sahagun
and Torquemada, and even sometimes to himself. Of course, there are abundant
details about the arts and sciences attributed to the Toltecs, the magnificence of their
^buildmg8, etc., etc. To all these we shall refer on another occasion. In regard to
weapons and military costume Veytia confirms what we have already said (Art of War,
p. 126, and note No. 124), about the great analogy between the Mexicans proper and
other tribes of older date (See cap. XXXIII, p. 289).
Veytia was the precursor and cotemporary of the Abbé Clavigero, but the latter's
work, " Storia antica del Messico" was printed fifty-six years previous to the writings
of the former. Clavigero's statements are, in a condensed form, but a repetition of
those of Veytia, with whom he corresponded.
If we now attentively consider the above we shall readily see :
(1). That the Toltecs were descended from at least semi-nomades.
(2>. They were organized in consanguine groups, governmentally sovereign, whose
chiefs formed the oouncil of the tribe.
(3-). They possessed a head war-chief, elected for life, since the limitation of the office
for fifty-two years is in itself a concession, that the incumbent held it for life¬
time.
(4). Tliey practised communism in living.
(5). Consequently, their organization and institution was democratic, not monarchi¬
cal, and the picture of a feudal empire among them is erroneous.
It is generally admitted that in the 10th or llth century of our era, the Toltecs of
Mexico were dispersed ; only a few settlements remaining. Of thèse the principal were
removed to Tezciico " where they founded four quarters, since the Culhuas, as the
Toltecs were then called, formed four families " (Ixtlilxochitl, "Hist, des Chiehiméques,"
cap. XIII, p. 87. Mr. Ternanx has translated "tribes" but the Spanish original has
" families.") This is a flirther evidence of what we have advanced, the four quarters
being consanguine groups localized, or "gentes," as Mr. Morgan has established the
term in "Ancient Society." Feudalism, however, is incompatible with gentile society.
Those of the Toltecs who emigrated are reported to have fled to the South where
perhaps others of their language had preceded them. Among such as have been re¬
ported of the same origin, the Maya of Yucatan, and the QQuiché of Guatemala are
most prominent. Sr. Orozco y Berra, in his excellent work " Geografía de las Lenguas
y Carta Etnográfica de México," regards the Maya and QQuIché as sister-lánguages
(Part I, cap. IV, p. 18). If tlie assumption is correct that they are of Toltec descent,
the reports about the condition of these tribes at the time of the conquest, or in their
undisturbed aboriginal condition, are of weight for this discussion.
Yucatan, at the time of its first discovery (1517), was inhabited by numerous seden-
taiy tribes, not connected with each other (Bernai Diez del Castillo, "Historia verda¬
dera de la Conquista de Nueva España," cap. XXIX, p. 24, in Vedia, Vol. II. Villagut-
ierre y Sotomayor " Historia de la Conquista y Reducción de los Itzaex y Lacandones,"
S91
Sometimes the latter, then again the savages prevailed, until
Lib. I, cap. V, p. 28 and 29. Antonia de Herrera " Historia general de los hechos de los
Castellanos en las Islas y la Tierra Finne del Mar Océano," Dec. IV, Lib.' X, cap. H, p.
208, and cap. III, p. 208), except through their common language. These tribes con¬
sisted of Lineages or consanguine groups. Herrera says (Dec. IV, Lib. X, Cap. IV,
p. 211) : " They are very proud of their ancestry, by which they all regarded themselves
as relatives, assisting each other greatly. Their style of living was communal. Lorenzo
de Bienvenitla, in his letter to the Emperor, dated 10th February, 1548, Yucatan ("Re¬
cueil de pièces relatives ä la Conquête du Méxique") states: "Your highness must
know that it is very rare to find a house with but one inhabitant, all have two, three,
four, six, and even more, among which the father of a family is chief (p. 331). When,
in 1698, the last pueblo inhabited by Maya Indians,— Tayasál on Lake Peten, was cap¬
tured by Don Martin Ursúa, it was found that the houses " were dirty within and un-
swept. All the inhabitants lived brutally together, an entii e relationship together in
one single house." (Hist, de la Conquista de los Itzaex, Lib. VllI, cap. XII, p. 494). We
have already alluded to the fact the Itzaex had two chiefs. (" Art of War," p. 126, note
No. 121. The information is taken from the work just mentioned. Lib. VIII). See
further, on the Maya, L. H. Morgau's "Ancient Society" (Part II, chapter VI, p. 181).
These indications do not, certainly, speak in favor of feudality among the natives of
Yucatan.
The territory of Guatemala, when first visited by Pedro de Alvarado, in 1524, was
also divided into a number of sedentary tribes, living in bitter enmity together. Of these
tribes the QQuiché of Utlatlan oi rather Gumarcaah, near where Santa Cruz del Quiché
now stands, are best known. Their history has been written by Juarros (" Compendio
de la Historia de Guatemala," 1808-1818), who especially bases upon the MSS. of the
Captain Francisco Antonio Fuentes y Guzman, who wrote about 1690, a "Recordación
florida" now acknowledged to be full of exaggerations and misstatements. Juarros
makes the QQuiché direct descendants of the Toltecs, and after their settlement in Guat¬
emala under a certain King named " Nimaqniché," he gradually builds up there á
mighty feudal Empire, which was in its splendor when the Spaniards overthrew it.
The empire is already disproved by the first two letters of Alvarado (See Vol. I of
Vedia's collection), by Hererra (Dec. Ill, Lib. V, Cap. X, p. 166), who also states (Dec.
Ill, Lib. IV, cap. XVIII, p. 141), that the QQuiché had three chiefs " and that the elec¬
tion was made by the principals in the same way, as it has been told of Mexico," Tor-
quemada (Lib. XII, Cap. VllI, p. 386), goes still further by asserting that the heads of
families (" los que eran Cabeças de Familias ó Casas Solariegos ") had the right to kill
the " king" for misdemeanor. He also considers the Toltecs the first settlers.
But the document which conveys the most detailed information of the QQuiché is
the " Popol-Vuh." This singular production, which wo consult in its publication and
translation by Mr. Brasseur de Bourboürg, appears to be, for the first chapters, an evi¬
dent fabrication, or at least accommodation of Indian my thology to christian notions;—
a pious fraud. But the bulk is an equally evident collection of original traditions of
the Indians of Guatemala, and as such the most valuable work for the aboriginal history
and ethnology of Central America. We cannot here enter into a bibliographical dis¬
cussion. A few quotations from the third part of the Popol-Vuh will, however, be indis¬
pensable (Cap. HI, p. 207). After having given the names of the four mothers of the
QQuiché: "Balam Quitzé is the grandfather and father of the nine great houses of
Cavek; Balam Agab is the ancestor and father of the nine great houses of Nimhaib;
Mahucutah the ancestor and father of the four great houses of Ahau Quiché. They
existed in three divisions of families without forgetting the name of their grandfather
and of their father, which extended and grew in the East." This is the beginning of a
true genealogy, and it is carried through with gi-eat precision.
Then follows a long description of how each of these " families " received an idol
for itself, whereas " one was the name of their God, and they were divided afterwards "
(Cap. IV, p. 217). Then they moved to " Tulan-Zuiva, at the seven caves, seven ravines."
Alt that time they had yet but skins of animals to cover themselves with, but " at Zuiva
392
finally the Toltecs, who represented the sedentary class, were
either exterminated or expelled ; only a few scattered settlements
remaining on Mexican territory.® Their successors on the soil
were tribes of utter savages hailing from the north also, and to
whom the vague and indefinite appellation of Chichimecas is given.
(If the word is Mexican, it might derive from " Chichiltic " red,
Tulan they forthwith acquired wisdom." This is a~Btriking analogy indeed with the
Mexican traditions above reported about the first times of the Toltecs. Settling at
Izmachi, they occupied four quarters " they already covered four hills who together bore
the names of their tribe " (Mr. Brasseur translates " tinamit" sometimes by tribe and
again by town, I prefer the former). At Izmachi they built houses of lime and stone
(Cap. VII, p. 301). "But only three palaces were erected at Izmachi, the twenty-four
palaces were not yet erected, but only three, one of those of Cavek, one single palace
at the face of those of Nihäib, as likewise a single one, possession of those of Ahau
Quiché." Recapitulating the festivals it is mentioned "For this reason the three
branches assembled iij the palaces named after them, where they drank their beverages,
and ate their meals, price of their sisters and daughters, and with their hearts full of
joy, they but ate and drank out of their painted cups within their palaces "(p. 30.5).
This is a plain indication of communal meals, and of communal living. Finally it is
related that at these places " they came to put names, there they took their titles, divided
into families, organized into seven "chiuamit" (kins not tribes), and classed themselves
by quarters." Moving to Gumarcaah or Utlatlan, there they subdivided into twenty-
four "great houses"—"the title of all their honors being distributed to each of the
princes, there formed nine families with the nine princes of Cavek, nine with the princes
of Nihaïb, four with the princes of Ahau-Quiché, and two with the Lords of Zakik"
(p. 309, cap. VIII).
It is easy to detect the following points :
(1). The QQuiclié were originally organized in three consanguine groups, to which
latterly a fourth was added.
(2). These kinships localized as four quarters, their mode of life was communal.
(3). They subsequently divided into twenty-four kindred groups, constituting so
many gentes.
(4). The government of the tribe lay in the hands of the chiefs of these gentes.
This government, as the last chapter of the Popol-Vuh plainly states, was composed
of twenty-four chiefs. Of these, three, one ft-om each of three of the "quarters," had
the title " Nim-Chocoh" or "great elected one." " There were consequently three Nim-
Choçoh (great elected), acting as the fathers of all the chiefs of Quiché, they met to¬
gether, commanded together, as the fathers and mothers of speech, and their condition
is of the most exalted one." They commanded the forces of the tribe.
We have here consequently the organization of the QQuiché as a military democracy,
based upon consanguine groups, with three elective war-chiefs at its head. The analogy
of this organization with that of the Iroquois is really striking. It utterly discards all
notions of feudality.
If now, as most of the older sources admit, the QQuiché really belonged to Toltec
stock, we believe that the foregoing certainly sustains our views of the condition of
these tribes, and justifies our statement that the Toltecs had "nowhere advanced to the
condition of a nation or state " and that their institutions were democratic, their manner
of living communal; monarchy and feudality being unknown to them.
8 Compare the legend of Quetzalcohuatl, as related by Sahagun (Lib. Ill, cap. Ill to
XIV, Vol. I); by Torquemada (Lib. Ill, cap. VII), and contained also in the Popol-Vuh,
where he i6, of course, called Gukumatz (Part III, cap. VIII). See further Veytia
(Cap. XXri, to the close of Vol. I).
393
and "mecayotl"—consanguine relationship, thus: "the kin of
red men.")® Enough is told us of the condition of these people
to establish ; that they were roving nomades for whom the soil had
no other importance than for temporary occupancy as hunters,—
that even the maize plant was unknown to them, and that they re-
® The etymology of the word " Chichimecatl " which we have ventured to propose,
is not sustained, to our knowledge, by any author. We give it for what it may be worth.
Much has been said about its probable derivation. Duran (" Historia de las Yndias de
Nueva-España é Islas de Tierra-flrme," cap. II, p. 13), says: "Chichimeca, que quiere
decir caçadores ú gente que viven de aquel oficio agreste y campesina . . . . " thus
showing that the word is Nahuatl, and its explanation to be sought for in Nahustl terras.
Ixtlilxochitl ("Relaciones históricas,"2nd part, " Historia de los Señores Chichimecas"
— " Relación primera,") says : " the Toltecs, Aculhuas, Mexicans, and all the other na¬
tions of this land pretend to be derived from the Chlchimecan race, thus called after
its king Chichimecatl who brought it to the New World " (p. 835 and 336). Torquemada
(Lib. I, cap. XV, p. 39), afiftrms : " These people took the name of Chichimecas, because
Chichimecatl signifies one who sucks; for Chichiliztti is the act of sucking . . . .; and
since these people in the origin ate the raw fiesh of beasts and drank their blood, suck¬
ing it, they called themselves Chichimecas or suckers." Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. II, p.
453), "they were a very barbarous people, living solely from the chase, and therefore
they called them Chichimecas." Betancourt even derives the word from " chichini"—
bones of a dog. It is again Veytia who, with his clear and positive judgment has gone
further than any of his predecessors. He has been the first (we think) to discover the
term "mecatl" which signifies a cord (Cap. XII, p. 143), in the last two syllables
of the word. It naturally led him to the allied term " mecayotl " which designated a
consanguine relationship, and finally to the etymology of " kinship of Chichen " assum¬
ing Chichen to have been the name of their first chieftain. There is hardly any proof
of the latter however, and still less that "Chichimecatl" was his personal name. On
the other hand, all the authors agree in stating, that the locality inhabited originally by
the Chichimecas was called "Huehuetlapallan" — the old red place — that one of the
stations said to have been occupied by tribes on their migrations towards Mexico bears
the name " Chichilticalli " or red house. Our suggestion is, therefore, not altogether
improbable: that Chichimecatl may have derived from "chichiltic" a red object, and
"mecayotl" — kin — therefore signifying "the kin of red men."
Senor Manuel Orozco y Berra, the distinguished author of the " Geografla de las
Lenguas," makes it very likely that the Chichimecas which invaded Mexico after the
dispersion of the Toltecs, or inhabited it jointly with them, spoke a different language
(Part I, cap. I, p. 8), which has since disappeared. His opinion is sustained by that of
another eminent Mexican scholar, Don Francisco Pimentel (" Cuadro descriptivo y
comparativo de la lenguas indigenes de Mexico," Vol. I, p. 155). Nevertheless, the
unity of origin of the Chichimecas, Toltecs and other tribes of "Nahuatl" stock, Mex¬
icans of course included, is admitted, not only by Ixtlilxochitl, but already by Sahagun
(Lib. X, cap. XXIX, p. 147), who resumes as follows: "All these families call them¬
selves Chichimecas, and even pride and glorify themselves of such a name, and it is
because like Chichimecas they went wandering over those lands aforesaid, and thence
turned towards these parts, although really such lands were not called lands of Chichi¬
mecas, but Tlaotlalpan, Tlacohcalco, Mictlanpan, which means, wide and spacious
plains, lying towards the north." Veytia, who almost incorporates the statements of
all his predecessors, confirms it as follows: (Cap. II, p. 24). " Of this empiije (of tkp
Chichimecas) Huehuetlapallan was the famous court, and from it sallied at various
periods bands and squads to people remote countries, each one taking its own name,
after the chief or father of family which governed it, and becoming in course of time
distinct nations with different languages or dialects, so that according to the belief of
these nations and from their history, all the inhabitants of this new world have'sprung
394
sorted to caves and thickets for shelter and residence. Landed
tenure of any kind we cannot èxpect to find among them, and
still less the system of feudality.^®
Ethnographically, central Mexico must have presented an ap¬
pearance, at those times, similar to that of the State of New
Mexico and the territory of Arizona at present, in respect to
their aboriginal population. Savage tribes swayed and roamed
over the greater part of the country, while in the valley of Mexico
proper, and east of it, some few "pueblos" of village Indians re¬
mained, barely protecting their crops and themselves from the
inroads of marauding tribes.
from these seven families, and this city of Huehuetlapallan has the glory of having been
the first settlement made in it since the flood, and of being the cradle of all its people,
whose memory those of New Spain have preserved, calling it their ancient home."
(Compare, with this view of the peopling of Mexico, the beautiful exposé of Morgan,
of the peopling of America from centres of subsistence as initial points of migration,
in "Ancient Society" (Part II, cap. IV, p. 108). Mr. Morgan recognizes three such
centres in N. America, the most prominent of which is the Valley of the Columbia.)
The title of " Chichimecatl," ofteri extended to " Chichimecatl-tecuhtli," is found
very ffequently, not only among the Mexicans, but also the Tezcucans and Tlaxcallans.
It was an appellation given in reward of personal merit in war.
ïoixtlilxochitl has depicted to us a feudal Chichimecan Empire, more complete and
-typical than the feudal institutions of England. But at the same time he describes the
Chichimecas as mere savages (" Histoire des Chichimëques," Cap. IV, p. 30). " He aiTived
in a placé called Tenayucan Oztopolco, where there were many grottoes and caves,
which formed the principal dwellings of that nation." Id. cap. IX, p. 65 and 66), Tor-
quemada (Lib. I, cap. XV, p. 38 and 39), describes them a " people naked, without robes
of cotton, of wool, or any other covering but the skins of beasts. Their appearance
was wild, they were great warriors, whose weapons are bows and arrows." ....
" This nation of Chichimecas was governed and ruled by valiant and valorous captains
" Ixtlilxochitl further states ("Hist. Chichimeca," cap. IX, p. 66): "Every
family lived together, and such as had no caves which were their chief dwellings, built
huts of straw. The game was divided among the family of the hunter but the hide be¬
longed exclusively to him who had killed it." The soil, therefore, had no other value
for them than as hunting grounds." Nevertheless, both of the authors just quoted
report a distribution of the land by their chiefs, in the shape of individual donations,
and feodes at an early date. But Ixtlilxocliitl (Cap. IX, p. 63 and 64) asserts that the
culture of the soil, even the maize plant, was unknown to them until the twelfth century
of our era. Torquemada is still more explicit (Lib. I, cap. XLII, p. 67) : " Neither did
the Chichimecas pay any attention to it (agriculture or horticulture) for the reason that
the Lords and Kings had parks (" Bosques ") of rabbits and deer, which supplied them
with meat, and the common people and Maceuales went after it through thefieMs, thus
sustaining themselves without any other kind of work, and without the toil of sowing
or planting, to which they had not been accustomed." More than a century elapsed,
according to the above sources, ere horticulture, and therefore sedentary living, began
to appear among them. How could feudal tenure of the ground exist meanwhile ? We
need not refer here to other authors, neither to the descriptions fhrnished of the condi¬
tion of the Chichimecas north of the Mexican valley, at the time of the conquest (Mot-
olinia. Trat. III, cap. VII, p. 185). "Tuviéon Señores en esta tierra, como a])ora son y
están los Españoles, porque se enseñorearon de la tieiTa, no de la manera que los
Españoles."
See " Zwoelf Sprachen aus dem Südwesten Nordamerikas," by Albert S. Gatschet
395
While thus the high Mexican tableland especially was in a con¬
dition but little different from that of a fertile waste, migrations
were in progress from that same undefined " north," which grad¬
ually carried thither tribes, or at least kindred groups detached
from tribes, of horticultural sedentary Indians.^^ These bodies
moved slowly, and independently from each other, and they settled
down at last in the beautiful valley, near the watersheets in its
centre. There the}' occupied independent territories which they held
as their own;^^ and while they, in all probability, did not always
maintain friendly relations towards each other, it is still not im¬
probable that, owing to the bond of common stock-language, they
Weimar, 1877 (a valuable contribution to Lingitistics and Ethnography). Also "Lieut.
G. M. Wheeler's Zweite Expedition nach Neu Mexiko und Colorado, 1876," by Oscar
Loew (ill Vol. 22 of Dr. Petermaim's "Geographische Mittheilungen," p. 209). "The
Spanish Conquest of New Mexico," by W. W. H. Davis, 1869. The sedentary Indians
occupying the most limited expanse, and being also inferior in numbers to the roving
hands among and around them.
" These facts are generally acknowledged, as well as that they migrated from the
North. In addition to the authors already named in the course of this and of our pre¬
vious paper, we shall merely quote: Gregorio Garcia: "El Origen de los Indios del
Nuevo Mundo é Indias Occidentales" Madrid, 1729 (2nd Edition, Original appeared in
print about 1606). " New Mexico whence came the seven lineages, which peopled New
Spain " (Lib. Ill, cap. I, p. 81), (Lib. X, cap. Ill, p. 321). " Historia de la Conquista de
la Provincia de la Nueva Galicia," written by the Licentiate Don Matias de la Mota
Padilla, in 1742, and published by the Geogr. and Stat. Soc'y of Mexico in 1870 (Cap.
I, p. 21). They were the seven tribes of " Nahuatl " stock, the community of language
alone being sufDcient to demonstrate their common origin.
"All the older authors agi'ee in stating that the different tribes settled independent
of each other. See Motolinia ("Hist, de los Indios de Nueva España," in Col: de
Docum : Vol. I. " Epístola proemial ") Sahagun (Lib. X, cap. XXIX, p. 145). " Succès-
ivamente se volvieron los Nahoas, que son los Tepanecas, los Acolhoaques, los Chalcas
los Vexotzincas, y los Tlaxcaltecas, cada familia por si, y vinieron k estas partes de
México .... y asi venidos todos k estas partes y tomada la posesión de las tierras,
y puestas las mohoneras entre cada familia." Durán (" Hist : de las Yndias" (Cap. II,
p. 10). "He of Xuchimilca after having gone around the entire lagune, was pleased
with the site which they now occupy, settled there and took what he needed, without
damage to anybody nor any contradiction " (p. 11). The Chalcas settled near the Xu-
chimilcas " quietly and peaceably." The Tecpauecas did the same, also the Tezcucans
and the remainder (pp. 12,13. and 14). Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. Ill, p. 456). " At the time
these nations settled, the Chichimecas -made no show of opposition, nor resistance, only
they became estranged and like unto astonished retired into the rocky fastnesses." (It
is not devoid of interest to connect herewith the proper assertions of Cortés about the
utterances of Montezuma, " Carta Segunda," p. 25, in Vol. I of Vedia.) Gomara (" Con¬
quista de Méjico," p. 432, etc., Vedia, Vol. I). Fray Gerónimo Mendieta ("Hist, eccle-
siastica Indiana," Lib. II, cap. XXXIV, etc.) Ixtlilxochitl and Torquemada however,
have made the opinion current, that all these tribes settled upon Chichimecan domain,
and were assigned to special territories by the original holder of the entire country.
But we l4ave already established the nature of Chichimecan occupation of the land, and
from it we cannot infer that any title was held, neither that any could be given to new
comers.
396
sometimes associated (or even perhaps confederated) against sur¬
rounding tribes.
