OX THE DISTRIBUTION AND TENURE OF LA> T DS, AND THE 
 
 CUSTOMS WITH RESPECT TO INHERITANCE, AMONG 
 
 THE ANCIENT MEXICANS. 
 
 BY AD. F. BAXDELIER. 
 
 IN a previous paper we have endeavored to describe the warlike 
 customs and organization of the Mexican tribe. 1 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. 2 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 Peabody Museum of American Archaeology 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. 1S8-2U inclusive. 
 
 3 The first information tending to represent the condition of Mexico as a feudal 
 state was probably furnished by Cortes; 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 Cortes (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 Moutezuma, which resides in this great city of Tenochtitlan and 
 all its provinces." We have not Cortes' first letter to the emperor, but in his second re 
 port, 30 Oct., 1520, he mentions "a great Lord called Mutezuma." (Vedia, " Historiadores 
 primitives 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 for inst. (p. 33) : " There are in this great city many very large and 
 fine houses, the cause of it being that all the Lords of the land, vassals of the said Mu- 
 teczuma, have their houses in that city . . . ." "What has been ascertained is: that 
 his sovereign!}* was almost as large as Spain . . ." (p. 34.) Gomara, who published his 
 " Conquifta de Mejico" in 1552, already mentions "thirty lords of one-hundred-thous- 
 and vassals each, and three-thousand lords of places." (Vedia I, p. 345. " Corte y guarda 
 de Moteczuma.") Oviedo ("Historia general y natural de Indias," Vol. Ill, 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. 4 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 historj*, 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 
 jects, 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 155(5 (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 Ixtlilxocliitl, a half 
 breed of Tezcuco, ilnd belonging to the kin of that tribe's chieftains. He wrote about 
 the year 1 GOO, and both of his works, the "Kelaciones historicas," and the " Historia 
 de los Chichimecos 6 reyes antiguos de Tezcuco," 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. 
 4 '' Art of War," etc., pp. 90, 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 " 5 
 
 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 
 
 5 " 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. 
 
 e " YVe venture to assume this period as the one during which traditional history 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 Abbe 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 of all kinds which happened a long time ago, how the earth was 
 divided, and distributed to each one. its origin and foundation, how the sun began to 
 give to each one his share, assigning the limits; 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 
 CXI). Clavigero's- Chronology begins 596 A. D. (" Storia del Messico," Lib. II, cap. 
 I). Don Mariano Ve3'tia (' Historia Antigua de Mejico," published by Sr. Ortega, 1836), 
 after fixing the date of 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 Chichimf-ques ou des anciens rois de Tezcuco," translation by Mr. 
 Ternaux Compans) says : (Cap. II 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 mythical, 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 would about agree with A. D. 1325. Al 
 lowing two centuries more for the period 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. 7 The usual inter-tribal wars, 
 
 7 Our information in regard to the Toltecs is limited and obscure. The name itself 
 appears to be a surname: " Tolteeatl" " official, de arte mecanica, o maestro " (Mo 
 lina, Vocabulario, Parte II. p. 141)). Torquemada (Lib. I, cap. XIV, p. 37) "I merely 
 say, that Tulteca signifies a skilled worker . . . ." Veytia (Vol. I, cap. XXI, pp. 205 
 and -20H) . Sahagnn ("Historia general de las cosas de Nueva-Espana," edited by Don 
 Carlos .Maria de Bu.stamante, 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 hacian, que se Hamaron 
 obras tultecas, 6 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 Indies de Nueva-Espana" in Sr. Icazbalceta's " Coleccion 
 de Doctimentos," Vol. I), says: (" Epistola proemial," p. 7), that the Xicalancas and 
 Mexicans descended from sons of the same father. Gomara (' Conquista de Mejico," 
 Vedia I, p. 432), says the same, and also that " Ulmecatlh " was one of their brothers, 
 and that from him the Olmecas descended. Sahagnn, 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, cap. XIII, p. 150); though his statements might be 
 more positive yet. The Toltec language was the " Nahnatl," 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: llep-u-ts about theToltees, 
 contained in Mexican sources; since only in Mexico they wine called by that name. 
 Reports about the condition of the Toltecs in Mexico after their reported dispersion. 
 The condition and organization of such tribes, outside of direct Mexican iiiHucnce, 
 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 first by father 
 
389 
 as well between sedentary Indians and roving tribes, as among the 
 
 Sahagun (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. 3). The same author, in his tale about the fortunes of Quetzalcohuatl, whom he 
 acknowledged as distinctly connected with the fate of the Toltece, 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. 24'.)), 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 tribe 
 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 25<>), whom he dis 
 tinctly connects with '1 ula, 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- 
 meques" 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 Cordilleres 
 et monuments des peoples indigenes, 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 ("Us avaient sept chefs, et 
 choisissaient alternativement un d'entreux pour les gouverner." Hist, des Chichi- 
 meques," Cap. II, p. 13; also " Segunda Relacion" 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. II, p. 13), and in his " Tercera Relacion " (p. 325), but adds in the ' Cu- 
 arta Relacion" (p. 32(5) : ' Este Mitl goberno 59 afios y quebrd en la orden antigua de 
 los Tultecas de gobernar 52 afios." 
 