These settlers, who all spoke closely related dialects of the same
language as their predecessors the Toltecs, namely: the "Náh¬
uatl" or good sound, were : the Aculhuans or Tezcucans, the Tec-
panecas, the Xochimilcas, and the Chalcas. The first settled on
the Eastern shore of the central lagune, the second to the west
of it, while the two last-named tribes clustered around the fresh¬
water basins of the southeast. In this manner the valley was
eventually mastered again by sedentary Indians, who held at bay
the surrounding savages; — also defending it from neighbors of
their own stock who, occupying at the same time contiguous areas
placed under different geographical conditions, while their organ¬
ization and plan of life were similar, and the language but dialecti-
cally varied; — still, eventually, became their most inveterate
enemies.
Although quite a respectable literature has arisen on the subject
of the organization, customs and manners of these " Nahuatl" tribes
of the valley of Mexico, this literature is much richer in facts pur¬
porting to be historical than in satisfactory details on that subject
itself. We can but discern among the confusions and contradic¬
tions (of older authors particularly) — that the difierent tribes were
democratic societies, based upon consanguine groups as units.
Chiefs, elected by the people, formed their governments, whose high¬
est authorities were the councils. The Tezcucans and Tecpanecans
seem to have had each one, the Chalcas two, head war-chiefs, elected
for life. In regard to their mode of holding and distributing the
soil the most varied statements are given, most of these, however,
based upon the assumption of monarchial institutions, and even
of a great feudal empire with Tezcuco as its capital. Both of
The reports about a preponderance of certain tribes, such as the Tezcucans or the
Tecpanecans, resolve themselves into a result of intei-tribal relations in the valley
of Mexico. We need but consult the writings of Ixtlilxochitl for that purpose. (See
"Hist, des Chichimëques" cap. XI, XII, XIV, and XVI). Torquemada (Lib. I, cap.
XXXVII, p. 62).
16 For a history of the different tribes composing the specifically latest immigration
of " Nahuatl " stock, we refer to all the older authors on Mexican topics. Those of their
kindred who settled outside of the valley were especially the Tlaxcallans. The rela¬
tions of the latter to the valley-tribes were always rather unfriendly. See Torqbemada
(Lib. Ill, cap. IX, p. 258, and 259. Cap. XI, p. 264, and 265). Durán (Cap. II, p. 13).
But the continuous wars between Tlaxcallan and the tribes of the valley commenced
when the latter began to extend their sway under the leadership of the Mexicans (Ixt¬
lilxochitl " Hist, des Chichimëques " cap. XLI, p. 292). It is corroborated by the state¬
ments of the Tlaxcaltecas themselves to Cortés (" Carta Segunda," p. 18, Vedia, Vol. I).
397
these assumptions are disproved by the facts, related even by such
authors as have most contributed towards fixing them upon the
public mind as recognized truths.^® We need hardly say here,
"In regard to the Tecpanecas, Acosta says (Lib. VII, cap. 11, p. 477) ; " From this
it may be inferred, that among them the King exercised no absolute command and rule,
and that he was rather a consul, or Dux, than a king." He further compares the Tec¬
panecas with the " reges" of ancient Rome (See Morgan's "Ancient Society," Part II,
cap. XI, p. 297). The council was supreme among the Tecpanecans. See TezÄomoc
("Crónica Mexicana," Lord Kingsborough, Vol. IX, cap. IV, p. 11; also cap. V, p. 12,
cap. VI, p. 13, " a esto respondió el rey y senado Tecpaneca : Digéroule : mira atempan-
ecatl (que muy bien le conocían) bien conozco la humillación y sugecion de los Mexi¬
canos; ya es por demás, porque están alborotados, y corajudos los Tecpanecas:")
Durán (Cap. VIH, p. 64, and 65).
The Xuchimilcas were governed by two chiefs (Tezozomoc, cap. XVI, p. 25. Durán,
cap. XII, p. 104. "Their chiefs, of which there were two, one of the chief-place ("ca¬
becera" rather lineage) of Xuchimilco called Yacaxapotecutli, and the other from the
milpa (this is to be interpreted as descendancy), which is called Pachimalcatltecutli, and
together with them meeting many principals, said") : a joint meal after communal style
is also attributed to them by Tezozomoc (Cap. XVI, p. 26).
The Chalcas also had two chiefs : (Durán, cap. XVI, p. 134, Montezuma Ilhuicamina
said to Tlacaelel: " I wish, if thou agreest, to send messengers to Chalco to the chief
of Chalco Quateotl and to his companion Toteocitecutli . . . — Tezozomoc, cap.
XXII, p. 33. Cap. XXIV, p. 36. Confirmed by the action of Cortés after the voluntary
surrender of Chalco. when he installed two chiefs. Bernai Diez : cap. CXXXIX, p. 154
and 155, Vedia, II).
With the Tezcucans or Aculhuas there appears always but one head-chief, but it is
equally positive that the office, while remaining in a certain kin, was elective still. The
fact is interesting and requii'es close proof. We adduce here, in a general way, Saha-
gun (Lib. VllI, cap. XXX. "De la Manera que tuvieron en elegir los señores," p. 318, of
2d Vol.); Durán (Cap. LXIV, p. 496). "Montezuma sent his messengers to Tezcuco,
and had all the chiefs of that city and kingdom called to learn from them whom they
were inclined to elect . ..." (p. 497), "the which came, electing for King to Quetzalac-
xoyatzin, Neçaualpilli's son . . . ." Tezozomoc (Cap. CI and ClI). Ixtlilxochitl con¬
curs ("Histoire des Chichimëques," cap. LXXXVI). Torquemada (Lib. XI, cap.
XXVII, pp. 357, 358 and 359), acknowledges that, while the choice was among the sons
exclusively, there still was a choice left, but he contradicts the statements of Juan
Bautista Pomar (who wrote about 1582) who says, that this choice extended to the en¬
tire kin of the deceased head chief. Mendieta (Lib. II, cap. XXXVTI, p. 153). " Although
the Indians of this New Spain inherited the chieftaincy in direct lines, they took great
care in ascertaining which one of bis sons had to succeed to him." He mentions the
succession in the cases of Netzahualcóyotl and of Netzahualpilli, each of whom were
respectively followed by what he calls an illegitimate offspring, but whose mother was
a Mexican woman. Veytia (Cap. XIV, p. 367). " The council hardly had been intoi-med
of the King's death, when it thought proper to elect a successor, after the manner of the
Mexicans . . . ." Carlos Maria de Bustamante ("Tezcoco en los Ultimos Tiempos de
sus antiguos Reyes," Mexico, 1826. Part III, cap. IV, pp. 218, 219 and 220). Alonzo de
Zurita (" Rapport sur les différentes classes de chefs de la Nouvelle-Espagne " transla¬
tion by Mr. Ternaux-Compans, p. 12). "The order of succession varied according to
the provinces, the same custom, with slight differences, prevailing in Mexico, Tezcuco
and Tacuba."
The assumption of a feudal empire at Tezcuco has already been discussed. It was
an invention of chroniclers, who had a direct interest, or thought to have one, in ad¬
vancing tlie claims of the Tezcucan tribe to an original supremacy. Tribal jealousy
and rivalry, such a powerful ally of the Spaniards during the conquest, continued to
subsist where the Spanish domination was fully established.
398
that all the tribes of Mexico, issuing from a common stock,
speaking the "Nahuatl" tongue, and living under the same geo¬
graphical influences,1"'' had reached an almost identical state of
culture. Therefore the result of our investigations of the landed
tenure among the Mexican tribe proper, can safely be assumed
as applicable to all the other sedentary tribes of (the valley of)
Mexico.
"WÎiile thus horticultural tribes had secured the fertile portions
of that valley, dividing its expanse among themselves, and sepa¬
rated by unoccupied "neutral" soil,^^ — a small band of their own
linguistical relationship was moving down from the North, and
ultimately made its appearance in their , midst. Those were the
Mexicans proper, also called Aztecas Mexitin," Aztlantlacas" or
Mexica." This band was composed of Seven Kinships "line¬
ages," whose chiefs jointly composed the government of the whole,
a head war-chief, elected for life, directed their movements, but
"The difference between the valley tribes and those of the TIaxcaltecan mountain
country, is not even very great. It is in fact but apparent. From the nature of the
soil, the kinships of Tiaxcalian were more scattered in location, and therefore were
apparently democratic. The same was the case among the Niquirans of Nicaragua.
See Oviedo (Lib. XLII, cap. I, pp. 37 and 38), and E. G. Squier. ("Nicaragua," Vol. II.
"Aborigines of Nicaragua," cap. II, p. 340-348).
" Otherwise the confederacy, on equai terms, existing between the valley-tribes for
more than a century previous to the conquest, and of which we shall hereafter treat,
could not have been formed, neither could it have subsisted. The fact, however, that
all the old chroniclers mention the tribes of Mexico under one common head, and de¬
scribe their customs, as, in the main, identical,— proves that we can safely assume the
Mexicans as typical in that respect. Some tribes were more advanced in certain me¬
chanical arts than others,— but the difference was merely one of details, and not of or¬
ganic principles.
19 See " Art of War," p. 135. The boundary line mentioned by Ixtlilxochitl (Histoire
des Chichimëques," cap. XXXIII, p. 125), and also by Veytia (Cap. Ill of Book III, p. 167
of 3rd volume) if, as the latter asserts, it ever really existed, did not divide so much the ►
territory of the tribes, but rather the range over which each one might freely extend,
after the formation of the confederacy. Sr. Veytia contends that the remnants of it were
still visible at his time, and carried the name " albarrada de los indios."
90 " Art of War," p. 96, note 1. We have alluded to the common appellation of " Chi-
chimecas." Sahagun (Lib. X, cap. XXIX, p. 147), says : " properly they call themselves
Atlacachichimeca, or fishermen that have come from distant lands." This would be a
corroboration, to some extent, of Torquemada's assertion (Lib. II, cap. XI, pp. 92 and
93) that the Mexicans introduced the art of fishing in the Mexican valley. We cannot
help being struck by the preflxum, " Atlaca." If it decomposes into " Atl," water, and
"tlacatl," man, it assigns to the Mexicans an original abode in the neighborhood of the
sea, or of very large water-courses. Tezozomoc, in his first chapter, speaking of Aztlan,
whence the Mexicans are said to have emigrated, and from which word the name of
•' Aztecs " is derived, says : " They had in this land and the lagunes thereof,. . . (p.
5). Aztlan itself means "place of the heron," which is an aquatic bird. (See also
Veytia, Lib. II, cap. XII, p. 91). He places " Aztlan" towards the extreme north.
399
this office may not have, at that time, been permanently estab¬
lished —only temporarily, for emergency's sake.®^ It is barely
possible for us to follow the migrations of the Mexicans with any
degree of certainty ; we can but gather from the various and varied
reports and traditions, that being horticultural Indians, fertile
lands were sought for by them, and only when they reached the
lake-basin did they begin to hope for realization of their desires.^^
— There was j'et much unoccupied space around the lagunes, still
the newcomers were hardly welcome to the other occupants, who
harassed them so long, that at last they fled into the marsh or
swamp which then covered the area subsequently converted into
the western lagune of Mexico.^^ Thus they retired to ground
which was neither held nor claimed hy any of the surrounding tribes,
and on the few solid patches protruding above the morass, they
settled, glad to have escaped pursuit and found a resting place on
We have adopted the number seven for these kinships, although the interpreter of
the Mendoza Codex (Tab. I, of Vol. I, Lord Kingsborough) says there were ten. 'El
exercito Mexicano tubo por caudllios diez personas nombradas . . . (Vol. V, p. 40).
Durán and Tezozomoc both say seven, so does Veytia. The two former authors even
give the names of the idols which each of these seven clusters worshipped, carrying
it along on their migrations. It is needless here to prove in detail the democratic na¬
ture of these seven " lineages." Veytia, for instance (Lib. II, cap. XII and XIII), quotes
Chimalpain as authority, and although he assigns to the Mexicans a leader (" caudillo ")
called Huitziton, he still implies that at Chapultepec only "they, emulating the other
nations there located, resolved upon electing a King to govern them " (p. 109). Durán
(Cap. ni, p. 27). Clavigero mentions an " Aristocratic" organization of the Mexicans
until the year 1352. " The entire nation was below a senate or conclave of the most
respected persons, distinguished through nobility and knowledge. At the foundation
of Mexico there were 20 of these" (Lib. Ill, cap. 1). This is a new version. See also
Gregorio Garcia (" Origen de los Indios " Lib. V, cap. III). If we eliminate the mythi¬
cal Huitziton, we find occasional head war-chiefs. Veytia even assures us that after
Mexico was founded, they elected " one to govern them, although not in the capacity
of a King, but as a leader or captain " (Lib. II, cap. XVIII, p. 159).
« The regular series of Mexican head war-chiefs (" tlaca-tecuhtli ") commences about
the middle of the 14th century. Previous to it, the ofläce appears to have been filled by
occasional braves, as emergency required. Compare Veytia (Lib. II, cap. XII and XIII,
with cap. XV, p. 131, and cap. XVIII, p. 159, and cap. XXI, p. 186 and 187). Torquemada
(Lib. I, cap. Ill, p. 83. Cap. IV, p. 84. Cap. XII, p. 95). Mendieta(Lib. II, cap. XXXV,
p. 148), and Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. 8, p. 4(58 and 469), etc., etc.
23 Motolinia (Trat. III, cap. VII, p. 186). Durán (Cap. III). Tezozomoc (Cap. I, II
and III). Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. 4, p. 459). Garcia (" Origen, etc." Lib. Ill, cap. HI,
§ V, p. 99 and 100. " que los baria Principes, i Señores de todas los Provincias, que
bavian poblado las otras seis naciones, que antes en ellos havian salido.")
2< "Art of War, etc.," p. 87, note 5. Idem, p. 150, and note 194,185, and p. 151, notes
197 and 198.—L. H. Morgan ("Ancient Society," Part II, cap. VII, p. 190 and 191).
Among the older authors, Mendieta is very explicit (Lib. II, cap. XXXV, p. 148).
" Y eso asiento les cuadró mucho por hallarlo abundante de cazas de aves y pescados y
marisco con que se poder sustentar y aprovechar en sus granjerias entre los pueblos
comarcanos, y por el reparo de las aguas con que no les pudiesen empecer sus vecinos."
400
soil which they might hold as their ownß^ It would appear that,
through loss of numbers in the course of their migrations, as well
as through divisions among themselves, the original consanguine
groups composing the body, had been reduced toßve.^ Now a
further and last division took place, one of these kindred clusters
seceding from the rest, and establishing itself apart on another
sandy expanse where, close to the others however, it grew to be¬
come the tribe of Mexico-Tlatilulco.^^ It remained independent
until about forty years before the conquest.—The other four
settled each one by itself, but still acknowledging a common gov¬
ernment, in token of which the tribal place of worship was erected
at the spot where these four areas met. Thus the "pueblo" of
Mexico-Tenuchtitlan was founded ; the seat and home of the Mex¬
icans proper.29
26 Ixtlilxochitl (" Histoire des Chichimëqiies," cap. X, p. 72), says that the Mexicans
" asked the King of Azcapntzalco for soil " (to settle upon). Torquemada represents
their settlement as a flight to a safe place (Lib. II, cap. XI, p. 92). Also Mendieta(Lib.
II, cap. XXXV, pp. 147 and 148). Durán (Cap. V, p. 41), has the remarkable passage fol¬
lowing : " que aun el suelo no era suyo, pues era sitio y término de los de Azcapntzalco
y de los de Tezcuco ; porque alii llegaban los términos del uno y del otro pueblo, y por
la otra parte del Mediodía, términos de Culhuacan : " (This shows they were on neutral
ground, dividing the tribes of their suiroundings.) Tezozomoc confirms (Cap. Ill, p.
9), "estando en términos de los de Atzcapuzalco, Aculhuaques Tezcucanos y los de
Culhuacan." Durán (2° p. 41) further says that they contended to be masters of their
soil, without owing allegiance or obedience to any one. See also Tezozomoc (Cap. Ill)
and Motolinia (" Epístola proemial," p. 5). Gomara (" Conquista," p. 431. Vedia, Ist
volume).
26 We have already alluded to the number of chiefs leading the Mexicans at the time
of their settlement in the lagitne. It varies from lour to twenty. But the fact that four
" quarters " composed it originally, leads me to the belief that four Mexican kinships
remained, one seceding as the tribe of Tlatilulco. This division into four is the only fact
reliably ascertained. (See notes 27, 29, 30 and 31).
2' This fact is too amply proven to need special references. How it occurred we
cannot ascertain, since it is related in the most varied manner by the différent sources
of authority. If the statement is correct that even during their migrations, the Mex¬
icans proper and the Tlatilulcás kept apart, as tribal components, or probably "phra¬
tries,"— then the fact of their localizing as tribes independent from each other is easily
accounted for. See Veytia (Lib. II, cap. XV,'p. 135).
28 The date of its conquest by the Mexicans is about 1473 (" Art of War, etc." p. 102).
It can easily be verified from the date on the so-called " calendar stone " at the city of
Mexico, (see " Calendario Azteca " by Señor Chavero.)
2» The question remains yet undecided as to whether these four " quarters" (" bar¬
rios ") were four original kinships, or whether they were already four " brotherhoods
of kinships " (phratries), analogous to the Roman curiae formed by (or rather remain¬
ing as the last vestige of) original kinships disaggregated. The latter might appear
likely from the fact of the greater number of chiefs (than four), mentioned by the old
authors. The existence of still lesser groups is plainly acknowledged at the same time.
Durán says (Cap. V, p. 42) : " On the night after the Mexicans finished the place of wor¬
ship ("hermita donde su dios estaba"), a large area of the lagune being filled up and
room made for the houses, Vitzilopochtli spoke to his priest or keeper and said to him :
401
Four "quarters" had been formed by the localizing of four re¬
lationships composing them respectively, and it is expressly stated
that each one "might build in its quarter (barrio) as it liked."
The term for these relationships, in the Nahuatl tongue, and used
among all the tribes speaking it was : " Calpiilli." 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.^^ The ground thus occupied by the "Calpulli" was
" Say to the congregation Mexican that the chiefs, each one with his relatives, friends
and connections, shall divide themselves into four principal quarters, my house being
in the centre among them, and that each cluster may build in its quarter as it pleases."
These quarters are those which now remain in Mexico, that is, the quarters of San Pa¬
blo, of San Juan, of Santa Maria la Bedonda, and of San Sebastian. After the Mexicans
had divided into these four places, their God commanded them to distribute among them¬
selves the idols (" los dioses "), and that each quarter should name and designate par¬
ticular quarters where these particular idols should be worshipped. Thus each quarter
was divided into many small ones, according to the number of the idols called (Jalpul-
teona (it should be " Calpulteoltzin " composed of Galpulli-quarter, and teotl-god),
which signifies god of the quarter." (See Acosta, Lib. VII, cap. VII, p. 467 ) Tezozo-
moc, cap. Ill, p. 9, " y siendo de noche hicieron junta y les dijo el sacerdote Quauhtlo-
quetzqui : hermanos, ya es tiempo que os dividáis un trecho unos de otros en cuatro
partes cercando en medio el templo de Huitzilopochtli, y nombrad los barrios cada una
parte, y asi concertados para dividirse . . . ." Torquemada confirms these statements
|Lib. III, cap. XXIV, p. 295), although he protests against the origin of this division.
He says: "I confess it to be truth that this city of Mexico is divided into four principal
quarters, each one of which contains other smaller ones included, and all, in common
as weU as in particular, have their commanders and leaders . . . ." He further says
(Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545). "These clusters (" parcialidades" kinships) were distrib¬
uted by calpules, which are quarters (" barrios "), and it happened that one of these
clusters held three, four, or more calpules, according to the number of its people ...."
(We shall investigate hereafter the objection of Torquemada). The same author, how¬
ever, acknowledges (Lib. Ill, cap. XXII, p. 288), that the founders of Mexico were " nine
families . . . These families commenced the foundation of this illustrious and magnifi-
cent city ..." One fact results beyond all doubt, that the first settlement of Mexico
was made upon the basis of a division into kinships or consanguine groups, localizing
on certain areas, which jointly composed the tribe. That the government was demo¬
cratic has already been established previously.
soDurán (Cap. V, p. 42). Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. VII, p. 467). Herrera (Dec. Ill, Lib.
II, cap. XI, p. 61).
Torquemada (Lib. II, cap. LXVIII, p. 194. " Estaba de oi'dinario, recogido en
una grande Sala (ó calpul)." (Lib. III, cap. XXVII, p. 305. Lib. IV, cap. XIX, p. 396,
(que asi llaman las Salas grandes de Comunidad, ú de Cabildo). We find, under the
corrupted name of " Galpón," the "calpulli" in Nicaragua among the Niquiraus, 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 corri¬
dors 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. Ill,
p. 52. " Esta casa de cabildo llaman galpón . . . ." It is another evidence in favor of
our statements, that the kinship formed the original unit of the tribe, and at the same
tinje a hint that, as in New Mexico, originally an entire kin inhabited a single large
house. See Molina's Vocab. (p. 11).
Report Peabody Museum, II. 26.
402
not, as Torquemada admits, assigned to it by a higher powerthe
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.^^
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 orga¬
nization and state of culture.
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 provid¬
ing 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.
82 Torquemada (Lib. II, cap. VIII, p. 88, and Lib. Ill, cap. XXIV, p. 295) attributes
the division into ''quarters" to a "decree"of the Chichimecan "emperor" Techot-
lalatzin. But his assertions are disproved in part by his own statements, in part by the
positive reports of other authors. Admitting even that the said Techotlalatzin should
have wieided the discretionary power attributed to him, although thei-e is strong evi¬
dence against it, he would have ruled after the foundation of Mexico. (Clavigero,
Lib. II, cap. IX. Veytia, Lib. II, cap. XX, p. 178.) Consequently after the settling and
localizing of the four quarters mentioned had taken place.
88 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 supposi¬
tion tliat tliey, although elective, were still hereditary monarchs.
84 There is no evidence of any tribute or prestation due by the quarters to thß
tribe. The custom always remained, that the " calpulli " was sovereign within its limits.
See Alonzo de Zurita ("Rapport sur les différentes classes de chefs de la Nouvelle-
Espagne" pp. 51-95). Besides, Ixtlilxochiti says: (" Hist, des Chichim," cap. XXXV,
p. 242), "Other fields wei-e called Calpolalli or Altepetlalli." Now calpulalli (from.
" calpulli," quarter or kinship, and " tlalli," soil), means soil of the kin, and altepetlalli
(" altepetl," tribe), soil of the tribe. Clavigero even says that the lands called " altepet¬
lalli," 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.(I.ib. VII, cap. XIV.) This indicates plainly that the
kinships held the soil, wliereas tlie 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.
88 See Torquemada (Lib. II, cap. XI, and Lib. Ill, cap. XXII). Durán (cap. V). The
quotation is from Herrera (Dec. II, Lib. VII, cap. XIII, p. 190), and is confirmed by
Torquemada (Lib. HI, cap. XXIII, p. 291), and especially by Gomara (" Conquista de
403
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. Remain¬
ing unmoljcsted "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 cul¬
tivate 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 vegeta¬
bles. Such plots are still found, as "floating gardens," in the
vicinity of the present cit}'^ of Mexico, and they are described, as
follows, by a traveller 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
Méjico," p. 443. Vedia, I). "Many married people ("ranchos 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 ai'e large, and even the houses." Peter Martyr of Angleria (" De
Novo Orbe," translated by Richard Eden and Michael Lok, London, 161'2. Dec. V, cap.
X, p. 228), says: "But the common houses themselves as hygh as a mannes Girdle,
were also built of stone, by reason of the swellyng of the lake through the floode, or
washing flote of the Ry vers faliying into it. Vpon those greate foundations, they builde
the reste of the house, with Bricke dryed, or burned in the sunne, intermingled with
Beames of Tymber, and the common houses have but one floore or planchin." We
are fox'cibly reminded here of the houses of Itza on Lake Peten, which were found in
1H95. "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 In¬
habitants of the Island brutally together, one relationship occupying a single house."
See also the highly valuable Introduction to the second Dialogue of Cervantes-Salázar
(" Mexico in 1554") by my excellent friend Sr. Icazbalceta (pp. 73 and 74).
88 " Chinampa," derives from " Chinamitl." " Seta o cerca de canas," (enclosure of
canes or reeds). Molina "Vocabulario", Parte II, p. 21). This mode of enclosing the
ground was very common in the valley. A cluster of settlements between Churubusco
and the Eastern lagoon has even obtained from it the name of "Chinam[ianecas (fre¬
quently mentioned in Tezozomoc andDurán.) The word " Chinamitl "has been adopted
by the Qquiché of Guatemala, changed into "Chinamit," and used to designate a
kinship. (See " Popol-Vuh., pp. 301,304,306, where " Chinamit " is translated as family.)
Even in those remote regions where the territories of Yucatan and Guatemala join, or
rather merge into each other, around Lake Peten, where the Nahuatl language is hardly
known, we find in the 17th and 18th century, a tribe of " Chinamitas," who are said to
have inhabited an area surrounded by Mexican agaves ("Magueyes") asa defensive
hedge. ("Hist, de la Conq. de los Itzaex," Lib. VIII, cap. .XI, pp. 490-493.) It shows
that the original signification of the word, at least, was connected with the notion of a
family-lot.
404
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 fiowers "37
Each consanguine relationship thus gradually surrounded the
surface on which it dwelt with a number of garden plots suf¬
ficient to the wants of its members.38 The aggregate area
thereof, including the abodes, formed the calpullalli"—soil of
the " calpulli," 39 and was held by it as a unit; the single tracts,
however, being tilled and used for the benefit of the single fam¬
ilies'^ The mode of tenure of land among the Mexicans at that
period was therefore very simple. The tribe claimed its territory,
" ALTEPETLALLi," an Undefined expanse over which it might extend,
— the " calpules," however, held aiià. 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 tne soil.'^i We thus recognize in the cal¬
pulli, or kindred group, the unit of tenure of whatever soil the
Mexicans deemed worthy of definite possession. Further on we
s'' " Six Months Residence and Travels in Mexico," by W. Bullock. London, 1824.
Cap. XIII, p. 179. It is not devoid of interest to compare the descriptions of this rather
superficial, though still truthful observer, with the account of the ancient Chinampas
as preserved to us in Tezozomoc (cap. Ill, p. 9). Duran (cap. VI, pp. 50 and 51). The
floats or rafts mentioned by these old authors were nothing else but the chinampas or
" floating gardens." Therefore also Tezozomoc uses the term " camellón," or garden-
bed. vSee also Acosta, Lib. VII, cap. IX, p. 472.) Torquemada (Lib. XIII, cap. XXXII, .
p. 483). Veytia (Lib. II, cap. XV, p. 142).
38 Duran (Cap. V). Tezozomoc (Cap. Ill, p. 8). Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. IX, p. 473).
Torquemada (Lib. Ill, cap. XXXIII, p. 291. Lib. II, cap. XV, p. 101). Clavigero (Lib.
II, cap. XVII).
8» Alonzo de Zurita (p. 51). Ixtlilxochitl ("Hist, des Chichim," cap. XXXV, p. 242).
Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545). Bustamante (" Tezcoco en los últimos Tiem¬
pos de sus antiguas Reyes," p. 232).
40 Zurita (" Rapport, etc.," pp. 52, 56, 57, 60).—De l'Ordre de Succession observé par
les Indiens, etc., etc. (copy of an anonymous MSS. from Simancas, contained in the
Uguina collection, and translated by Mr. Ternaux-Compans in his "Recueil de pièces,
etc., pp. 223 and 224.)
41 Zui-ita (" Rapport, etc.," pp. 51-64). Herrera (Dec. Ill, Lib. IV, cap. XVII, p. 138).
Ramirez de Fuenleal, Bishop of San Domingo (Letter of 3 Nov., 1532, Mexico, to the
Emperor Charles V. " Recueil " of Teruaux, p. 253). See also the Introduction to the
" Real Ejecutoria de S. M. sobre Tierras y Reservas de Pechos y Paga. Perteneciente
á los Caciques de Axapusco," in " Col. de Doc." of Icazbalceta (Vol. II, p. XIII).
405
shall investigate how far individuals, as members of this commu¬
nal unit, participated in the aggregate tenure.
In the course of time, as the population further increased,
segmentation occurred within the four original "quarters;" new
" calpulli," being formed.Yor governmental purposes this seg¬
mentation produced a new result by leaving, more particularly in
military affairs, the first four clusters as great subdivisions But
these, as soon as they had disaggregated, ceased to be any longer
units of territorial possession, their original areas being held there¬
after 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.^'* 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.
*®This successive formation of new " calpulli " is nowhere explicitly stated, but it is
implied by the passage of Durán which we have already quoted (Cap. V, p. 42). It also
results from their military organization as described in the "Art of War," (p. 115).
With the increase of population, the original kinships necessarily disaggregated
further, as we have seen it to have occurred among the Qquiché (See "Popol-Vuh"
quoted in our note 7), forming smaller groups of consanguinei. After the successful
war against the Tecpanecas, of which we shall speak hereafter, we find at least
twenty chiefs, representing as many kins (Durán, cap. XI. p. 97), besides three more,
adopted then from those of Culhuacan (Id. pp. 98 and 99). This indicates an increase.
*3" Art of War, etc.," pp. 115 and 120.
**Torquemada (Lib. Ill, cap. XXIV, p. 295). " I confess it to be truth that this city
of Mexico is divided into fonr principal quarters, each one of which contains others,
smaller ones, included, and all, in common as well as in particular, have their com¬
manders and leaders . . . ." Zurita (" Rapport," p. 58-64). That the smaller subdivis¬
ions 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. 54.5) : " that in each pueblo, according to the number of people, there should
be (were) clusters (" parcialidades") of diverse people and families .... These clus¬
ters were distributed by calpules, which are quarters (" barrios "), and it happened that
one of the aforesaid clusters sometimes contained three, four, and more, calpules, ac¬
cording to the population of the place (" pueblo ") or tribe." The same author further
affirms : " These quartei-s, and streets, were all assorted and levelled, with so much accu¬
racy, that those of one quarter or street could not take a palm of land fi-om those of an¬
other, and the same was with the streets, their lots running (being scattered) all over
the pueblo." Consequently, there were no communal lands allotted to the four great
quarters of Mexico as such, but each one of the kinships (calpules) held its part of
the original aggregate. Compare Gomara (Vedia, Vol. I, "Conq. de Méjico," p. 434.
"Among tributaries it is a custom, etc., etc." Also p. 440). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap.
XIV). " Each quarter has its own tract, without the least connection with the others."
« Compare Durán (Cap. XI, p. 87). Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. XXXI, p. 470). It appears
as if the " tecpau " had not been constructed previous to the middle of the I4th cen-
406
This building was the 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 centre 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 " tecpan " became required, even to such an extent, that a
permanent residence of the head-chiefs there, resulted from it, and
was one of the duties of the office. Consequently the " tlaca-
tecuhtli," 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 occu¬
pant, whose family relinquished the abode, as soon as the time of
office expired through death of its incumbent. The "tecpan"
was occupied by the head war-chiefs only as long as they exercised
the functions of that office.'*'^
tury,—the meetings of the tribe being previously called together by priests, and prob¬
ably in the open space around the main house of worship. The fact of the priests
calling the public meetings is proved by Dnrán (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,—Torque¬
mada says (Lib. XII, cap. XXÍI, p. 290), that they lived in miserable huts of reeds and
straw, erected ai'ound the open space where the altar or place of worship of Huitzil-
opochtli was built. The public building was certainly their latest kind of construction.
*6From "tecuhtli" chief, and the affixum "pan," denoting a place. Therefore
" place of the chiefs." Molina translates : " casa ó palacio real, ó de algún señor de
Saino " (II, p. 93). The word is also found in the Qquiché of the " Popol-Vuh " (p. 306).
"Qui ticpan quib" — Mr. E. Brasseur de Bourbourg acknowledges the Mexican
origin of the word, and renders it by " to divide into quarters," although he says that
in Mexican it signifies : palace or municipality.
4T Torquemada (Lib. Ill, cap. XIV, pp. 269 and 270). " Tecpancalli, que quiere decir,
los Palacios Reales, ó el Alcaçar, y casas de Señorío" (Id; Lib. VII, cap. XXI. p. 119.
Lib. XIII, cap. XXX, p. 477). But especially in the Sixth Book, 27th chapter, page 48,
when, referring to the statements of Father Bernardino de Sahagun who says, that
" being in the city of Xuchimilco, he heard one night, etc. etc and that inquiring
next day why that shouting had taken place,— the Indians answei-ed, that from the
Tecpan, or community (municipal house), they had been calling the macehuales to
work."
48 Nearly every author who attempts to describe minutely the " chief-house " (tecpan)
mentions it as containing great halls (council-rooms). See the description of the tecpan
of Tezcuco by Ixtlilxochitl (" Hist, des Chichimöques," cap. XXXVI, p. 247. " The
palace had two courts, the first and largest one serving as public square and market,
for which it is still used at present. The second and interior one, was surrounded by
the hf^l of the royal councils, where the King held two tribunals. In the centre of this
court a large brasier was burning, which was never extinguished." Id. cap. XXXVII I),
by Torquemada (Lib. Ill, cap. XXVII, p. 305. Lib. II, cap. XLIV, pp. 146 and 147. Lib.
4Ö7
About the time these changes occurred, the dignity of " tlacá-
tecuhtli" seems to have become a permanent feature in the govern-
Xr, cap. XXVI, pp. 354 and 355). Cortés himself (Vedia, I, carta segunda, pp. 34 and 35),
speaks of the great halls contained in what he calls the " house of Muteczuma." Bemal-
Diez del Castillo (Vedia II, cap. XCI, pp. 86 and 87), conflrms. See also Gomara (Vedia,
I, p. 342 and 343. *' Adonde él moraba y residia á la continua, llaman Tepac, que es como
decir palacio — ... habia en él muchas salas.") Sahagun (Lib. VIII, cap.
XIV, p. 302. "El palacio de los Señores ó casas reales, tenia muchas salas.") The
tecpan was near the centre of the pueblo. See Gomara (Vedia I, p. 341. " Llegaron
pues â un patio grande, recamera de los Ídolos, que fué casas de Axaiaca.") Cortés
(Vedia, I, " Carta Tercera," pp. 74 and 76, etc.).
Bernal-Diez (Vedia, II, cap. LXXXVIII, p. 84, etc.). According to Sr. Icazbalceta
("México in 1554, note 38, p. 182, to the 2d Dialogue of Cervantes-Salázar), the "old
houses of Montezuma" occupied (about) the square west of the present site of the
Cathedral. The " new houses " were in place of where the National palace now stands.
It is admitted that the Cathedral occupies the site of the main "teocalli,"or the
old centre of the ancient pueblo. (Torqjiemada, Lib. Ill, cap. XXII, p. 290). The cor¬
rectness of this is conclusively proven by Sr. Icazbalceta in note 40, to the Second
Dialogue of Cervantes (p. 194, and plate on p. 197, also the important dissertation on
page 201), and in note 51. Thus the central location of the tecpan at Mexico remains
established.
The permanent residence of the head war-chief, of his household, and of some
assistants,— at the tecpan, is too frequently related to demand further proof, but it is
not superfluous here to investigate the point: that this residence was connected,— not
with the person and descendancy of that chief, but with the oßce alone.
We find it mentioned that the buildings occupied by the Spaniards, when they first
came to the pueblo of Mexico were the "house of the father of Montezuma" (Axay;
acatzin, probably). All the eye-witnesses concur in it and we need not refer to theni
in detail. There was, consequently, a house where the kinship of the chief lived,—
aside from the tecpan, for since descent with the Mexicans was in the .male line,— the
son continued to occupy the dwellings of his father and twith communal living as
practised in Mexico), of that father's consanguine relations. (That these sons and de¬
scendants were bred up to the ordinary pursuits of life, like any other Indian of Mex¬
ico, results from the speech as reported by Sahagun (Lib. V, cap. XV), of an old chief
to his sons, wherein he exhorts them to cultivate the mechanical arts, and agriculture,
adding the remarkable words, p. 117, " nowhere have I seen that any one may maintain
himself through his noble descendancy alone.") In the case of Ahuitzotl, Durán relates
(Cap. XLI, p. 327), " all the chief and principal men, with the whole tribe, going to the
place where the sons of the Kings and great men were kept (" recogidos "), and where
they instructed and furthered them in virtuous things, in the use of arms and good
manners. Then they took out (Ahuitzotl) from the others, and brought him to the
royal palace." Tezozomoc (Cap. IjX, p. 100), speaking of the election of Ahuitzotl
says: "and these twelve Mexican chiefs went to bring the King Ahuitzotl from the
house of Tilancalco." "And they said nothing to him until they Avere in the great
palace" (Cap. LXI, p. 100). The election of Montezuma, however, gives occasion to
that author, for another and very important statement (Cap. LXXXII, p. 143). " For,
know ye, that many of the sons of the Kinu^s past, are brought up now, some of which
have become singers, others Cuachimecs, others Otomies, and the others are preparing
to assume your titles of Tlacatecatl, Tlacochcalcatl, Ticocyahuacatl, AcolnahuacatI,
Hezhuahuacatl, and a number of others who are and dwell in the principal house Cal-
mecac." It is further exposed, how unwise it would be to elect an unmarried man, and
Anally Montezuma was chosen, whose age at that time is given at thirty-four years, and
he was taken out of the Calmecac and escorted to the chief house (tecpan). But the
strongest evidence results from the fact that the oflflce was elective, and not liereditary.
How, while the incumbent of an office changed, could the family of his predecessor
still remain in possession of the official building?
408
ment of the Mexican tribe.^® Nearly at the same time also, the
Mexicans felt the necessity of opening communications with the
tribes inhabiting the shores of the great marsh in the midst of
which they were living, — in order to obtain some of the commodi¬
ties produced or held by these tribes. Strong enough for defence^
but too weak yet for offence^ the Mexicans approached cantioûsly
their nearest and most powerful neighbors, the Tecpanecas, with
the view of securing permission to trade and barter, also for the
purpose of obtaining the use of one of the springs of the main¬
land. This permission was granted, on condition that the Mexi¬
cans should pay a certain tribute. This was, however, no kind of
feudal prestation, not being in the least connected with the tenure
of the soil or occupancy of the territory,— but simpl^'^ like unto a
toll or tax placed on the faculty of 'barter. The further condition
of military assistance being, in all likelihood, also exacted, the
Mexicans thus became, not the subjects as it is commonly stated,
but the weaker allies of the Tecpanecas.^®
í9We have previously alluded (note 22), to the fact that, anterior to Acamapitzin,
the series of Mexican head-chiefs appear broken, whereas from the latter onward the
office is reported as having been regularly filled. From that time on the term " palacio,"
as connected with the office, appears in the Spanish historians. See Dnrán, Tezozomoc,
Acosta and Torquemada. (Especially " Monarchia Indiana," Lib. 11, cap. XIV, p. 98).
^oAll the authors agree upon the fact that the early life of the Mexican tribe on the site
of Tenuchtitlan was one of secluded poverty, even of misery. See especially Torque¬
mada (Lib. II, cap. XI, pp. 92 and 93). "In this place they settled ("se ranchearon ")
erecting poor and small habitations, sun-ounded by canes and grasses, called by them
Xacalli, . . . where they spent their life miserably, the place being poor and destitute,
and as people abandoned and poor, persecuted by all the inhabitants of the mainland,
they subsisted upon roots of Tulli and other herbs, which grew on the place and on its
surroundings." Then they began to fish. (See also Tezozomoc, cap. III. Durán, cap.
V. Clavigero, Lib. II, cap. XVII. Sahagun, Lib.X, cap. XXIX, pp. 145 and 146. Veytia,
Lib. II, cap. XV, p. 142). Duran and Tezozomoc both assert, that their first step, when
the population began to increase, was to seek for traffic, which could only be secured
through some kind of connection with their nearest and most warlike neighbors, which
at that time were the Tecpanecas. (" Hist, de las Yndias de Nueva España," cap. V,
pp. 41 and 42. " Empero juntándose todos en conséjo ovo algunos que fueron de parecer
que con mucha omildad se fuesen à los de Azcaputzalco y á los Tepanecas, que son los
de Cuyuacan y Tacnba, y que se les ofreciesen y diesen por amigos y se les subjetasen.
con intención de pedilles piedra y madera para el edificio de su ciudad . . . ." "Crónica
Mexicana," cap. III, p. 9. It was finally agreed to barter, with as little concession as
possible on their part). Most of the other authors have transformed this alliance with
the Tecpanecas into a feudal allegiance, resulting from the occupation of the soil and
from intermarriage. Both are disproved by Durán (Gap. V, p. 41 : " pues era sitio y ter¬
mino de los de Azcaputzalco y de los de Tezcuco; porque alli llegaban los términos
del uno y del otro pueblo, y por la otra parte del mediodía, términos de Culhuacan ; . ."
' ' y que como señores ya de aquel sitio, sin hacer buz ni reconocer subjecion à ninguno,
pues su dios los auia dado aquel sitio, fuesen y comprasen piedra y madera, etc., etc.")
and Tezozomoc (Cap. III, pp. 9 and 10).
Even Torquemada acknowledges the fact, that the Mexicans were originally inde¬
pendent (Lib. II, cap. XI), and that they weroconnected with the Tecpanecas through trib-
409
Through the establishment of direct relations with the outside,
not only the public business of the Mexicans was increased, but,
for the interchange of commodities, a standing market became
indispensable. The pueblo of Mexico, formerly shunned by stran¬
gers, was now visited by delegations from neighboring tribes,
and especially by traders. Indian liospitality required that these
visitors should be harbored as guests, and the official house of the
tribe was the place where this hospitality was afforded ; it being
the duty of those who occupied it to lodge and feed the strangers.®^
ute (Lib. II, cap. XV, p. 99), a statement flatly contradictory. In his previous descrip¬
tion of the early conditions of the tribes, he represents the Mexicans as outcasts, upon
which no other tribe had any claim (pp. 92 and 93). No attempt was made to conquer
them, since their retreat was too impenetrable (Torquemada, Lib. II, cap. XI, p. 93. Men-
dieta, Lib. II, cap. XXXIV, p. 146),—therefoi'e their intercourse with the tribes of the
mainland was voluntary (Acosta, Lib. VII, cap. VII, p. 467), and necessarily took the
form of alliance or league. In this case military assistance yi&s the main point. And
indeed we do find, in what we may call the " Tezcucan" chroniclers, like Ixtlilxochitl,
Torquemada, Veytia, and Clavigero, the Mexicans assisting the Tecpanecas (vide " His¬
toire des Chichimëques," cap. XV, p. 102. Cap. XVI, p. 108. Cap. XX, pp. 131 and 132.
"Monarchia Indiana," Lib. II, cap. XIX, p. 1U8. "Historia Antigua de Méjico," Lib.
II,cap.XXVIILpp.236,237,238. Cap. XXIX, pp.241-243. Cap. XXX, p.2.'}0. "Storiade
Messico," Lib. Ill, cap. VIII). Bustamante ("Tezcoco en los últimos Tiempos," p. 2),
who claims to follow Boturini, conflrms. The military achievements of the Mexicans in
the wars between the Tecpanecas and Tezciicans are not even claimed by these authors
as a due service, but as the actions of allies or confederates of the former.
Cortés (" Carta^ Segunda," p. 35, in Vedia I). " The manner of his service was (of
Montezuma), that every day at sunrise, about 600 Lords and leading men were in his
house, which either seated themselves, or some walked around in some halls and cor-
ridoi's therein contained, and there remained and spent their time without entering
where he was. And their servants and persons accompanying them filled two or three
great courts (" patios ") as well as the street, which was very large. They remained
there without leaving it until night. And at the time they served to eat to the said
Muteczuma, they also served all these Lords as well as their attendants. The supplies
or stores (" la dispensa y botilleria ") were open daily to all those who wished to eat
and drink." See also Sahagun (Lib. IX, cap. I, to V, concerning the receptions to
traders, by the head-chiefs). Torquemada (Lib. II, cap. LIXIX, p. 231. He states that
all his subjected chieftains, 3,000 in number, their attendants included, ate at "his
court." Lib. XIV, cap. I, p. .534, speaking of the messengers, says that they wei-e lodged
at the "Calpixca" or house of the community. In another place he mentions that
house as the "Tecpan." See note 47). Duran describes several religious solemnities,
at which the chiefs of neighboring tribes assisted, which the head-chief of Mexico had
to entertain (Cap. XX, pp. 175 and 176. Cap. XXIII, p. 195. The chiefs of Tezcuco,
Tacuba, Chalco, Xuchimilco, etc., etc., were invited to attend, and on their coming they
were quartered in the royal houses ("fuéron aposentados en las casas reales"). Idem,
cap. I, III, pp. 416-421. Cap. LIV, p. 428. The delegates from Chalco, Tlaxcallan, Choi-
rillan, etc., etc., were lodged at the Tecpan ("en su mesmo palacio real"). Cap.LVIII,
p. 459). Tezozomoc (Cap. XXI, p. 33. Cap. LXI, p. 101, wherein Ahuitzotl is especially
enjoined to " give to eat to his people." Cap. LXXXII, p. 144, " y los vasallos recibidos
como á tales tributarios, aposentándoles, vistiéndoles y dándoles lo necessario para las
vueltas de sus tierras con los viejos y viejas mucho amor, dándolos para el
sustento humano: regalados los principales teniendóles en mucho,y dandóles la honra
que merecen : Uatnarlos cada dia al palacio que comían con vos." This indicates that
the hospitality was obligatory, etc.). Zurita ("Bapport, etc.," p. 65). Herrera (Deo.
III, lib. IV, cap. XXII, p. 138).
410
With continued increase of the population, the " tecpan " alone
did no longer suffice, thus each " calpulli " erected, within its own
area, its own council place for the transaction of its interior
business, lodging in it, after the model of the " tecpan," its own
chief-men, and exercising there its share of the general hos¬
pitality. So Mexico became dotted with public constructions,
necessarily distinguished by their size and arrangement from the
rest of the buildings.
The chiefs and their families who resided in the official houses,
and upon whom devolved the exercise of public hospitality,—con¬
tinued to participate for their share in the use of the soil held and
cultivated by the "calpulli" to which they belonged by descent.
But whereas formerly they could improve these lands themselves^
this became impossible with the increase of public business, and
the task of cultivating them devolved, first upon their children
and families, afterwards, when even these were required for the
duties of the official household,— upon the other members of the Mn.
This was done, not in token of vassalage, but as a remuneration
for the public services of the chiefs. The same took place in
regard to the "tecpan" and its occupants. With the increase
of intercourse, however, the scanty crops raised in this manner
became insufficient, and a regular contribution, by each member of
the different kinships, towards maintenance of the chiefs and the
visitors they had to entertain, was instituted. Certain expanses
were set aside, to be worked by communal labor, the products of
which were exclusively devoted to what we may term "official
purposes." Thus not only was there a tax created, voluntarily by
the tribal components, for public purpose, but a new feature was
introduced in the distribution of the soil. The mode of tenure,
82These houses, sometimes called "calpulli," at other times "calpixca," were the
private palaces, which the Spanish authors mention. They were but "official build¬
ings probably connected with storehouses. As the tribe had its tecpan, so each cal¬
pulli, or localized kinship, its own council-house. This results from the organization
of the kinship. See also " Art of War," pp. 103 and 104. What distinguished these con¬
structions from the common house or abode (" calli "), were,the halls (" salas "), and the
" tecpan " was further distinguished by a lookout or tower. (Duran, cap. XXVI, p. 215.
Tezozomoc, cap. XXXVI, p. 58). This distinction places it parallel to the so-called
"palace" of Palenqué in Chiapas. Compare further: Zurita ("Rapport, etc.," p. 02).
"At the annual gatherings, they (the chiefs of the calpulli) distribute gratuitously food
and drink, to keep the Indians in good humor." Herrera (Dec. II, lib. VII, cap. XHI,
p. 190). If we wei-e to believe the picture presented of Mexico by the authors of the
16th and 17th centuries, Mexico would have possessed innumerable edifices of that
kind.
411
however, was not changed, and no hereditary rights of property
were called into existence in favor of the chiefs or their descen¬
dants.
For nearly a century after the first settlement of the Mexicans
BS No mention is made of any tax or tribute gathered for oflftcial purposes among the
Mexicans until under the last Montezuma, vviien it is generally admitted, as Gomara
says : " That all tributed to the chief of Mexico " (" Conq. de Méjico," p. 345, Vedia, I).
Without accepting the views expressed by Robertson ('• History of Ameiaca." Book
VII, p. 291. Vol. Ill, 9th Edition, 18C0), who ascribes to the influence of Montezuma a
change in the plan of government of the Mexican tribe,— it still appears but natural
that as long as the tribe was weak in numbers and resources, the original or typical
form of communal Institutions prevailed, whereas with increased population and con¬
sequent increase of governmental -labor the members of the tribe were compelled to
provide for the maintenance of their ofiCLcers and their families. The flrst step was to
cultivate such patches of land for them as they held being members of some calpulli.
These lands were the " pillali," commonly ti-eated of as " patrimonial estates." Tor-
quemada, however, says (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 546): "Another kind of lands they
called pillali, or, so to say: Lands of Knights ("hidalgos") or nobles. Of these there
were two kinds. In the first case the land was inherited with the nobility, and in the
other, the chief gave lands to such as had achieved distinction and valor in war, and
were ennobled therelor. To these the chief gave lands for their sustenance, but they
could not hold renters (" terrazgueros") but might sell to other chiefs, as if the condi¬
tional gift from the chief had not existed: and neither of these two classes could dis¬
pose of their tracts to any macehual (common man—perhaps from " maitl"—hand, and
" cenalli "—shade,— the hand of some one who gives protection or shade), for in that
case they lost them, and the chief entered in their possession, and they were applied to
the calpulli in whose area they were located, in order that the said cluster might pay tribute
according to the quantity of land contained; — also, if any one of them died without
heirs, the chief inherited " Herrera (Dec. Ill, lib. IV, cap. XVII, p. 1.38). " These were
lands which went with the Lordship, and which they called lands of the Lordship, and
of these the Lords could not dispose, but rented them as they might and the rents were
used in the house of the King, because there, besides all the principals, also ate the travel'
lers, and thepaupers, for which service the Kings were much honored and obeyed. What
these rents did not furnish, was supplied by their patrimonial estates." Veytia (Lib.
Ill, cap. VI, p. 195). "For the present we shall but say, that in each pueblo and place
there was a tract of land of best quality, which was of the-Kings or Lord of the estate
For the sowing and working of these lands the calpixque, an officer of the
republic (state) in each pueblo, daily designated the common people who had to work
them, aqd all the fruit belong integrally to the chief for the maintenance of his house."
Ixtlilxochitl (Hist, des Chichim. cap. XXXV, pp. 242, 243 and 244). Bustamante (' Tez-
coco en los Ultimos Tiempos, etc." ^Part III, cap. V, p. 234, etc.). Oviedo (" Hist. gen.
y nat." lib. XXXIII, cap. LI, p. 5.36, of 3d vol.) Now we have already established, that
individual tenure of the soil was unknown, it is further prqyed that the offices were
non-hereditary, we cannot fail, therefore, to recognize. 1®. In the " pillali" of Torque-
mada the original " chinampa " held by chiefs as members of a kinship.
2°. In the tracts of Herrera and Veytia " official lands," specially reserved for the
wants of official houses and their occupants. These lands went " with the office."
No date can be assigned to the introduction of this new feature among the Mexicans
but we cannot help being struck by the fact that the Tezcucan chroniclers make spe¬
cial mention of it, connecting it with the time when Nezahualcoyotl became chief of
Tezcoco (See Ixtlilxochitl " Hist, des Chichim." cap. XXXV. Veytia, Lib. Ill, cap. VI,
p. 195. Bustamante, Part III, cap. V). The connection is implied rather than expressed,
and but excuses the suggestion : that such a change might have occurred about the close
of the fourteenth and beginning of the fifteenth centuries. Of course we allude here
to the Mexicans aloue, and not to the tribes of the mainland.
412
in the lagune, they were confined to their original area and to such
artificial garden-beds as they accumulated around it. Meanwhile
their allies on the mainland, the Tecpanecas, were making them¬
selves formidable in warfare to the other tribes ; the Mexicans
assisting. The moment arrived however, when the latter, having
secured a defensive position, acquired military experience and
greater strength, sought to free themselves from the tax which had
heretofore burthened their trade and barter. War ensued, and the
Mexicans, now in turn supported by enemies of the Tecpanecas,
completely overthrew the power of the latter tribe. By this
victory, they not only secured a foothold on the mainland, but
became at once one of the ruling tribes of the western valley of
Mexico.®^
The only territorial accession gained by the Mexicans, in fact
the only one claimed by them, appears to have been the hill of
Chapultepec. They already had the use of the springs rising
there, now they acquired their full and unincumbered possession.®®
The remainder of Tecpanecan territory was left to that tribe
intact, and in no manner annexed to that of Mexico. The orga¬
nization of the tribe, its government, and distribution of the soil,
remained equally undisturbed. No Mexican representatives were
delegated to rule Azcaputzalco or Cuyuacan. But the Mexicans
in turn subsequently controlled the military power of the con-i
quered tribe, and, besides, it was thereafter held to tribute. This
wDuran (Cap. IX and X). Tezozomoc (Cap. VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV
and XV). Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. XIII and XIV). Herrera (Dec. Ill, lib. II, cap. XII
and XIII). Ixtlilxochitl (Hist, des Chichim.," Cap. XXX, XXXI and XXXII). Torque-
mada (Lib. II, cap. XXXV, XXXVI and XXXVH). Veytia rLib. II, cap. I, LI, LII, LUI
and LIV). Clavigero (Lib. HI, cap. XVII, XVIH and XIX). Bustamante (Part I, cap.
XXIII). Prescott (" History of the Conquest of Mexico," Book I, cap. I, pp. 15 and 18).
66It is even stated that the petition of the Mexicans for stone and wood to construct
therewith a channel leading from Chapultepec to tl^ir pueblo, was the cause of the war.
See Durán (Cap. VIII, p. 63). Tezozomoc (Cap. V, pp. 11 and 12). Acosta (Lib. VII, cap.
II, p. 476. " Con esta ocasion, ora sea que ellos de proposito lo buscassen, para romper
con los Tepanécas, ora que con poca consideración se moviessen, al efecto embiaron
una embaxada al Rey de Azcapuzalco muy resoluta dizieudo, que del agua que los
aula hecho merced, no podian aprovecharse, por auerseles desbaratado el caño por
muchas partes, por tanto le pedían los proviniésse de madera, y cal, y piedra, y
embiasse sus oficiales que con ellos hiziessen un caño de cal y canto que no se desbar-
atasse.") Chapultepec remained specifically Mexican soil thereafter, it being the source
of fresh water for the pueblo of Mexico. When Cortés moved against the tribe the
second time, he seized the hill after a short but desperate struggle. (Cortés " Carta
Tercera," p. 71, Vedia I. Beimal-Diez, cap. CL, p. 176, Vedia II. Clavigero, Lib. X.
cap. XVII). See also Icazbalceta, in his Introduction to the 3d Dialogue of Cervántesi
Salazar (" Mexico in 1554," pp. 256 and 257). Veytia (Lib. Ill, cap. I, p. 142, of 3d vol.).
Bustamante (" Tezcoco en los ult : Tiempos." Parte IIa, cap. I, p. 148).
413
tribute was gathered by stewards, the only Mexicans permanently
residing on Tecpanecan soil, and it was distributed in accordance
with the tribal organization : among the calpules for the use of
their public households and of their individual members, and to
the "tecpan" for the maintenance of the tribal government and
business ; out of the former, a certain share was Deserved for the
purpose of religious worship.^6
This tribute consisted of objects held and acquired by the
Tecpanecas through trade, war and their own manufacture. But
it also included the products of their horticulture. These had to
be raised annually either on their own garden-beds, or on a certain
expanse reserved in each "calpulli" for the production of tribute.
The Tecpanecas having the same system of distribution of the
soil as the Mexicans, and the kindred group being the unit of their
organization also, the latter method was naturally resorted to.
Therefore in each one of the areas held by the calpules of the
conquered tribe, a certain plot was set off, to be tilled in common
by the members of the kin, for the benefit of their conquerors.
®6Acosta says (Lib. VII, cap. XIII, p. 485), that they took all the lands for them¬
selves: "with this, those of Azcapnzaico were left so poor, that they had not even
crops of their own." Darán (Cap. IX, p. 79. " They went to Azcaputzalco and seized
(' se entregaron') its lands and distributed them among themselves.") Tezozomoc (Cap.
IX, p. 16 and 17). It is difficult to connect these and similar statements with the posi¬
tive facts asserted by Zurita (Rapport sur les différentes classes de chefs de la Nouvelle
Esp.agne.") " The sovereign of Mexico had beneath him, in all matters relating to war¬
fare, those of Tacuba and of Tezcuco ; in regard to all others, their powers were equal,
so that neither of them intervened in the government of the others" (p. 11),—by Veytia
(Lib. Ill, cap. Ill, p. 161), and even by Ixtlilxochitl (" Hist, des Chichim.," Cap. XXXIV,
p. 2.35), which establish the complete territorial independence of the Tecpanecas from
the Mexicans; even after their defeat. Duran also says (Cap. IX, p. 77) : that the Tec¬
panecas promised tribute and lands. Tezozomoc (Cap. IX, p. 16) confirms, stating that
they offered tribute, personal service, and assistance in war. We cannot conciliate
these different reports except by admitting that the Tecpanecas submitted to the ordi¬
nary manner of Indian conquest, namely: to ti'ibute, to military aid, and for the piu*-
pose of tribute, to the reservation of certain tracts whose crops were to go exclusively
to the conquerors. Of the latter we have positive proof. See Duran (Cap. IX, p. 79).
Tezozomoc (Cap. IX, p. 17). Only these authors mention that these tracts went to per¬
sons or individuals. But how is this possible, since no individual possession of land
appears in Mexico, at the time of the conquest even ; as we shall see farther on. The
tracts in question must, therefore, have been given to-such pel-sons as representatives of
certain kinships, or " calpules," as Tezozomoc intimates, saying (Cap. XV, p. 21) : " and
let us distribute the lands among all of us, in order to hold of them some pastime and sus¬
tenance for us, our children and heirs." Besides, Durán asserts : that the division took
place for the benefit of the chiefs, and of the quarters (" barrios," or calpules), which
tends to prove that there were " official lands " and " lands of the kinship" set off for
the conquerors on the conquered territory. That a portion of the latter provided for
religious purposes, is established by Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. XIII, p. 485), and by Darán
(Cap. IX).
414
The crops raised thereon were again apportioned by the latter
among themselves as we have explained previously, but they did
not acquire any title to the possession, still less to the ownership
of the soil itself.Once started on their career of conquest, the.
" See Durán (Cap. IX, p. 79 and 80). Tezozomoc (Cap. IX, p. 16. " Para amansar y
traher ä paz a los Mexicanos que tan pujantes y orgullosos estavan contra los Tecpan-
ecas, digéron estos : señores Mexicanos, como vencidos que somos de vostros, y os
tenemos dadas nuestras hermanas y hijks que os sirvan y nuestras mngeres, y nos pro¬
ferimos á vasallage, y de todas las veces que fuéredes en guerras y batallas con estra-
ñas, irémos nosotros como vasallos, y llevarémos à cuestas vuestro matalotage, y
llevarémos ä cuestas vuestras armas, y en caso que en las guerras, algunos, à alguno
de los Mexicanos muriere, nos proférimos ä traheros los cuerpos cargados ä vuestra
tierra, ciudad, á ser con honra enterrados, y venidos que seáis de las gueiTas, y antes y
después barerémos, y regarémos, vuestras casas, tendrémos cuidado de vosotros con
nuestro servicio personal, pues asi estamos obligados conforme á usanza de guerra,
y nosotros de servidumbre." The Mexicans then spoke to themselves and said: "you
now have heard the promises, subjection, and domination to which the Tecpanecas of
Azcaputzalco submit, oflfering to give us wood, planking, stones and lime for our houses,
to plant for us maize, beans, calabashes, spices of the country, chile, and tomate, and
to be our servants, and the principals of them to become our stewards . . . ,") This
expresses about the amount and measure of subjection of one tribe to another. Zurita
further informs us (pp. 66 and 67). " When the Kings of Mexico, Tezcuco and Tacuba
conquered a province, they used to retain all the native chieftains in their oflSces;
"Whether they were supreme or but inferior. The people always kept its property,
finally the usages and customs of the established government were respected. These
sovereigns designated territories proportionate to their conquests : the vanquished tilled
them in common and made plantings appropriate to the soil. This kind of tribute, or
homage ("homage-lige"), was paid to ofiScersC'des intendants ") established by the
sovereigns of Mexico, of Tezcuco, or Tacuba, according as the vanquished had become
vassals of one or of the other prince. Besides, they were liable to military service,
which obligation rested indiscriminately on all the conquered provinces. The chiefs
remaining Lords as before the war, preserved civil and criminal jurisdiction in the full
extent of their domain." Nevertheless, we have' detailed reports about certain lands
having been applied by the Mexicans to certain chiefs (Tezozomoc, cap. XV, p. 24):
it was done at the time that such chiefs received certain titles or dignities. These titles
and dignities, however, were not hereditary, but elective (Durán, cap. XI, p. 103). " To
these four chiefs and titularies, after they were elected princes) they made them belong
to the royal council as presidents and members ("oydores") of the supreme council,
without whose opinion (or consent, advice "parecer") nothing could be done, and the
King being dead, from these and no others his successor had to be chosen, and neither
could they be placed in such positions unless they Avere sons or brothers of Kings, and
thus, if one of these four had been promoted, they put another one in his place, and it
is to know that they never chose a son of him whom they elected for King, or of him
who died, because as I have said, the sons did not obtain the titles through inheritance,
but by election. Thus, whether son, brother, or cousin, if the King and his council
elected him to any title, it was given to him,— it being sufficient that he belonged to
that lineage and was a near relative, and thus the sons and brothers went succeeding
little by little, and the title and Lordship remained in that generation (descendancy),
being elected successively. These Lords had vassals who to them paid tribute, small
pueblos, rented lands ("estancias terrazgueros") that gave them all kinds of supplies
and clothing " It is also stated that the Mexicans, when they conquered the
Tecpanecas, distributed o/their lands to the quarters (Cap. IX, p. 79. Durán,—and
Acosta, Lib. VII, cap. XIII, p. 485. "Señalaron también tierras de común para los
bari'ios de Mexico a cada uno ías'suyas, para que con ellas acudiessen al culto y sac¬
rificio de sus dioses.")
415
Mexicans, supported by their allies, sought to\ extend their power.
The tribes of the southeast, the Xochimilcas, the Chinampanecas,
(also called the four chieftaincies: "Nauhteuctli") were the first
to become their prey. Their fate, after they had once submitted,
was the same as that of the Tecpanecans. The territory was not
annexed, neither was the organization changed. But they were
held to military assistance, and especially to tribute. The latter
drew forth, as a consequence, the establishment of tribute-lands,
like those which we have already met with at the close of the
Tecpanecan war.^®
When finally, after a contest of unusual length and bitterness,
the tribe of Chalco also had to submit to the same conditions
of tribute and warlike control,®^—the Mexicans were really the
leading power of the valley.®® Their means of subsistence, besides,
had greatly increased through tribute, among which the crops of
the tribute-lands were most conspicuous — as well as through trade.
One single tribe of the "Naliuatl" of the valley remained unsub¬
dued, the Aculhuas of Tezcuco. Instead, however, of engaging
in a deadly confiict, the result of which might have been equally
If we attentively consider the above, we find :
(1). That no change was made in the tenure of lands, and no conversion of the Tec¬
panecan territory into a Mexican domain was effected by the conquest.
(2). That certain expanses were set aside, which continued to be held by the con¬
quered, and worked by them after the usual communal plan, but whose crops
Avent exclusively towards the tribute.
(3). That these crops were divided, corresponding to the organization of the Mexicans,
— between the official requirements — C'tecpan"—) (•'calpulli" as official
house for the quarters)—the people (quarters " barrios,") and worship. The
analogy with Peru (Inca, worship and people), is striking.
The distribution of lands to certain chiefs therefore, mentioned in connection with
the conquest of the Tecpanecas, simply indicates that these lands Avere applied to the
maintenance of such offices, and not an hereditary " fief" to a certain famdy. Durán
positively expresses, that the office belonged in the "kin" ("lignea" —"generación,")
and was not hereditaiy. Tlie lands therefore pertained to the office as a governmental
feature of the kinship or calpulli, and not to the person or offspring of any incumbent.
In the same way, certain tracts (or rather their ci-ops), went to the tecpan or its
occupants, as a governmental leature of the tribe (Bustamaute, Parte III cap. Y,
p. 233).
«»Durán (Cap. XJI, Id. XIII, p. 114. XIV, p. 123). Tezozomoc (Cap. XVII, p. 28,
XVIII, p. 29), and Acosta. ♦
6» Durán (Cap. XVII, p. 152). Tezozomoc (Cap. XXVI, pp. 39 and 40). Acosta (Lib.
Vil, cap. XVI, p. 493), etc. etc.
8® Out of the five Nahuatl tribes who had originally settled in the valley of Mexico,
three were then subjected to the Mexicans. Consequently the Tezcucans or Aculhu-
acans aloné remained. Territorially, the latter probably covered the larger expanse,
but the Mexicans and their allies had the advantage in position and numbers.
416
disastrous for both parties, negotiations commenced, terminating
with the formation of a military confederacy^ under the leadership
of Mexico.®!
It appears that in this, as in all other transactions of the same
nature, mutual concessions had to be made. Thus, while the
Tezcucans conceded the military command to the Mexicans, the
latter had to admit into the confederacy that part of the Tecpane-
cas who, since the destruction of Azcaputzalco, recognized in
Tlacopan (Tacuba) their chief pueblo. Through tezcucan influ¬
ence it is even probable that the tribute heretofore paid to the
Mexicans by that tribe, was relinquished by the former.®^
The following seem to have been the leading features of the
confederacy.
It consisted of the three tribes of Mexico, Tezcuco and Tlaco¬
pan. Each of these tribes was territorially independent ; as well
as in the management of its own affairs : from the two others.®^
The militar}'^ command of the forces belonged to the head-war-
61 Duran (Cap. XIV, p. 124. Cap. XV, pp. 125-132), mentions a «Äam fight between
the Mexicans and Tezcucans, ending in a confederacy. Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. XV, p.
490), confirms. Herrera (Dec. HI, lib. II, cap. XIII, p. 64i, speaks of a voluntary *' sub¬
mission " by the Tezcucans. Tezozomoc (Cap. XIX and XX), asserts ¿hat the Tezcucans
were actually conquered by the Mexicans. On the other hand, Ixtlilxochitl ("Hist, des
Chichim." Cap. XXXIV). Torquemada (Lib. H, cap. LVII, p. 175). Veytia (Lib. Ill,
cap. V). Bustamanté ("Tezcoco" Parte IIa, cap. V), affirm that a fight took place, in
which the Mexicans were worsted, and after which the Tezcucan feudal " empire" was
firmly established. The truth probably lies between the two extremes, and is recognized
as such by Torquemada (Lib. II, cap. LVII, p. 175). Durán (Cap. XIV, p. 12'i), and
finally expressed by Zurita (" Rapport," p. 11), as follows: "The sovereign of Mexico
was superior to those of Tacuba and Tezcuco in matters touching warfare ; in all others,
their powers were equal, so that neither of them meddled with the government of the
others." Herrera has adopted this view, copying almost textually (Dec. Ill, lib. IV, p.
133, of chapter XV).
63The only confession found in specifically Mexican authors on the subject of the
Tecpanecas of Tlacopan is the quotation from Duran (Cap. XIV, p. 123). But Ixtlilxo¬
chitl ("Hist, des Chichim.," Cap. XXXII, pp. 218 and 220.) says : " It is plainly visible
from this song that the three dynasties named were the principal ones of Mexico, and
that the King of Tlacopan was regarded as equal to those of Mexico and Tezcuco.")
Torquemada (Lib. II, cap. LVII, p. 175. Cap. XXXIX, p. 144). Veytia (Lib. Ill, cap. III).
Clavigevo (Lib. IV, caps. II and III), and Bustamante (Parte Ilia, cap. II, pp. 161,162
and 163).—All are positive in affirming that the Tezcucans insisted upon having the
Tecpanecas as a third member. The Mexican authors not contradicting, and impartial
sources, like Zurita and Herrera,—establishing the fact of equality of power, and ter¬
ritorial autonomy (See note 61), we, therefore, feel justified in recognizing the fact as
established.
«»AJonzo de Zurita ("Rapport sur les différentes classes de chefs de la Nouvelle-
Espagne," p. 11).
417
chief of the Mexican tribe, with power probably to delegate the
same.®'*
Each of the three tribes elected its head war-chiefs according
to its own customs ; but the installation in office, the investiture,
took place with the concurrence of the head-chiefs of the other
tribes. This was especially the case in Mexico, where the "tlaca-
tecuhtli" became commander-in-Chief of the confederacy.®®
Each tribe could carry on its own w^ars, defensive as well as
offensive, independently; but if required, the others had to assist,
in which case the Mexicans took the lead.®®
Consequently, each tribe could have its oion conquests, and levy
its own tribute upon tribes which it had conquered alone.
But wherever the confederacy had subjugated a foreign tribe, the
spoils, as well as all the subsequent tribute were divided among the
three membérs as follows : Mexico and Tezcuco each two-fifths,
and Tlacopan one-fifth.®®
The establishment of this confederacy did not, in any manner
whatever, alter the principles already recognized for the tenure
and distribution of the soil. It only shows, and the subsequent
career of the confederation further supports it, that these princi¬
ples were common among the three tribes concerned. Wherever
their conquests extended, the conquered were not annexed, but
simply subjected to tribute, their territory and tribal autonomy
were preserved, and no change introduced in the distribution of
the soil beyond the reservation of tracts for the raising of tribute.
Stewards, " calpixca," were the only representatives of the confed¬
eracy or of any of its members, residing permanently with the
Zurita (p. 11). Herrera (Dec. Ill, lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 133).
«sMendieta (Lib. II, cap. XXXVII, p. 153). Torquemada (Lib. XI, cap. XXVI, p.
353). Darán (Cap. XXXII, p. 255 ; cap. XXXIX, p. 303 ; cap. XLI, p. 325 ; cap. LII, p. 409).
Tezozomoc (Cap. XLI, p. 66; cap. LVI, p. 91; caps. LX and LXI, p. 100; cap. LXXXII,
pp. 142 and 143). Ixtlilxocbitl (" Hist, des Chichim.," Cap. I, pp. 2 and 3; cap. LX, p.
49; cap. LXX, p. 102). See also Veytia,—but especially Clavigeio, who is very positive
(Lib. IV, cap. III. "Besides, the two Kings (of Tezcuco and Tacuba), were honorary
assistants to the election of the Mexican Kings. They had but to sanction the election
")
88 Zurita (p. 67). Herrera (Dec. Ill, lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 133). Torquemada (Lib. XIV,
cap. VIII, pp. 516 and 517).
»^Herrera (Deo. HI, lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 133).
88 Torquemada (Lib. II, cap. LVH, p. 175; cap. XXXIX, p. 144; lib. XIV, cap. VHI,
pp. 516,547 and 518). Zurita(" Rapport,'' p. 12). Ixtlilxocbitl (Cap. XXXII, pp.219 and
220). Veytia (Lib. Ill, cap. Ill, pp. 164 and 165). Bustamante ("Tezcoco, etc.," Parte
II, cap. HI, pp. 163 and 165). Clavigero (Lib. IV, cap. HI).
Keport Peabody Museum, II. 27.
418
tributaries.®^ In short, the same treatment to which the Tecpane-
cas had once submitted, at the hands of the Mexicans alone, was
the one received by foreign tribes from the confederacy, from the
time of its formation down to its overthrow by the Spaniards.
All the conquests intervening did not therefore result in the for¬
mation of a state based upon feudal notions of territorial domain
and vassalage, but simply in a conglomerate of scattered tribes often
mutually inimical, who looked with terror to the valley of Mexico
as the abode of their conquerors. Over these conquerors the
Mexicans held military direction, and the name of Mexico, or
its equivalent of "Culhua," was best known. As early as 1518,
Juan de Grijalva heard it on the. coast of Tabasco.''^® This wide
diffusion of the nam^, coupled with the still more extensive spread
of the language,'''1 and the undisguised dread of the natives before
that very name, has created in the minds of Europeans the picture
of a Mexican nation, state, and feudal Empire ; whereas there was
nothing else but the military confederacy of the three leading Ná¬
huatl tribes of the valley of Mexico.'''^
This rapid sketch of the history of the Mexicans, up to the time
when they confederated with the tribes of Tezcuco and Tlacopan,
has shown to us that in no case was the notion of public domain,
of governmental lands, current among the tribes of Mexico. The
tribe held no domain,— conquest of another tribe by it did not (as
feudal conditions would imply) convert the conquered territory into
an annex or dependency of the conqueror, as far as the possession
of the soil was concerned. Finally, the confederacy itself, as such,
did not even hold a territory of its own, still less did it claim pos¬
session of areas occupied by tributary tribes.
It remains now for us to revert again to the distribution of the
89Zurita ("Rapport, etc.," p. 67). "This kind of tribute or allegiance ("homage-
lige") was paid to oflBLcers established by the sovereigns of Mexico, of Tezcuco, or of
Tacuba, etc., etc The chief remaining sovereign, as before the wars, retained
the civil and criminal jurisdiction over all their dominions " (Id. p. 66). Andrés de
Tapia ("Relación, etc." Col. de Documentos," vol. II, p. 5791. " Art of War" (p. 100,
note 17). Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VIII, p. 547). Veytia (Lib. Ill, cap. VI, p. 197).
70«'Itinerario de I'Armata del Re Catholico in India Verso la Isola de luchathan del
Anno M.D. XVIII;" in Col. de Docum, vol. I, p. 293, taken from Ramusio. Originally
published (1522), in the " Itinerario de Varthema," an exceedingly rare book. Bernai-
Diez (" Hist, verdadera," Vedia II, cap. XI, p. 10).
71 Orozco y Berra (" Geografía de las Lenguas, etc.," Parte II, p. 83, and the splendid
ethnographical chart).
72Zurita ("Rapport, etc.," p. 11. "The province of Mexico was subject to three
principal chiefs, etc. etc. . . ."
419
soil, and to establish its customs at the time when the Europeans
first trod the Mexican shore.
"We readily distinguish several classes of lands, bearing each a
different name, besides the " altepetlalli," or tribal territory or
range. The latter was the widest circumscription for which the
Nahuatl language had a term. (The word "Anahuac," which is
often used, is utterly inapplicable, as we have elsewhere shown).
No other idea of tenure was connected with it, beyond that of
tribal occupation.
Each of the numerous tribal areas, overrun by the confederacy
(provided the natives were of a sedentary character), contained
what we have ventured to call tribute-lots. The name given to
these tracts was possibly "yaotlalli," but rather "milchimalli"
(" lands of war," and " shield-landsAs before said, the soil of
these tracts was still held in original tenure by the kinships com¬
posing the conquered tribe, but the crops went towards the tribute.
There is no indication about the size of these areas, and they were
the only ones directly connected with the conquerors.
Of those tracts whose products were exclusively applied to the
governmental needs of the pueblo or tribe itself (taken as an in¬
dependent unit) there were, as we have already seen, two particu¬
lar classes :
The first was the " tecpan-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. Thej'" were tilled in common by
special families who resided on them, using the crops in compensa¬
tion for the work they performed on the official buildings.
Brasseur de Botirbonrg (" Ruines de Palenqué," Cap. II, p. 32, and note 10) makes
the very sensible remaik that the name "Anahuac" did not at all apply to a " state" or
" empire," etc., but in general to all countries situated in the neighborhood of considera¬
ble bodies of water;— such as lakes or large streams; or the shores of the sea.
"<* MSS. from Simancas " De l'ordre de succession obsei'vé par les Indiens relative¬
ment â leurs Terres et âe leurs Territoires communaux," translated by Mr. Ternaux-
Compans in " Recueil de Pièces," etc., pp. 223 and 224. Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap.
VII, p. 540). Clavigei'o (Lib. VII, cap. XIV. He includes them positively in the soil
of the kinships, and treats them as communal lands, the produce of which furnished
military supplies). "Yaotlalli" is improper (see " Ai't of War," p. 135, note 158), but
" Milchimalli " is possible.
■'S From "tecpan," chief-house (Molina, Parte II, p. 95), tind "tlalli," soil (Id. p. 124).
Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 546). " There was another class of lands wliich
belonged to the chiei's income; and those who dwelt on them and cultivated them were
420
The second class was called "tlatoca-tlalU"—land of the speak¬
ers. 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 Castillan rods."'''® The crops raised
on such went exclusively to the requirements of the household at
the "tecpan," comprising the head-chief and his family with the
assistants.The tract was worked in turn by the other members
called Tecpanpouhqiii, or Tecpantlaca, which signifies : people of the palace and rent-
e rs of the King. Such were held to keep in repair the royal palaces, clean the gardens,
and to attend to the cleanliness and to the necessities of the royal palaces. They were
regarded with much respect, as people most directly connected with the houses of the
King. When the Lord sallied forth, they accompanied him, and they paid no other tribute
but bouquets (Ramilletes," fiower-bunches) and birds of all kind, which they offered
to the King. Such lands descended from father to son, but they could not sell them,
nor dispose of them in any way, and if one of them died without heirs, or left the
place, his house and lands remained for those of his kin (''parcialidad") to put an¬
other in his place, according to the commands of the King, or of the Lord."—Heirera
(Dec. Ill, lib. cap. XV, p. 135).—Veytia (Lib. Ill, cap. YI, p. 196). " Besides these each
pueblo also had other kinds of lands called tecpantlalli, or lands of the palace or rent¬
als of the chief, because its crops also went integrally towards the constructions and
repairs of the palaces of the Kings, and towards other expenses aside from the suste¬
nance. The people who cultivated them were also plebeians, but they were set apart
for it in each place, and were called tecpanpuhque or tecplantlaca, that is, people per¬
taining to the palaces, and they could not work any other lands." Ixtlilxochitl ("Hist,
des Chichimêques cap. XXXV, p. 24*2. "There were others known by the name of
Tecpantlali, or lands which depend from the palaces of the Lords. The Indians tilling
them were called tecpanpouhque.or people connected with the palaces of the Lords").
Bpstamante ('■ Tezcoco," etc.. Parte III, cap. V, pp. 233 and 234). Clavigero (Lib. VII,
cap. XIV). " The ownership of the crownlands, called Tecpantlalli, remained in the
King, but certain gentlemen called Tecpanpouhque or Tecpantlaca, i.e. people of the
palace, had the enjoyment thereof. These paid no tribute but flowers and certain bii ds
which they offered to the King in token of aliegiance. But they were obligated to keep
the royal palace in repair, or to construct new ones if needed; to tend to the royal gar¬
dens, and to care for the vassals in their district. It was their duty to attend court, to
escort the King, if he.appeared in public; and thus they were highly considered. If
one of them died, his son succeeded in all his duties, but he lost his rights by removing
from the place, in which casci the King gave him the use of another tract, or lelt it to
the community, in whose area the land lay, to assign to him another piece."
The above quotations show conclusively that the soil of the " tecpantlalli" was held
and vested in the King, and only the crops went to certain official purposes. The occu¬
pants thereof were not serfs, since it is implied that they might remove at their
pleasure, but, as any other members of a calpulli, in accordance with what we shall
hereafter show, they lost by removal their right of use to that particular tract. They
were properly the "official artisans."
78 Ixtlilxochitl (Hist, des Chichim," cap. XXXV, p. 242). Vedia (Lib. Ill, 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 "Artof
War " (p. 944, note 183). " The rod" (varä) is equal to 2.78209 feet English (Guyot).
77 From "tlatoca" speakers, or "tlatoani" speaker', and ''tlalli." Simancas M. S. S.
on the customs of succession (" Recueil do Pieces, etc." p. 223). Herrera (Deo. Ill,
lib. IV, cap. XVII, p. 138). "There were other kinds of lands that were attached to
the lordship (office 1), which they called of the lordship, and of these the Lords could
not dispose, and rented them to whom they pleased, drawing much rent from them,
421
of the tribe, and it remained always public ground, reserved for
the same purposes.'''®
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 " tecpan-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, ofificial soil.'''^
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 require¬
ments 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
spending it in the house of the King.") Ixtlilxochitl (Ibid. cap. XXXV, p. 242. "In
the best location of the territory there was set off a field, which held exactly four hun¬
dred measures in length and breadth. This was called Tlatocatlali or Tlatocamilli that
is: land or plantation of the Lord, and also Itonal Yutlacal, or lands on which the in¬
habitants are compelled to work. ') Oviedo (Lib. XXXIII, cap. II, p. 537). Vcytia,
(Lib. Ill, cap. VI, p. 195, confirms Ixtlilxochitl almost verbally, adding : "For the sow¬
ing and cultivation of these the calpixque, which was an officer of the community in
each pueblo, daily designated those who had to attend to it, out of the plebeians and
tributaries, and all the crops went to the Lord for the maintenance of his house ('ca¬
sa' family)." Zurita does not use the term which we have a/Jopted, because he is
chiefly struck by the communal tenure, as exhibited in the " calpulalli." The fact of
their being communal land, though set off for a special purpose, and not owned by the
chiefs, is plain.
'^8 Veytia (Lib. Ill, cap. VI, p. 195). It is superfluous to revert to the erroneous im¬
pression, that the chiefs might dispose of it.
'^8 " Patrimonial Estates " are mentioned frequently, but the point is, where are they
to be found. Neither the " tecpantlalli" nor the " tlatoca-tlalli," still less the " calpu-
Jklli," show any trace of individual ownership. " Eredad" (heirloom) is called indis-
crimihately " milli" and " cuemitl " (Molina Parte In, p. 57). The latter is also rendered
as "tierra labrada, ó camellón" (Molina, Parte Iln. p. 26). It thus reminds us of the
"chinamitl " or garden-bed (as the name " camellón" also implies), and reduces it to
the proportion of an ordinaiy cultivated lot among the others contained within the
area of the calpulli. It is also called " tlalli," but that is the general name for soil or
ground. "Tierras o eredades de particulares, juntas en alguna vega," is called "tlal-
milli." 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 im¬
plies.
422
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 else¬
where, for the purpose of defence, their marshy surroundings into
water-sheets, through the construction of extensive causeways.®®
While the remnants of the original " tecpantlalli" 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 fulfil 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 over¬
power 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 Huitzilopochco to the south, but these were
only military positions, and beyond them the territory proper of the
Mexicans never extended.®^ 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 organiza¬
tion. For this reason we see, after the overthrow of the Tecpa-
necas, lands assigned apparently to the head war-chiefs, to the
military chiefs of the quarters, "from which to derive some reve¬
nue, for their maintenance and that of their children." ®3 These
80 "Art of War" (pp. 150 and 151). L. H. Morgan ("Ancient Society," Part II, cap.
VII, pp. 190 and 191).
81 Humboldt (" Essai politique sur la Nouvelle Espagne," vol. II, lib. Ill, cap. VIII,
p. 50). Nearly all the old authors describe the public buildings as surrounded by
pleasure-grounds, or ornamental gardens. It is very striking that, the pueblo having
l>een founded in 1325, and nearly a century having been spent in adding sufficient
ai'tificial sod to the originally small solid expanse settled,—the .Mexicans could have
been ready so soon to establish purely decorative parks within an area, every inch of
which was valuable to them for subsistence alone 1
88 The Mexican tribe proper clustered exclusively within the pueblo of Tenuchtitlan.
The settlements at Iztapalapan, Huitzilopochco 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.
83 Tezozomoc (Cap. XV, p. 24). See note 57.
423
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."®®
These "quarters" were the " Calpulli," hence it follows that the con¬
sanguine groups held the "altepetlalli" or Soil of the trihe.^^
"We have, therefore, in Mexico, the identical mode of 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 " ®'''
The expanse held and occupied by the calpulli, and therefore
called calpulalli," was possessed by the kin in joint tenure.®® It
Tezozomoc (Cap. X, p. 18). Zurita (" Rapport, etc.," p. 227). Herrera (Dec. Ill, lib.
IV, cap. XVII, p. 138. "i no era en mano del Señor disponer de estos Tributos á su
voluntad, porque se alteraba la Gente, i los Principales." This refers specially to the
tribute by quarters " ban-ios.")
86 Storia del Messico " (Lib. VII, cap. XIV).
86Ixtlilxochitl ("Histoire des Chichim.," Gap. XXXV, p. 242). Torquemada (Lib.
XIV, cap. VII, p. 545).
87 " Narratives of the Kites and Laws of the Yncas, translated fï-om the original
Spanish manuscripts, and edited by Clement R. Markham." Publication of the " Hack-
luyt 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).
88 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 lio, p.
424
could neither be alienated nor sold ; in fact, there is no trace ot
barter or sale of land, previous to the conquest.®^ If, however, any
calpulli weakened, through loss of numbers from any cause what¬
ever, it might farm out its area to another similar group, deriving
subsistence from the rent.^® 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.®^ The calpulli was
21), or an enclosed area, and if we connect it with the old original " chinamitl" we are
forcibly carried back to the early times, when the Mexicans but dwelt on a few flakes of
more or less solid ground. This is an additional evidence in favor of the views we have
taken, of the growth of landed tenure among the Mexican tribe. We must never forget,
that the term is " Nahuatl " and as such recognized by all the other tribes, outside of the
Mexicans proper. The interpretation as " family " in the QQuiché tongue of Guatemala,
which we have already mentioned, turns up here as of further importance), th. is chiefs
of an old race or family, from the word Calpulli or Chinancalli, which is the same, and
signifies a quarter (barrio), inhabited by a family known, or of old origin, which pos¬
sesses since long time, a territory whose limits are known, and whose members are of
the same lineage." "The calpullis, families or quarters, are very common in each
province. Among the lands which were given to the chiefs of the second class, there
were also calpullis. These lands are the property of the people in general (" de la
masse du peuple") from the time the Indians reached this land. Each family or tribe
received a portion of the soil for perpetual enjoyment. They also had the name of
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. Ill, lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 135) confirms, in a condensed form,
the statements of Zurita: "and they are not private lands of each one, but held in com¬
mon." Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545). Veytia (Lib. Ill, 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. .5.36 and 537). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. XIV). Bustamante (" Tezcoco,
etc.," Pai'te Ilia, cap. V, p. 232).
*9Zurita (p. 52). "He who obtained them from the sovereign has not the right to
dispose of them." Herrera (Dec. Ill, lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 135), "he who possessed
them, could not alienate them, although he enjoyed their use for his lifetime." Torque¬
mada (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545). Disputes about lands are frequently mentioned but
they refer to the enjoyment and possession, and not the transfer of the land. Baron
Humboldt ("Vues des Cordillères et monuments indigènes des peuples de l'Amérique,"
Vol. I, Tab. V), reproduces a Mexican painting representing a litigation about land.
But this painting was made subsequent to the conquest, as the fact that the parties
contending are Indians and Spaniards sufficiently asserts. , Occasional mention is made
that certain lands "could be sold." All such tracts,however, like the "pillali" have
been shown by us to be held in communal tenure of the soil, their enjoyment alone
being given to individuals and their families.
99 Zurita (p. 93). " In case of need it was permitted to farm out the lands of a cal¬
pulli to the inhabitants of another quarter." Herrera (Deo. Ill, Lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 134).
" They could be rented out to another lineage."
»• 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,"
425
a deraocratic organization. Its business lay in the hands of elec¬
tive 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 coun¬
cil of the kin or quarter, but their authority was not absolute since
on all important occasions a general meeting of the kindred was
convened.92 The council in turn selected an executive, the "cal-
pullec" or "chinancallec" who, in war, officiated as "achcacauhtin"
or " teachcauhtin " (elder brother) — This office was for life or
during good behavior.®"* It was one of his duties to keep a reck¬
oning of the soil of the calpulli, or "calpulalli," together with a
record of its members, and of the areas assigned to each fam¬
ily,— and to note also whatever changes occurred in their distribu¬
tion.®^ Such changes, if unimportant, might be made by him ;
Zurita (pp. 60, 61, 62). Bamirez de Fuenleal ("Letter, etc." Temaux-Compans, p.
249).
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 oflSce of this chief is not hered¬
itary; Avhen 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
Perdre de succession, etc.;" "Recueil," p. 225). "As to the mode of regulating the
jurisdiction and election of the alcaldes and regidors of the villages, they nominated
men of note who had the title of achcacaulitin There were no other elections
of officers. . . "Art of War, etc." (pp. 119 and 120).
Zurita (pp. 60 and 61). Herrera (Dec. Ill, Lib. IV, cap. XV, cap. 125). "I le ele¬
gían entre si y tenían por maior."
®® Zurita (pp. 61 and 62). "Tljis chief has charge of the lands of the calpulli. It is
his duty to defend their possession. He keeps paintings showing the tracts, the names
of their holders, the situation, the limits, the number of men tilling them, the wealth of
private individuals, the designations of such as are vacant, of others that belong to
the Spaniards, the date of donation, to whom and by whom they were given. These
paintings he constantly renews, according to the changes occurring, and in this they
are very skilful." It is singular that Motolinia, in his " Epístola 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 Cholula 27 Aug., 1554 ("Recueil de pieces, etc.," Ternaux-Compans). Sahagun (Lib.
VIII, cap. XV, p. 304) says, "porque primeramente demandaban la pintura en que es¬
taban escritas ó pintadas las causas, como haziendas, casas, ó maizales " (Id. cap. XXV,
p. 314). This tends to prove the existence of such paintings. Mendieta (Lib. II, cap.
XXVII, p. 135). Torquematia (Lib. XIV, cap. VIII, p. 546), "and in order to prevent
any confusion in these lands they painted them on long strips ("lienzos") in the fol¬
lowing manner. The lands of the calpules light yellow, those of the principals flesh-
red, and the lands of the Kings income of a flery red color,—so that, on opening one
of these rolls, the entire pueblo, its limits and outlines could be seen at a glance." This
is another confirmation of our views about the distribution of the soil, and the fact
that the two latter classes had but different shades of red, is somewhat signiflcant.
See Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap! XIV), who confirms. The explanation of Zurita covers
the whole ground, however, and explains both of the last statements.
426
more important ones, or contested cases, had to be referred to thé
council of the kinship, which in turn often appealed to a gathering
of the entire quarter.^®
The "calpulalli" was divided into lots or arable beds, "tlal-
inilli."97 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 redistribu¬
tion. The same occurred if the family enjoying its possession
removéd from the calpulli. But it does not appear that the cul¬
tivation had always to be performed by the holders of the tract
themselves. The fact of improvement under the name of a cer¬
tain tenant was only required, to insure this tenant's rights.®®
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" (lauds of the
chiefs or of the children, from "piltontli" boy, or " piltzintli,"
98 Zurita C" Rapport, etc.," pp. 56 and 62). "We quote him in preference, since no other
author, known to us, has been so detailed.
97 «' tlalmilli " " tierras, á heredades de particulares, que están juntas en alguna rega "
(Molina, Part IIa, p. 124).
98 Each family, represented by its male head, obtained a certain tract or lot for culti¬
vation 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 correspond to his ability and wants. These lands goto 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 follow¬
ing year." Bustamante ("Tezcoco, etc.," Parte Ilia, 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 " calpnlli " 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. Ill, 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 them¬
selves, on account of their perfovming other duties subseiwient 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 im¬
provement for a certain purpose and benefit, which secured the possession or tenancy.
427
child),and those who cultivated them canded the appellation of
"tlalmaitl" — hands of the soil.^"®
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 fi'om the "tecpantlalli" and "tlatocatlalli" in
their mode of tenure as, whereas the latter two were dependent
»®It is just the "pilliili" which oppose the greatest difficulties to this investigation,
and to a clear conception of the mode of tenure of lands in ancient Mexico. They are
generally represented (whenever mentioned), as private domains of the chiefs. Tor-
quemada (Lib. XIV, pp. 545 and 546), distinguishes two kinds of " pillali." The first
one he says might be sold,—but he places the restriction upon them, that such as held
lands through conquest (" sujeción") or through gift (" merced ") of the chief, had to
go to the descendants, as majorat; and if they died without heirs, the King, or Lord
became such, and they were incorporated into his royal Estates." The other kind was
not transmissible at all. Clavigero (Lib. XVII, cap. XIV). We notice here a confusion
between official tracts and such lots of the " calpulli " as pei'tained to the chief's family
in consequence of their membership of the Kin. Also between "tribute-lots" and
the official tracts, of conquered tribes. Torquemada acknowledges, that the " pillali,"
upon the death of the family, were incorporated in the calpulli to which that family
belonged, "in order that they.might pay tribute." This ought to define their true
position and nature.
100 From "tlalli" soil, and "maitl" hand. Hands of the soil. Molina (Parte IIa, p.
124), has : " tlalmaitl" — " labrador, ö gañan." This name is given in distinction of the
"macehuales" or people working the soil in general. The tlalmàites are identical
with the "mayeques." See Zurita (p. 224), "tlalmaites or mayeques, which signifies
tillers of the soil of others . . . ." He distinguishes them plainly from the "teccallec"
which are the " tecpanpouhque " or " tecpantlaca " formerly mentioned as attending to
a class of official lands (p. 221, Zurita). Herrera (Dec. III, lib. IV, cap. XVII, p. 138),
" These mayeques could not go from one tract to another, neither leave those which
they cultivated, and they paid a rent to its masters according as they agreed upon ("en
lo que se concertaban ") in what they raised. They paid tribute to nobody else but the
master of the land." This tends to show that there existed, not an established obliga¬
tion, a serfdom, but a voluntary contract, that the "tlalmaites" were not serfs, but
simply renters. Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545), " . . . . those that were
knights ("caballeros") and descendants of the families of the Kings, and Lords, had
their particular lands and their rentals, where many of them held renters (" terrazgu-
ei'os") which served them, tilled the crops and served them in their houses. These
lands were called pillali or "land of nobles and knights." We prefer the etymology
"piltonlli" "niño ö niña, muchacho ó muchacha" (Molina, II, p. 82), or "piltzintli"
niño ó niña" therefoi'e lands of the children,— to the derivation from "pilli." The
title of chief was " tecuhtli," and the word "pilli" substituted for it is certainly but in
connection with the occupation of a particular place of office, and not a title itself.
Bustamanté ("Tezcoco, etc.," p, 330. "The sovereigns as well as the inferior Lords
and other principals had their own patrimonial estates, and in them their mayeques or
Tlalmayes, what these gave of rent were tributes of the Lord," Id. pp. 233 and 234).
The "tlalmaites" appear to have been free from other tributes, and fr-ee from com¬
munal labor outside of the "pillali" (Bustamante, p. 233. Herrera, Dec. Ill, lib. IV,
cap. XVII, p. 138). It is not very clear, however, whether this applies simply to the
conquering tribe alone, or also to the tlalmaites of conquered tribes, as towards the
tribute due by that tribe to their conquerors. The detailed relations between the two
are yet somewhat obscure and confuse in some points.
428
from a certain office, the incumbent of which changed at each elec¬
tion, the "tialmilll" was assigned to a certain familj^ and its pos¬
session, 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 off-
spring.i®^ Among most of the northern Indians a larger cluster
participated.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.^"'*
Such may have been the case even among the Muysca of New-
101 Ramirez de Fuenleal ("Letter," see "Recueil, etc.," p. 253). "De I' ordre de
succession, etc., etc." Simancas MSB. (Id. p. 221). Herrera (Dec. Ill, lib. IV, cap. XVII,
p. 138). Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VIT, p. 545). Clavigero (Lib. VIL cap. XIV).
These anthors mention only the "pillall," but Motolinia (Trat. II, cap. V, pp. 120 and
121), and Gomara (Vedia I, p. 434), apply it in general, and the latter is even very posi¬
tive about the tributaries (" los pecheros.") Also Zurita (p. 56), although contradictory
on p. 51).
102 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 padi'e en toda la hacienda raiz y mueble, y que tenga y mantenga todos loe her¬
manos y sobrinos, con tal que hagan ellos 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.
103 Mr. L. H. Morgan has investigated the customs 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 or¬
ganization in American Aboriginal Society, pai'ticipated 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. Ojib-
was, 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.
104 «» Ancient Society " (Part II, cap. II, p. 75. Part IV, cap. I, pp. 528, 530,531, 536
and 537).
429
Granada.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,^®® but heirship was limited, to the exclu¬
sion of the kin and of the agnates themselves, to the children of
the male sex.^°^ 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.
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.But the other males could apply to the chief of the
calpulli for a " tlalmilli " of their own:^io the females went with
105Gomara ("Historia de las Indios," Vedia I, p. 201). Garcia ("Origen de los
Indios," Lib. IV, cap. 23, p. 217). Piedrahita (Parte 1, lib. I, cap. 5, p. 27). Joaquin
Acosta (''Compendio histórico delDescubrimientsy Colonisazion de la Nueva-Granada,"
Cap. XI, p. 201). Ternanx-Compans (" L'ancien Ciindinamarca," pp. 21 and 3S).
w«Motolinia (Trat. II, cap. V, p. 120). Gomara (p. 434). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap.
XIll). Znrita (pp. 12 and 43).
10'Letter of Motolinia and Diego d'Olarte, to Don Luis de Velasco, Cholnla, 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 ot daughters at all. In Tlaxcallan, it is also expressly
mentioned that the daughters did not inherit (Torquentada, Lib. XI, cap. XXII, p. 348).
In general, the position of woman in ancient Mexico was a very inlerior 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. Banci-oft, " Native Races."
Vol. II. Cap. VI, p. 2-24, etc.
-los Motolinia (Trat. II, cap. V, p. 120). Toi'quemada (Lib. XIII, cap. XLII to XLVIII,
pp. 515 to 529). Acosta (Lib. V, cap. VIII, pp. 320, 321 and 322). Gomara (pp. 436 and
437, Vedia, I). Mendieta (Lib. II, cap. XL, pp. 162 and 163). Clavigero (Lib. VI, cap.
XXXIX. "They burnt the clothes, arrows, and a portion of the household utensils
106 Motolinia (Trat. II, cap. V, p. 120), " el cual hacer de testamento no se acostum¬
braba en esta tierra, sino que dejaban las casas y heredades á sus hijos, y el mayor, si-
era hombre, lo poseia y tenia cuidado de sus hermanos y hermanas, y yendo los her.
man^s creciendo y casándose, el hermano mayor partía con ellos según tenia; y si los
hijos eran por casar, entrábanse en la hacienda los mismos hermanos, digo en las her¬
edades, y de clias mantenían à sus sobrinos y de la olra hacienda." Gomara (•' Conq.
de Méjico," p. 434). " It is customary among tributary classes that the oldest son shall
inherit tlie 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,''
"0 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." Hcrrera.(Dec. HI, lib. IV, cap.
XV, p. 135).
430
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.
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, pro¬
vided for her.1^2
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 displaj'^ was made at
his cremation, and consequentl3^ the more of his dresses, weapons
and ornaments, were burnt with the body^.i^^ Qf 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 incum¬
bents 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.11^ This might, eventually, have tended to perpetuate thñ
m Such unman-ied 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.
Oviedo (" Hist. gen. y nat. de Indias," Lib. XXXIII, cap. LIV. pp. 547--533), reports
a conversation with Don Juan Cano, held at San Domingo, 8 of Sept., 1544, in which
the said Cano asserts that he married Montezuma's daughter, widow of Quauhtemotzin.
There is an indefinite report that, when she married Quauhtemotzin, she was already
the widow of Cuitlahuatzin. Intermarriage of widowers and widows took place in
Yucatan, but without any ceremony. See Lauda, "• Relación de las cosas de Yucatan."
Paris, 18ö5, by Mr. Brasseur de BourboUrg, p. 142, §XXV.
118 See note No. 108, the same quotations apply to this case. Besides, we refer to the
numerous descriptions of funeral rites, or rather cremations, contained, for instance,
in Durán, Tezozomoc,Ixtlilxochitl, Veytia,and in Bustamantes" Tezcoco en los Ultimos
Tiempos, etc." Also to the cremation of the head chief of Michhuacan, as related by
Mendieta (Lib. II, cap. XLI, pp. 164-167). We abstain from special quotations, the sub¬
ject being amply discussed in all the authors just mentioned.
lazurita (p. 12). Gomara (Vedia I, p. 434). Tor'quemada (Lib. IX, cap. IV, p. 177.
Lib. XI, cap. 27, p. 356, etc. etc.).
115 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.
431
office in the/amtïy, 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.
There was consequently, at the time when the Spaniards first
came into contact with the Mexican aborigines, no established
feudal system among the Indians of Mexico. Based exclusively
upon kin, aboriginal society then presented to the first Europeans
who witnessed it a strange and partly dazzling, partly repulsive ;
at all events a bewildering, aspect. It is not devoid of interest,
and it is even important for us to consider what were the effects
of this contact of a people imbued with the principles of medieval
feudality with tribes still adhering to far more primitive ideas,
upon the latter's mode of tenure and distribution of their lands.
The ostensible basis, on which' the Spaniards established a
claim to any parts of. America whatever, is expressed in the Bull
of Pope Alexander VI, executed at Rome on the fourth day of
May, 1493. By this act of the Holy See the kings of Spain (Ferdi¬
nand and Isabella), in consideration of their devotion to the Cath¬
olic religion, and of their zeal in propagating the Christian faith
even over the remotest parts of the earth's surface, are made and
created absolute possessors, for themselves, their heirs and succes¬
sors, of all the lands already discovered and still to discover by
them or their agents in the new world. The conditions accompany¬
ing this grant were that they " manage to send to the said main¬
lands and islands good men, fearing God, learned, well taught and
expert, for to instruct their aforesaid inhabitants and natives in
the Catholic faith, and to teach them good manners, with all due
diligence."^!® This title, although it partakes of the nature of a
"6 Martin Fernandez de Navarrete (" Colección de los Viages y Descubrimientos que
hicieron por mar los Españoles desde Fines del Siglo XV," Madrid, 1825. Tom. lio, pp.
2i)-35). " Et insiipre mandamus vobis in virtute sanctae obedintie, est (sicut pollicemtni
et non dubitamus pro vestra maxima devotione et Regia raagnanimitate vos esse
facturos) ad terras firmas et Ínsulas praedictas vii'os probos, et Deum timentes, doctos,
peritos et expertos ad iristruendam Íncolas et habitatores praefatos in Fide Catholica,
et in bonis moribus imbumdam destinare debeatis, omnum debitam diligentiam in pra-
emisis adhibentes." Mendleta (" Hist. Eccles. Ind.," Lib. I, cap. Ill, pp. 20 and 22).
Herrera (Dec. I, lib. II, cap. IV, p. 41). Gomara (" Historia de las Indias," Vedia I, pp.
168 and 169). Oviedo (Lib. II, cap. VHI).
432
fief, still virtually created,—what his subsequently became in Span¬
ish America,—a domain of the Spanish crown. Armed with it, and
fully convinced of its validity,the Spaniards regarded at once
the soil of Mexico as their king's own, and therefore claimed the
right as his agents, to dispose of it through distribution according
to their home-laws and customs. But, instead of proclaiming this
title at once after the lauding, as was done on many other points
of the American coast,Cortés found it advisable to delay such
a formal declaration until after he had, by his own inspection, sat¬
isfied himself of the proper ways and means to secure possession.
He quickly found out the disconnected state«of the country, al¬
though he attributed it to causes which were not really existing,^^®
and it is well known how he improved it for his plans. He there¬
fore treated secretly, as much as possible, with members of tribes
subjected (or rather tributary) to the Mexicans and their con feder¬
ates,and in consideration of their espousing the Spanish cause,
he promised them sundry favors.The oldest document issued
by Europeans on Mexican soil embodies such a negotiation with
chiefs of .the tribes of Axapusco and Tepeyahualco, both pueblos
being situated within the valley of Mexico itself.It promises
1" Herrera (Dec. I, lib. II, cap. IV, p. 41). Oviedo (Lib. II, cap. VIII, pp. 31 and 32).
Gomara (Vedia I, p. 168). JMendieta (Lib. I, cap. Ill, pp. 18-20), and many others. All
these authorities can be summed up in Robertson's classical words : "The Pope, as
vicar and representative of Jesus Christ, was supposed to have a right of dominion
over all the kingdoms of the earth" ("History of America," 9th Edition, 1800. Vol. I,
Book II, p. 159). It appears that already Grijalva had, in 1518, taken possession form¬
ally of the Mexican coast. (Oviedo, Lib. XVH, cap. XV, p. 525)
"»Herrera (Dec. I, lib. VII, cap. XIV, pp. 197 and 198). Robertson (Vol. I, Book III,
p. 271; also note XXIII, p. 378).
"9 Cortés supposed a Mexican state or empire and his measures were taken in conse¬
quence. ("Carta Segunda," Vedla I, p. 12). Gomara ("Conq. de Méjico," p. 313).
Bernal-Diez del Castillo (" Hist. verd. de la conq. de N. España," Vedia II, pp. 32 and
33). Oviedo (Lib. XXXIH, cap. II, p. 261). Torquemada (Lib. IV, cap. XVI, pp. 386
and 387), etc. etc.
120Cortés ("Carta Segunda," Vedia I, pp. 13 and 15). Bernal-Diez (Vedia II, cap.
XLI, p. 36). Oviedo (Lib. X^XHI, cap. II, p. 261). Andrés de Tapia (" Col. de Docu¬
mentos," of Icazbalceta, Vol. II, pp. 561 and 562). Gomara (" Conq. de Méjico," Vedia,
I, p. 320). But the main evidence is furnished by the document published by Icazbalceta
in his second volume of the "Colección de Documentos para la Historia de Mexico,"
in the 2d volume, and entitled : " Real Ejecutoria de S. M. Sobre Tierras y Reservas de
Pechos y Paga, perteneciente ä los Caciques de Axapusco, de la jurisdicción de Otumba"
(pp. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9).
121 "Real Ejecutoria" (Col. de doc. H, p. 7). Gomara (Vedia I, p. 320). Clavigero
(Lib. VIH, cap. XI).
122 The pueblos of Axapusco and Tepeyahualco are situated along the road leading
from the city of Mexico to Tullanzinco, in the state of Mexico ))roper, northwest of
San Juan de Teotihuacan. As the Document to which we have already referred im-
433
to those chiefs lands of their own. The grantees had no conception
of the true import of what they accepted, neither did Cortés con¬
ceive the nature of tlitir ideas. It was the object of the Indians
plies, they were under Spanish rule included in the jurisdiction of Otumba. This docu¬
ment itself requires particular attention. It has been published by Sr. Icazbalceta in
the second volume of his documentary collections, and its authenticity has been carefully
examined—and, we think, successfully proven—by Sr. José F. Ramirez. Its histoi*y is
not devoid of interest, and we record it here, partly from the document itself, and partly
from the introduction and notes by the late Sr. Ramirez.
On the 9th day of March, 1617, there appeared before the viceroy of New Spain
(Marques of Guadalcazar), Leonardo de Salazar "in the name of the governor, alcalde
and flscals" of the pueblo of San Esteban Axapuseo and Santiago Tepeyahualco, "of
the jurisdiction of Otumba," praying for a confirmation in writing by the viceroy, of a
certain grant made by Cortés, and approved by the King and his royal council under
seal,— to the aforesaid pueblos. In order to obtain said confirmation it was alleged:
that the grant, written on "nine leaves" was so torn and damaged, that it would
no longer bear handling,— and that through its loss the inhabitants of said settlements
might come to grief. The petition was immediately granted and it was ordained, on
the 19 of March 1617, that a copy of the original grant should be executed, and that
in such places where the text was torn or obliterated through damage to the originals,
common belief or tradition should prevail as lar as it related to the contents of the
document ("obre la fé que hubiere lugar en derecho"). The desired copy and certifi¬
cates were accordingly issued on the 21st day of March, 1617.
This copy embodies the mutilated text of a very singular official paper. It appears
from it that on the 20th day of May 1519, Goi'tés executed, in favor of two Indian chiefs
of the two aforesaid pueblos, and at their request, a certificate (signed by himself at
San .Tuan de ülúa on that day and countersigned: Pedro Hernandez), stating that the
said chiefs had joined the messengers sent from Mexico to greet and espy Cortés upon
his arrival at the coast,— with the intention of approaching him secretly and offering
him their assistance in any designs he might have against the Mexicans, whom they
said held them severely to tribute. This they achieved, and took allegiance to the crown
of Spain. In return Cortés promised to them that " after our journey should be accom¬
plished to them should in the first place be made the greatest honor possible in
return for so much noble subtillty and good-will." He also promised "to make them
grandees and Lords of lands where they now have their pueblos." The facts thus al¬
leged were contained in the original document, written consequently about 30 days after
the landing of Cortés on the coast of Vera Cruz. But this act itself was included, as a
copy, in a further grant, dated 16 December, 1526, in which Cortés acknowledges the
services rendered by the two chiefs during the conquest of Mexico, and that alter that
pueblo had been captured, the said chiefs returned to their tribes " well paid with the
booty," relying upon the fulfilment of his original promises. It further states that: six
years having elapsed since, and to most of the chiefs who had assisted the Spanish
cause, lands had been given, he remembered tue chiefs of Axapuseo and Tepeyahualco,
" and by these presents in the royal name of His majesty gave them four tracts (" cu¬
atro sitios de estancias") in the territory of their said pueblos." These lands
were freed from all taxes and impositions, and the chiefs and their heirs were invested
forever with the lordship and the office of governors (" gobei-nadores") of the pueblo
to which they belonged. This grant of Cortes was confirmed by the Emperor Charles
Y, and the royal council of the Indies, 2d November, 1537, and on the 9 and 10 February,
1540, the said chieftains were duly installed in their new hereditary positions, and their
lands measured off to thqra.
Doubts were raised as to the genuineness of the document, but these are set aside
completely by the fact that, not more than 98 years alter its first execution, the Spanish
authorities have legally acknowledged it. Some objections relating to imperfections
in the text, apparent anachronisms, have been eliminated through the judicious
Report Peabody Museum, II. 28.-
434
merely to become free of tribute to the Mexicans, as thej'^ had been
previously ; but no thought entered their mind, at that time, of
ownership of the soil.^^^ This earliest transaction (probably
20th of May, 1519) was in itself a perfect revolution, or at least
the initiatory step thereto. Unbeknown to themselves, these
Indians became feudatories to the crown of Spain, and thus the
first germ was planted, which, in its development, subverted
gradually the aboriginal order of things in Mexico.^^"*
Every tribe, which subsequently surrendered to the Spaniards,
bowed in the same manner to the new principle introduced. The
Indians did not realize it, and as the idea of territorial domain
was unknown to them, they could not see the construction placed
upon their submission by the European invaders. It was not
possible for them to feel or know that, if the council of a tribe
agreed to accept the Spaniards in place of their former Mexican
conquerors, their territory thereby might become alienated. On the
other hand the Spaniards, not understanding the principles of In¬
dian organization, completely misunderstood the nature of the
contract. They took it for granted, that the tribal government
had power and authority over the tribal soil.
When at last Montezuma and such chiefs as were with him,
from Mexico as well as from Tezcuco and Tlacopan, being then
notes of Sr. Eamirez, as well as by the careful and thorough treatment of the editor,
Sr. Icazbalceta. We cannot refrain from accepting tlie "Real Ejecutoria" as genuine
and from calling the reader's attention to it, as one of the most important documents
on the subject of ancient Mexican tenure of the soil. For the purpose of this note, we
exclusively dwell on its authenticity, reserving the other points concerned for subse¬
quent annotations; two items excepted which we must mention here, namely: It
results from the grant of Cortés :
(1). That the chiefs of Axapusco and Tepeyahualco held no lands as their own
property, until Cortés granted such to them.
(2). That their offices were not hereditary, until Cortés established them as such;
through his aforesaid grant. The two conclusions just stated are of gi-eat
importance for the subject of this paper, and they should be kept present in
mind, since we shall have occasion to make further use of the document.
123"Real Ejecutoria, etc., etc." ('• Col. de Docum." Vol. II, p. «)• Andrés de Tápia
(" Col. de Doc.," II, p. 661, etc.) Cortés (" Carta Segunda," Vedia, I, pp. 12 and IS).
Gomara ("Conq. de Méjico," Vedia I, p. 318. Very explicit, and positive). Oviedo
(Lib. XXXIII, cap. II, pp. 261, 262 and 263). Bernal-Diez ("Hist, vei-dadera, etc."
Vedia II, cap. XLVI and XLVIl). Ixtlilxochitl (" Hist, des Chichim.," cap. LXXX, pp.
173, 174 and 175). Torquemada (Lib. IV, cap. XX, pp. 8l<7, 398 and 399). Clavigero
(Lib. VIII, cap. IX and XI). Robertson ("History of America," Vol. II, Book V, p.
286). (Prescott Book II, cap. VII).
124 " Real Ejecutoria, etc." (" Col. de Doc." II, p. 6, " y que desde agora en adelante
y para siempre se ofrecían fieles y leales vasallos de su majestad ö emperador ..." p. 7,
"y me suplicaron les diese testimonio de la obediencia que dieron à Dios nuestro
Señor y ä S. M.")
435
in Spanish power, consented to the ceremonies required for their
swearing allegiance" to Spain, Cortés thenceforth regarded the
annexation of Mexico to the domains of his liege lord as complete.
Montezuma was hereafter considered as a feudatory of the Spanish
crown, and it became the duty of that crown's other dependents
to protect him. Consequently, when the Mexicans took up arms
against their obnoxious guests, they became, in the eyes of the
latter, rebels against what was assumed to be their legitimate lord,
Montezuma, and, he in turn having been converted into a vassal
of Spain, rebels also towards that power itself, This act of
rebellion entailed for those participating in it, forfeiture of life
and property, at the option of their conquerors. Thus a further
title was created for the Spaniards, to seize even lands used or
held by individuals, outside of what they believed to be public or
lordly domains, and a theorëtical right was construed to be a
complete and violent revolution.
After, the pueblo of Mexico had fallen, the first step of Cortés
in regard to the Indians was, therefore, to establish the system of
" Repartimientos." This mode had come into existence during
the life-time of Columbus, through a Patent dated 22d of July, 1497,
authorizing the great admiral to distribute lands in the West Indian
Islands among the Spanish settlers for their own use and exclusive
ownership.128 No mention is made, in these letters patent, of the
aboriginal occupants of the soil, but Columbus, in a later act of
his own,, deckled that the Indians should work such lands for the
benefit of those to whom he had given them "and thus" says Herrera,
"the Repartimientos or Encomiendas all over the Indies origi-
nated."^^^ The Indians on such tracts became serfs to their Span-
"5Corté8 (" Carta Segunda," Vedia I, p. 30). Bernal-Diez (Cap. CI, Vedia II, p. 103).
Oviedo (Lib. XXXIII, cap. IX).
126 The term " rebellion " is frequently applied to the uprisirig of the Mexicans during
Cortés' short absence on his expedition against Narvaez, and their subsequent resistance
to Spanish power. In fact, it appears so frequently In documents and chronicles of the
16th century, that we may well refrain from special quotations.
"T Cortés (•' Carta Cuarta," Vedia I, pp. 113,114,115 and 110). Bernal-Diez (Vedia II,
Cap. CLXIX, pp. 237 and 238). Gomara (Vedia I. p. 394). Letter of the troops of Cortés
to the Emperor ("Col. de Doc.," I, p. 431). It is also acknowledged by Cortés himself
in his letter of 15 October, 1.524, to the Emperor, wherein he expressly states (" Col. de
Doc.," I, pp. 472 and 473), that he dared not promulgate the latest despatches received
by him from the Spanish court, since these enjoined him to abstain from " repartir ni
encomendar." Thus he acknowledges having already made " repartimientos."
"»Nivarrete ("Colleccion de Viajus, etc." Tom. II, pp. 215 and 216). Herrera (Dec.
I, lib. HI, cap. II, p. 66).
"»HeiTera (Deo. I, lib. Ill, cap. XVI, p. 95). Oviedo (Lib. Ill, cap. VI, p. 72).
436
ish conquerors, they could not, at least in later times, be separated
from the soil on which they dwelt.^^o
The country of Mexico being very extensive, while the number
of the original Spanish conquerors was comparatively small, it
followed that, sometimes at least, large areas inhabited by entire
tribes, or at least by entire kinships, fell to the lot of a single man.
The new owner in such cases found an organized community estab¬
lished upon his grant, and he usually preferred not to disturb
this organization, contenting himself with exacting for his individ¬
ual benefit a tribute levied in a manner approximate to that which
had been customary previous to the conquest.i^i Nevertheless,
several disturbing infiuences soon appeared.
The first one was the construction placed upon the obligation of
personal labor to be performed by the Indians. It was gradually
so extended, that instead of remaining confined to the Zand, it at¬
tached to the person of the new owner, and thus tended, by ad¬
mitting forcible displacement, to disrupt the ties of kinship, which
formed the basis of the tenure of lands. 122
In the second place the Spaniards looked upon all tracts set apart
by the Indians for governmental purposes, as public domain of the
Mexicans, and so, wherever a tribe had resisted their invasion,
such official lands were of course regarded as forfeited. They be¬
came either property of the crown, or were assigned to some one
of the early Spanish immigrants. We have already seen that these
lots, although their crops were destined to special uses, were prop¬
erly communal soil. This mode of tenure was now suddenly abol¬
ished, and the principle of private or public ownership established
13» Herrera (Dec, I, lib. Ill cap. XVI, p. 95). Oviedo (Lib. Ill, cap. VI, p. 72).
Mendieta (Lib. I, cap. VI, pp. 32 and 33).
131 Letter of Ramirez de Fuenleal, Bishop of San Domingo ("Recueil, etc.," p. 244).
Letter of the Licentiate Ceynos (" Col. de Doc.," Vol. II, pp. 1()2 and 163). Letter of
Ramirez de Fuenleal ("Col. de Doc." Vol. II, pp. 170,171 and 172, etc., etc.). Letter of
Father Domingo de Betanzos (" Col. de Doc.," II, pp. 190-197). Bernal-Diez (Cap. CCX,
p. 313. Vedia II).
132 That the original intention was merely to have the Indians work the soil for the
benefit of the Spanish owners, is proved by Herrera (Dec. I, lib. Ill, cap. XVI, p. 95),
and by Oviedo (Lib. Ill, cap. VI, p. 72). The latter was a contemporaiy. But it results,
principally from the complaints about the ill treatments of the Indians, and the sug¬
gestions for remedy,—that the Spaniards very soon converted this position into one of
personal slavery. See Letter of Ramirez de Fuenleal, of 1532 ("Col. de Doc.," II, pp.
167 and 168), of Alonzo del Castillo (Col. II, p. 202). Opinion of the Licentiate Marcos
de Aguilar, 8 Oct., 1526 (" Col. de Doc." II, pp. 545 and 546). Joint letter to the Emperor,
of 9 Franciscan and Dominican monks (" Col. de Doc." pp. 549-553). Letter of Motolinia
(" Col. do Doc." Vol. I), 2 Jan., 1555.
437
in its place. It is not surprising therefore, to find in the "Libro
del Cabildo," or book of the municipality of the young city of
Mexico, between the years 1524 and 1529, numerous entries re¬
cording the petitions of Spaniards for sites occupied, according to
their belief, by private dwellings of Mexican chiefs, and the grants
issued in consequence thereof.^^^ This applied not only to the
"lands of the houses of the community" (tecpan-tlalli), and "lands
of the speakers" (tlatoca-tlalli), but especially to the "pillali" or
lots assigned to each chieftain as member of a particular quarter.
In this manner the soil of the consanguine group, the basis of
landed tenure in Mexico, was directly invaded ; portions of it being
torn from its original connection.
Lastly the Spaniards, finding Indian communities too strongly
and permanently organized for a sudden and violent reform, ac¬
ceded to their maintenance as far as they understood it. But,
fully convinced that the chiefs were monarchical or despotic rulers —
masters of the soil as well as of its inhabitants,— wherever these
chiefs had been personally friendly to them or wherever they re¬
garded it as politic, they confirmed what they conceived to be
their prerogatives.Thus, regarding them as owners of the dif¬
ferent classes of oflScial lots, this ownership was formally recog¬
nized, and it was acknowledged that they were "lawfully seized in
fee thereof." The " tlalmaites " became in law the vassals of those
whom they formerly but considered as elective functionaries.
Not content with this, and in order to reward certain chiefs for
services rendered during the conquest or good behavior afterwards,
the Spanish conquerors also issued to tliem "Eepartimientos, or
gave them lands, sometimes unoccupied wastes, as their own pri-
"8 Humboldt (•' Essai politique sur la Nouvelle Espagne," Vol. II, lib. Ill, cap. VIII,
pp. 64 and 65).
13^ Letter of Father Toribio de Paredes (Motolinia) 2 Jan'y, 1555 (Col. de Doc. I), and
especially the long letter of Mendieta, dated Toluca, 1st day of the year 1562 ('' Col. de
"Doc." II). "Sixth: it appears to me that the native and legitimate Lords should be
taken into account ...... I treat of the particular Lords, touching their lordship of
their Indians and pueblos, which they formerly possessed. For I think that some are
expelled, and I do not know even if they were not reduced to macehuales and tributaries,
and others, although some trifle is'given to them it is in the shape of a governorship and in
such a manner that, once despoiled from it, they are lett destitute " (" se quedan ä
buenas noches") (p.638). The good father here represents the true conceptions of the
Europeans about the Indian chieftaincy (as a feudal lordship) at the time of the con¬
quest. Also; Letter of the Archbishop of Mexico, Fray Alonzo de Montufar, dated
30 Nov., 1554. (" Cruautés horribles des conquérants du Mexique" Ternaux-Compans,
pp. 258, 259 and 260, appendix.)
438
vate property. Among these is to be classed the grant already
mentioned to the caciques of Axapusco and Tepeyahualco.^^®
The documents partaking of the nature of " Repartimientos "
contain among their number â donation by Cortés to Doña Isabel
Montezuma, daughter of the former Mexican " Tlaca-tecuhtli,"
which is very interesting for the purposes of this investigation.
It is dated 26 of June, 1526, and gives to the grantee, in consid¬
eration of the aid lent to Cortés by her father, the entire teirritory
of the Tecpanecan tribe^ at the same time acknowledging that it
belonged to her by right "us patrimonal estate We know,
however, that the Tecpanecas formed the third member of the
135 "Real Ejecutoria, etc." (" Col. de Doc." Vol. II, p. 20). Grant of Cortés to Doña
Isabel Montezuma (Prescott, " Hist, of the Conquest of Mexico," Vol. Ill, Appendix,
pp. 460, 461, 462, 463 and 464). Petition addressed to Charles V, by several Mexican
chiefs in 1532 ( Appendix to " Cruautés hon-ibles des conquérants du Mexique " Ternanx-
Compans, p. 261).
138 It says : (" Real Ejecutoria, etc., etc." Col. de Doc. H, p. 18, " and since they were
such (faithful) servants of H. M., they should be ft-eed, together with their pueblos,
from all impositions and contributions forever, and to them should be given four tracts
of land (" estancias de tierras "), and they should become perpetual governors of their
tribes, and none of their inferiors should ever obtain the ofiSce" p. 21. The King and
his council of the Indies consequently ordained "by these presents we declare the
aforesaid to be free and discharged (" quitos "), not bound to tributes, tenths, premices
and other duties or contributions customary or yet to be introduced, and that they and
their descendants shall perpetually hold the government of their pueblos, with all the ad¬
vantages and appurtenances to the four tracts, as Lords thereof, and that it is our pleas¬
ure and will. . . ."Lastly, in describing the lands surveyed for the said caciques it says :
" and they are rough timbered lands, without any water, of which the aforesaid took
possession" p. 24). This shows that certain tracts were set off from the communal
soil, to become private property of the chiefs. It is interesting to connect therewith
the following statement by Zurita (p. 57). "These lands belonging to the calpiillis, it
was unjust to give them to the Spaniards, as it is still done. The latter seeing unculti¬
vated lands, demand them from the persons who govern."
137 This grant has fortunately been published by Mr. Prescott, in the Appendix to
the " History of the Conquest of Mexico " (Vol. Ill, pp. 461-464). It bears the title :
" Privilegio de Doña Isabel Montezuma, Hija del gran Motezuma último Rey Indio de!
gran Reyno y Cibdad de México, que bautizada y siendo Christiana cash con Alonso
Grado, natural de la villa dé Alcantara, Hidalgo, y criado de su Magestad, que habia
Servido y servia en muchos oficios de aquel Reyno. Otorgado por Don Hernando
Cortes, conquistador del dicho Reyno, etc., etc." Its date is 26 June, 1526. The Doña
Isabel is mentioned as " the principal and legitimate heiress of the said Lord Moteçnma,'f
and the concession itself is worded as follows : " con la qnal dicha Doña Isabel le pro¬
meto y doi en dote y araas ä la dicha Doña Isabel y sus descendientes, en nombre de
S. M. y Como su governador y capitan general destas partes, y porque de derecho le
pertenece de su patrimonio y legitima, el Señoría y naturales del Pueblo de Tacuba,
etc., etc." The following pueblos are added : Yeteve, Yzqui-Luca, Chimalpan, Chapnl-
inaloyan, Escapulteango, Xiloango, Ocoiacaque, Castepeque, Talanco, Gatscrio, Duote-
peqiie, Tacala. Notwithstanding the defective orthography (Escapultango in place of
Azcaputzalco, Duotepeque instead of Ometepeo, etc.) we easily discern the territory
of the Tecpanecan tribe ; a fact still further proven by the own words of the gp-ant : '• the
aforesaid settlements and pueblos are subjected to the pueblo of Tacuba and to its
Lord."
439
"Náhuatl" confederacy of the valley of Mexico, that they and
their soil were totally independent from the Mexicans.^^8 Still,
Cortés Iwnestly assumed it to have been a part of the Mexican
domain, and on this assumption based his disposition of it, fully
convinced that he was performing an act of honest restitution. This
gives a measure of the erroneous ideas then prevailing among the
Spaniards on the mode of tenure and distribution of lands in
ancient Mexico.
Thus a state of things was inaugurated which could not fail,
eventually, to create the most unfortunate results. The Indians
among themselves were placed on very unequal footings. In some
sections the calpulli, even the whole tribe, were left undisturbed,
in others their lands were assigned to Spanish individuals. Again,
certain tracts were taken away from the communal soil, and be¬
came private property of individual conquerors. But the most
disastrous influence certainly was exercised by the assignment of
landed property to individual Indians. It created an inequality
of condition in each and every aboriginal communitj'^ against which
those least favored revolted, whereas the preferred ones, now com¬
bining authority with landed property, were tempted to abuse
their new position.^^9 Qf division and strife among the
>88 In addition to the testimony already adduced, we refer here to the Letter of Fray
Toribio (Motolinia) and Fray Diego d' Ciarte, dated Cholula 27 Aug., 1554. "All the
others obeyed to Montezuma, to the sovereign of Tezcuco, and to him of Tacuba.
These three princes were closely confederated; they divided among themselves the
lands (countries) which they conquered." ("Recueil de pièces, etc.," p. 403.) In the
"Relation of the services rendered by the Marquis of the Valley (Cortés)," executed
between 1532 and 1535 —and presented to the Emperor by the Licentiate Nunez, refer¬
ence is made to the original grant to Cortés, of lands containing: "23,000 vassals"
which territory included the Tecpanecan pueblos of Cuyuacan and Atacubaya. These
pueblos were claimed "through the intrigues of the president Ñuño de Guzman and of
the auditors Matienzo and Delgadillo " as belonging to Mexico, but the case was tried
in New Spain, and Cortés furnished ample proof "how Ihe said lands are distinct, in
limits and jurisdiction, from the city of Mexico, and that the Lords of Cuyuacan and
Atacubaya always possessed them peaceably and in lact" f'Col. de Doc.," Vol. II, p.
66). If now this was the fact with those two villages, how much more so was it with
Tacuba and its surroundings, which were the chief places of the Tecpanecan tribe; as
third member of the Nahuatl confederacy of the Mexican valley.
>89 The grant to Cortés mentioned in the preceding note, is an instance of the agglom¬
eration of several pueblos under a single owner. There must have been many more :
since he created originally but 200 "Repartimientos" over the whole territory. The
Licentiate Ceynos, in his letter of 22 June, 1532 (" Col. de Doc.," Vol. II, p. 159), men¬
tions " until 400 persons " of which 200 had to settie in the city of Mexico. The Bishop
Fuenleal in his "Opinion " of 1532 (" Col. de Doc.," II, p. 176), mentions (among others)
the following Repartimientos: " Huexotzinco to Diego de Ordáz." The province of
440
Aborigines themselves the Spaniards naturally profited for
further .encroachments. Many "encomenderos" used the author¬
ity of the chiefs to turn their Indian serfs into actual slaves,
others in turn improved the new perspective opened to the natives
towards the acquisition of private lands, for the purpose of under¬
mining the influence and authority of the chieftains.Fre¬
quently, also, the ignorance in which the Indians were, as to the
Tepeaca to Pedro Armildez Chirino,—Chilchota to Juan de Sámano, etc., etc. Each
of these, especially the first one, comprised several villages, nay a whole tribe.
Compare the letter of the Archbishop Montufar, 30 Nov., 1554 ("Cruautés horribles,
etc." Appendix, 255-260). Zurita (pp. 63 and 64). The complaints are principally,
against such as held offices under the conquerors, and such to whom lànds were given
out of the calpulalli. The petition of Mont ufar is a terrible accusation against the In¬
dian chiefs. Gomara, however, qualifies it as one of the good effects of the conquest
that the Indians since that time "hold lands" (Vedia I). Motolinia (Trat. I, cap. I, p.
17) is very severe on the collectors of rent for the whites. But these coliectors must
have been mostly Indians,— chiefs, as he himself acknowledges in his Cholula-letters.
""Motolinia (Trat. I, cap. I, p. 17). Montufar (pp. 255-260). Zurita (pp. 63 and 64).
Ceynos, Second Letter, 1 March, 1.565 (Col. de Doc. II, pp. 240 and 241). Zurita (p. 83)
is of special importance, exposing the intrigues of the Spanish conquei'ors among the
Indian communities, inciting the natives to litigations against their chiefs. Mendieta,
in his remarkable letter from Toluca, 1 Jan'y, 1562, to Fray Francisco de Bustamante,
commissary general, at Mexico, devotes his principal attention to the pernicious influ¬
ence of the Spanish interpi-eters and lawyers, inciting the Indians to litigation before
the " Audiencia" and not before the viceroy. He says for inst. (p. 532), " that without
comparison their condition and behavior was better at their time of gentility than now.
For at the time they wei-e heathens they did not know of lawyers ("letrado" properly
men of letters), scribes, nor attorneys, neither of litigations, nor to spend in such (squab¬
bles) their properties and ruin their souls. To-day, since the opportunity is afforded to
them, and they l^eing naturally quarrelsome, disposed to tackle and injure each other,
they are so fond of it as to have them continually on hand, without cause nor reason,
and (such are) always the worst and most abject of the tribe. Therefore not a single
community is found in New Spain which is not disturbed, and does not spend nearly as
much in litigation as they pay of tribute to H. M., or to the encomendero every year.
And since they are of littie understanding, and not versed in law, I hold all what the
interpreters and attorneys gain by it as so much of a robbery as if they would take it
from the houses at night. Such do not even deny their base actions, but confess openly
that they do it, without any other excuse than that H. M. gives tliem permission." On
p. 536, he says : " certain particular Indians in all the settlements do great mischief,
knowing that they have recourse to the court, and among the pretenses to cover their
malice they use two most commonly, which arc : demand account of the communal
property, pretending that the principals spend it, and the other, to have the conduct of
their officers investigated under color that these abuse of their position (power)."
Zurita (p. 83), speaking of the intrigues against the chiefs says: " the ordinary tribute
and prestations failing, they fall into the most abject misery, become dejected, dare
not speak, and do not know where to apply for protection. For all this the rebels do
not cause any loss to the encomendero as to his tribute .... In this manner they
ruin the chiefs in a very short time, for all their property consists in the work of their
vassals, as soon as that ceases, if it was but for a single day, they lack every requisite
for life." (This quotation is in Itself, we think, the most ample confirmation of what
we have advanced upon the subject of aboriginal tenure of the soil, and fully disproves
what has been assumed in regard to the chiefs holding and owning lands of their
own). See also Memorial of Bartolomé de Las Casas (Col. de Doc. II, pp. 229 and 230).
441
real import and value of landed concessions, was taken advantage
of to deprive them of such subsequently, either through litiga¬
tion or through barter for worthless trifles.Unacquainted with
the new order of things suddenly forced upon them, unable there¬
fore to proflt by it for subsistence, the natives of Mexico could
not help being degraded instead of elevated and bettered in con¬
dition by such a transition which displaced them, in the course of
a few years, from a state of tribal and communal society into one
of civilization.
Consequently a state of disorganization began to prevail, which
threatened to ruin the country. At the same time, however, while
the Indians, forlorn in the maze of diificulties in which their
conquerors themselves also floundered about, were in a perfectly
helpless condition, a sudden protection and relief arose to them.
On the 13th of May, 1524, "one day previous to the vigils of
Pentecost," there landed at San Juan de ülúa, a cluster of twelve
Franciscan friars, sent to Mexico in response to the original call of
Cortés, for the purpose of converting the Indians.These monks
Zurita (pp. 63 and 64). Mendieta (Letter, in Col. de Doc. II).
The Europeans opened a wide field for activity. They were superior to the Mex¬
ican aborigines, not only in organization, but especially in mechanical arts and inven¬
tions for the purpose of subsistence. It was now required of the Indians to suddenly
take hold of all these improvements, which it had taken the Europeans centuries upon
centuries to secure through long experimenting,— and to become familiar with them in a
short time, as well as to feel happy and contented at once under a state of society which
tore asunder all those ties of kinship forming, since time immemorial, the basis of their
Organization. It was asking too much of them altogether, and if besides what was
asked was even enforced violently,— then the degrading consequences could not be
avoided. Therefore, the most ardent advocates of the Indian cause took great care to
insist upon letting the natives alone in their communities ; even prohibiting the access
thereto to the Spanish colonists. Bartolomé de las Casas, in his joint memorial with Fray
Domingo de Santa Tomás, in favor of the Indians of Peru, written about 1560 (" Col.
de Doc." Bibliographical notes, p. XLII,) says: "Lo segundo, que porque los Españ¬
oles son siempre del bien de los indios contrarios, y en especial lo son y ban de ser
impedidores de aqueste negocio y concierto, que han de estorbar por cuantas vias pudi¬
eren que los indios no paguen à S. M. ni puedan pagar este servicio; por tanto es nec¬
esario que se prohiba que ningún comendero èntre por ninguna catisa ni razón en los
pueblos de los indios que tienen encomendados, ni sus mujeres, que son las mas crueles
y perniciosas, ni negro, ni criado, ni otra persona suya (p. 233)." Alonzo de Zurita, in
his memorial written at Mexico between 1554 and 1564 (" Col. de Doc.," II, p. XLVII),
insists strongly upon keeping the Indians apart from the Whites (p. 335). In regard to
the actual degradation, see Mendieta's letter, of 1 Jan'y, 1562 (" Col. de Doc.," II, p.
632). Motolinia (" Hist, de los Indios de N. España," Trat. I, cap. I).
1*8 The Franciscan friars obtained their first concession ft'om Pope Leo X, by a bull
dated 25 April, 1521 (Mendieta, lib. Ill, cap. V, pp. 186-190). This bull was executed in
favor of Fray Francisco de Quiñones (de los Angeles), and Fray Juan Clapion. But
these fathers never reached Mexico. Previous to it, thre^Flemish missionaries, Fray
Juan de Tecto, Fray Juan de Aora, and Fray Pedro of Ghent had gone to New Spain
442
fully realized what was asked of them, but they went still further
by becoming, not only the spiritual advisers, but actually the mate¬
rial protectors, of the aborigines. Basing upon the authority
conferred by the Pontiff at Rome, they publicly denounced, not
only the Individual acts of the Spaniards, but even those of the
royal officers.^'*'* This could not fall to Incite the Indians to resis¬
tance, and when the conquerors resorted to violence, not only did
the oppressed find refuge and protection In the newly erected con¬
vents, but one of the most distinguished Franciscans, Fray Torlblo^
of Benavent (Motollnla), even notified the agents of the royal
" audiencia," — who had come to Huexotzlnco to seize the fugitives
and bring them to justice,—to leave tlie settlement forthwith,
threatening. In case of non-compliance, with excommunication.
The protection thus afforded would have been far more efllcaclous,
had the good Friars understood at that time the true nature of
Indian land tenure, and their usages w*lth respect to the distribution
of the soil. They might then have accompanied their violent
protests with a rational remedy. Restoration of the ancient cus¬
toms, limiting the Indian clusters to their territories actually tilled,
without disturbing their original organization, would have been the
proper way. Alongside of such communities, ample room would
have remained for the settlements of whites, and the unavoidable
contact between both races would have changed slowly and more
permanently the condition of the natives, lifting them up gradu¬
ally to the practical appreciation of Ideas of civilization. But
of their own accord, and without Papal sanction. But, while Fray Pedro de Gante, for
instance, rendered valuable service to science through one of his letters, it is among the
" twelve apostles of Mexico " that we find those who have equaliy combined heroism in
protecting the Indians, with due regard to the conservation of their memories and
historical traditions. These " twelve " were : Fray Mai-tin de Valencia, Fray Francisco
de Soto, Fray Martin de CoruSa, Fr. Juan Xuares, Fray Antonio de Ciudad Rodrigo,
Fr. Toribio of Benavente, Fr. Garcia de Cisneros, Fr. Luis de Fuensalida, Fr. Juan de
Ribas, Fr. Francisco Ximenez, Fr. Andrés de Cordoha, Fray Juan de Palos (Mendieta,
lib. III, cap. X, also cap. XI, etc.). We shall have further occasion to use their writings,
therefore this humble tribute of gratitude to their memories.
Compare the beautiful introduction to Motolinia's "Historia de los Indios de
Nueva-España," by Sr. José F. Ramirez, in Sr. Icazbalceta's "Col. de Documentos"
(Vol. I, Introd. p. XLVII to p. I), which quotes an act of Gonzalo de Salazar, 28 July,
1525 (contained in the first "Libro de Cabildo" of Mexico), containing a complaint,
against the Franciscan friars for " meddling with matters of civil jurisdiction and gov¬
ernment." See also the report of Hen-era about the convection ("Junta") at Barce¬
lona, in Spain in 1529 (Dec. IV, lib. VI, cap. XI, p. 118, etc).
1*8 Introduction to Motolkiia (" Col. de Doc.," Vol. I, p. L). Torquemada (Lib. XV,
cap. XXII, pp. 56, 67-59;.
443
even in their letter to the emperor, dated Ist of September, 1526,^^®
the "apostles of Mexico" insisted upon a thorough establishment
of what Mr. Prescott so justly calls the "vicious" system of Re¬
partimientos, representing that an immediate and thorough inter¬
mingling of both races alone could promote the interests of
conversion.
Still, an improvement in the system gradually took place. The
civil and criminal jurisdiction over the natives, which formerly had
been vested in each landholder,i48 ^as placed " in the hands of
special officers of the crown. It was directed that the owner
should reside on his property, that the Indians could not be sepa¬
rated from the soil and finally, on the 20th of November, 1542,
the "new laws and ordonnances for the government of the Indies"
were promulgated, which contained such restrictions upon the
" Repartimientos," that their further extension and increase was
rendered impossible, and the number of those existing, greatly
limited. The Indians themselves were declared direct vassals to
the crown of Spain.
Although in many parts of Spanish America these laws were
but "obeyed though not executed,"they still called forth a
146" Col. de Documentos " (Vol. II, pp. 155,156 and 157). Joint letter of Franciscan
and Dominican monks (p. 549, etc.).
" Col. de Doc.," 11, pp. 155-157, 549, etc. ; also letter of Fray Domingo de Betanzos
(pp. 190-197). Notwithstanding the agreement between Franciscan and Dominican
monks on that point, Las Casas continued to protest in the most vehement manner,
against the " Repartimiento." See his memorial, jointly with Fray Domingo de Santo
Tomás (Col. 11, pp. 231-236), and to the council of the Indies, of 1562 or 1563 (Col. II,
pp. 595-598), in which he says : " Thirdly, that the encomiendas or repartimientos of
Indians are iniquitous, per se wrong, therefore tyrannical, and such administration is
tyrannical also. Fourth, that such as'give them commit a mortal sin, like those who
maintain them, and if they do not give them up, they cannot be saved."
"«It was customary for each "encomendero" to exercise civil and criminal juris»
diction within his "Repartimiento."
"»"Nuevas Leyes y Oi*denanzas parala Gobernación de las Indias " (Col. de Doc.,
II, pp. 204-227), dated Valladolid (Spain), 4 June, 1543, promulgated at Mexico, 24
March. 1544. Herrera (Dec. VII, lib. VI, cap. V, pp. 110-113). These new laws were
the cause of bloody disturbances in Spanish America. Gomara (Vedia 1, pp. 249 and
250).
"0 " Se obedece, pero no se cumple." There are many evidences of this saying hav¬
ing been put in actual practice. Joaquin Acosta ("Compendio histórico dol Descu¬
brimiento y de la Colonización de Nueva Granada," 1848, cap. XVll, p. 316). At the
arrival of the Licentiate Armendariz in Cauca, sent to enforce the new laws, Belalcazar
at once had them promulgated, but took the responsibility of forthwith also suspending
their execution. He wrote to the King iVom Cali, in 1544, in regard to his action. Acosta
says : " Entonces comenzó en el nuevo mundo Español ä campear la formula iri'isoria
de se obedece, pero no se cumple; con que se eludían las ordenes que no les convenia
ejecutar ä los funcionarios de aquellas apartados comarcas." Herrera (Dec. Vil, lib.
Vil, cap. XXIII, pp. 157 and 158).
444
marked improvement, at least in the personal condition of the
Indians. They were, hereafter, at least to some extent, protected
from the bodily slavery in which the former acts had plunged them.
In regard to the tenure of lands, however, the laws wrought no
change. Further direct spoliations became more difficult, but the
new principle of private ownership had been firmly implanted, not
merely around but among the natives themselves, and the oblit¬
eration of the ancient usages, by the extension of this principle,
could not be stayed.
Of the aboriginal mode of tenure of lands and of their distribu¬
tion, but one vestige remained—the last monument so to say, and
the one which embodies, happily, all its principal features. These
are the lands of kinship^ held in common by the consanguine group
or calpulli, and called as we have seen, " calpulalli," by the
Mexicans.
Although their order had been very much disturbed since in
many cases the official tracts, "tecpan-tlalli" and "tlatoca- tlalli,"
as well as those apportioned to the chiefs as members of the kin,
"tlalmilli," were appropriated by the conquerors,— the bulk of the
"calpulalli" could not, for a long time, be disintegrated for private
uses, notwithstanding the still more nefarious influence exercised
by the donation of lands to individuals, with the faculty of barter
or sale, in the very heart of the organization itself. Even up to
the present time, these communal tracts are still found in Mexico,
occupied and tilled by the aborigines after their original customs.
151 Mr. James Pascoe, an English gentleman, resident of Toluca, has in a letter re¬
ported npon by the French "Journal des Missions Evangéliqnes" (1874), given a de¬
tailed description of the condition of the Indians in his vicinity. His statements about
their communal system of tenure, the eligibility of their chiefs, etc., etc. ("gober¬
nadores") are very positive and plain.
Mr. Stephens, in "Travels in Yucatan" (Vol. II, cap. I, pp. 14 and 15), described the
mode of life of the settlement (" rancho ") of Schawill near Nohcacab, which settle¬
ment contained about " one hundred labradores, or working men, their lands are held
and worked in common, and the products are shared by all. Their food is prepared
at one hut, and every family sends for its portion, etc., etc."
Brantz-Mayer: ("Mexico as it was and as it is," 3d Edition, 1847). While at the
hacienda of Temisco near Cuernavaca: "he pointed out to us the site of an Indian
village, at the distance of three leagues, the inhabitants of which are almost in their
native state. He told us, that they do not permit the visits of white people; and that,
numbering more than three thousand, they come out in delegations to work at tne
haciendas, being governed at home by their own magistrates, administering their own
lands, and employing a Catholic pi'iest to shrive them of their sins ; once a year. The
money they receive in payment of wages, at the haciendas, is taken home and buried;
and as they produce the cotton and skin for their dresses, and the cora and beans for
their food, they purchase nothing at the stores " (p. 175). Hon. E. G. Squier, in his ex-
445
At a late hour, comparatively, the government of Spain recog¬
nized the importance of maintaining this last vestige of Indian
land tenure. It was brought to it, not only by the incessant
clamor of ecclesiastics of various orders,^^"^ by the necessity of
restraining the power of the new settlers over the aborigines,
which power threatened (as in Peru) to endanger Spanish domina¬
tion itself,^^^ — but especially from the conviction, that it was best
suited to the wants of the Mexican natives, being the mode of
cellent work on Nicaragua, makes the following very important observations on the
tenure of lands there: (Vol. I, cap. 290 and 291). "The municipality of Subtiaba, in
common with the barrios of some of the towns, holds lands, as I have said, in virtue
of royal grants, in its corporate capacity. These lands are inalienable, and are leased
to the inhabitants at low and almost nominal rates. Every citizen is entitled to a suffi¬
cient quantity to enable him to support himself and his family; for which he pays from
four rials (half a dollar), to two dollars a year. This practice seems to have been of
aboriginal institution ; for under the ancient Indian organization, the right to live was
recognized as a fundamental principle in the civil and social system. No man was
supposed to be entitled to more laud than was necessary to his support; nor was he
permitted to hold more than that, to the exclusion or injury of others. In fact, many
of the institutions of the Indians in this country were recognized, and have been per¬
petuated by the Spaniards." The bearings of these remarks, upon our subject, are
easily noticed, and need no further comments. That part of the indigenous popula¬
tion of which the learned traveller treats, are from the same stock as the Mexicans.
The document which has already occupied our attention, namely : the grant of Cortes
to the chiefs of Axapusco and Tepeyahualco (See note 136) also furnishes evidence of
the existence of these communal tracts in Mexico, and their recoguizance by the
Spanish government. This grant was the object or cause of a long suit, which we
shall refer to hereafter,— the inhabitants of the two pueblos suing their chiefs for res¬
titution of the communal property. This shows that the "calpulli" in fact, if not in
name perhaps, still existed at least in the past century. The litigation alluded to
occurred between the years 1755 and 1764.
i-^These .protestations were mainly issued at the example of the indefatigable Las
Casas. It would be superfluous to refer to them in detail. But it is remarkable with
what freedom of language this violent though noble character was permitted to speak.
We have already quoted (note 147), his memorial to the council of the Indies (written
in 1562 or 1563). In that document he goes so far as to say: "Fh-st, that all the wars
called conquests (" conquistas " applying it to the New World exclusivel}')» were and are
unjust and the very acts of tyrants. Second, that all the Kingdoms and Lordships of
the Indies are held by us through usurpation only .... Fifth : that the King our Lord,
whom God may keep safe and prosperous, cannot, with all the power God has given
him, justify the wars and robberies made to these people, nor the Repartimientos and
encomiendas,—more than he could justify the wars and robberies committed against
the Christian by the Tui'ks Eighth: that the natives of all these parts and
wherever we may have entered the Indies have a perfect right to make war upon us or
to expel us and wipe us off the face of the earth, which right they will preserve until
the day of judgment" (Col. de Doc. II, p. 598). This is strong talk fi-om the Bishop of
Chiapas, not only against the Emperor, but against the Holy See, which had donated
the Indies to Spain.
"»It is well known that the liberation of the Indians from personal servitude was a
measure, not only of humanity and justice, but also of policy, on the part of the Span¬
ish government, to weaken the growing power of the conquerors and early colonists.
The troubles in Peru give a good example of the state of aftairs.
446
tenure of lands corresponding to undisturbed aboriginal society.
Thus the calpulli were, to a limited extent, protected, nay fos¬
tered, and recognized in law, even as late as the past century.^®^
Like all remains of "ancient society," they also are bound to dis¬
appear, or be transformed in a manner suitable to the exigencies
of a higher culture. But it may not be amiss to quote, at the
close of this investigation, a tribute paid to their value for the
wants of Indian society by Alonzo de Zurita, a Spanish oflScial of
perspicacity, deep knowledge, and honest judgment, in his memo¬
rial to the King of Spain, written about the j'ear 1560.^^®
154 The litigation over the grant to the caciques of Axapnsco and Tepeyahnalco, to
which we referred in note 151,—is commented upon as follows by Señora J. F. Ramirez
in his letter proving the authenticity of the document, dated 30 Sept., 1863, and printed
in the Introduction to the " Keal-Ejecutoria, etc., etc." "D. Juan de los Santos, D.
Antonio Estéban, D. Juan a>id D. Lorenzo Morales, with the title of caciques and prin¬
cipals of Tepeyahnalco, and with the right of successors and lawful descendants of D.
Juan and D. Fernando Morales "companions (they said), of the illustrious Hernán
Cortés in the conquest and paciflcation of these kingdoms" had been in possession of
the municipal government of that pueblo and of Axapusco, and consequently of the
administration of their communal property. The dexterous policy of the Spanish gov¬
ernment soon conceived the danger of that system, which was very general in its origin^
and therefore sought to undermine it in its own particular way. It sought, therefore,
to develop the municipal (communal) principle of institutions, and setting the demo¬
cratic element to action, thus placed the caciques in opposition with their formel' sub¬
ordinates, destroying their influence and power. In the present case, the viceroy
authorized the pueblos mentioned to elect their municipal authorities, and thereby
Santos and the Morales were removed from the administration of the properties."
These remarks are very important. But the parties appealed from this division and
a long suit ensued. The chiefs based their claims upon the grant of Cortés exclu¬
sively (pp. Xlll and XIV), and the pueblos attacked the authenticity of that document;
at the same time invoking the rights of possession ("plenario de posesión.") The re¬
sult of the litigation is described as follows : " declaring the possession in favor of the
pueblos, condemning Santos to restitution of the fruits (proceeds), but leaving aside
the rights of the parties upon the point of ownership" (juicio de propiedad). The
whole case shows that the Spanish government recognized :
First: The communal organization of the tribes, and the elective constituency of its
chieftains.
Second : That the hereditary ofilpe of chiefs, and the hereditary ownership of lands,
were Spanish innovations (" que á su principio fué muy ordinario "). Now this origin
(" principio ") is certainly not intended to go farther back than the conquest.
Third : That the only right and title, as claimed by the chiefs, was derived from the
grant of Cortés, and that they did not claim any prior right, connected with deseen-
dancy or with privilege of caste.
Fourth : Consequently, that the Spanish government itself recognized the anterior
democratic constituency of the Indian community, and its customs, regarding them as
prevailing even over the acts and disposition of Cortés,—although to him the Spaniards
owed the conquest of the country.
156 Rapport sur les différentes classes de chefs de la Nouvelle Espagne," pp. 63 and
64. The original of this highly important report to the King of Spain, has been printed
once, but very defectively, in the " Collecion de Documentos Inéditos i-elativos al Des¬
cubrimiento, etc., etc." It is much to be regretted that riiy learned ft-iend, Sr. leazbal-
ceta, has not incorporated that copy of it pertaining to Sr. Ramirez, in his valuable
447
"The good order reigning in the calpullis is a strong reason to
protect them in law, and to prevent them from becoming inter¬
mingled, as they are already nearly everywhere ; for once broken
up, the harmony which they originally exhibited can never be
reestablished again. The ignorance about these institutions, and
the little regard paid to them, are the cause that many Indians
were given lands out of their calpullis, which they (originally)
had received only to cultivate, and (this) on their simple assertion
that they and their ancestors had held and tilled them. In doing
this, they but follow the advice of the Spaniards (mestizoes) and
mulattoes, who involve them in litigations, and who live from
these squabbles In vain the chiefs deny such assertions,
claiming that the lands belong to the calpulli ; they are not heeded,
the rightful owners are despoiled, and those to whom they are ad¬
judged do not profit by it, since they sell them, or alienate them
(otherwise) to the detriment of the calpulli."
Out of the scanty remains thus left of certain features of abo¬
riginal life in ancient Mexico, as well as out of the conflicting
statements about that country's early history, we have now at¬
tempted 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 individ¬
uals, was unknown to the ancient Mexicans.
2. Definite possessory right was vested in the kinships com-
•'Colección de Documentos para la Historia de México."—Alonso de Zurita lived in
America from 1540 till 1560; or about nineteen years. Of these he spent two at St.
Domingo, three years in N. Granada, Sa. Marta, Cartagena, and the Cabo de la Vela,
three years in Guatemala, and about eleven in Mexico. His " Report" consists of a
series of answers to queries put by the King, and sent from Valladolid, Dec., 1553. If
we could obtain all the answers given to these questions from ail parts of Spanish
America, and all as elaborate and truthful as those of Zurita, Palacio and Ondogardo,
our knowledge of aboriginal history and ethnology of Spanish America would be
much advanced.
448
posing 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, with¬
out 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 govern¬
mental features of the kinships (public hospitality included), cer¬
tain tracts were set apart as oflScial lands, out of which the oflficial
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 investigation (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 this review of Tenure and distr*b|U-
tion of lands tend to establish ; " that the principle and institution
of feudality did not exist in aboriginal Mexico."