 But he also tells us in his Second '" Relation " 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 Relacion ") is not in favor of the latter assumption. 
 
 It Is mostly on such statements that Don Mariano Veytia has based the Toltec history 
 which forms the beginning of the " Historia antigua de Mejico." 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 w r ell 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 earty periods. 
 
 eisted on fruits, 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, alter that of the chief or father of the family 
 leading them," and one of tnese 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 Sahagim 
 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 
 buildings, 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 Abbe 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 council 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). They 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 these the principal were 
 removed to Tezcuco "where they founded four quarters, since the Culliuas, as the 
 Toltecs were then called, formed four families " (Ixtlilxochitl, "Hist, des Chichimeques," 
 cap. XIII, p. 87. Mr. Ternaux has translated "tribes" but the Spanish original has 
 "families.") This is a further 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 QQuiche of Guatemala are 
 most prominent. Sr. Orozco y Berra, in his excellent work " Geogral'ia de las Lenguas 
 y Carta Etnografica de Mexico," regards the Maya and QQuiche as sister-languages 
 (Part I, cap. IV, p. 18). If the 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 
 tary tribes, not connected with each other (Bernal Diez del Castillo, "Ilistoria verda- 
 dera de la Conquista de Nueva Espaiia," cap. XXIX, p. 24, in Vedia, Vol. II. Villagut- 
 ierre y Sotomayor " Historia de la Conquista y Reduccion de los Itzaex y Lacandoues," 
 
391 
 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 Firme del Mar Oceano," Dec. IV, Lib. X, cap. II, p. 
 208, and cap. Ill, p. 208), except through their common language. These tribes con 
 sisted (^ 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 Bienvenida, in his letter to the Emperor, dated 10th February, 1548, Yucatan ("Re- 
 cueil de pieces relatives a la ConquGte du Mexique") 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, Tayasal on Lake Peten, was cap 
 tured by Don Martin Urstia, it was found that the houses " were dirty within and un- 
 swept. All the inhabitants lived brutally together, an entire relationship together in 
 one single house." (Hist, de la Conquista de los Itzaex, Lib. VIII, cap. XII, p. 494). We 
 have already alluded to the fact the Itzaex had two chiefs. (" Ait of War," p. 12G, 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 QQuiche of Utlatlan or rather Gmnarcaah, near where Santa Cruz del Quiche 
 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 "Recordacion 
 florida" now acknowledged to be full of exaggerations and misstatements. Juarros 
 makes the QQuiche direct descendants of the Toltecs, and after their settlement in Guat 
 emala under a certain King named " Nimaquiche," he gradually builds up there a 
 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 QQuiche 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. VIII, p. 38(5), goes still further by asserting that the heads of 
 families ( lt los que eran Cabegas de Familias o 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 QQuiche" is 
 the "Popol-Vuh." This singular production, which w r e consult in its publication and 
 translation by Mr. Brasseur de Bourbourg, appears to be, for the first chapters, an evi 
 dent fabrication, or at least accommodation of Indian mythology 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. Ill, p. 207). After having given the names of the four mothers of the 
 QQuiche: " Balam Quitze 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 Quiche. 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 great 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." 
 At 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. 8 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, 
 
 Tnlan they forthwith acquired wisdom." This is a~ striking 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 Nihaib, as likewise a single one, possession of those of Ahau 
 Quiche." Recapitulating the festivals it is mentioned "For this reason the three 
 branches assembled in 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. 305). 
 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 " chinamit" (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 Nihaib, four with the princes of Ahau-Quiche, and two with the Lords of Zakik" 
 (p. 309, cap. VIII). 
 
 It is easy to detect the following points : 
 
 (1). The QQuiche 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 from each of three of the "quarters," had 
 the title "Nim-Chocoh" or "great elected one." "There were consequently three Nim- 
 Chocoh (great elected), acting as the fathers of all the chiefs of Quiche, 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 QQuiche 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 QQuiche 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. 1); by Torquemada (Lib. Ill, cap. VII), and contained also in the Popol-Vuh, 
 where he is, of course, called Gukumatz (Part III, cap. VIII). See further Veytia 
 (Cap. XXII, to the close of Vol. I). 
 
393 
 
 and "mecayotl" consanguine relationship, thus: "the kin of 
 reel men.") 9 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- 
 
 9 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. Dnran (*' Historia de las Yndias de 
 Nueva-Espana e" Islas de Tierra-firme," cap. II, p. 13), says: "Chichimeca, que quiere 
 decir ca?adores li gente qne viven de aquel oficio agreste y campesina . . . . " thus 
 showing that the word is Nahuatl, and its explanation to be sought for in Nahuntl terms. 
 Ixtlilxochitl ( u Relaciones historicas,"2nd part, " Historia de los Senores Chichimecas" 
 " Relncion primera,") says : " the Toltecs, Aculhuas, Mexicans, and all the other na 
 tions of this land pretend to be derived from the Chichimecan race, thus called after 
 its king Chichimecatl who brought it to the New World " (p. 335 and 336). Torquemada 
 (Lib. I, cap. XV, p. 39), affirms : " 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 flesh 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 lierra, the distinguished author of the "Geografia 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 descriptive y 
 comparative de la lenguas indigenas 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 empire (of the 
 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 expect to find among them, and 
 still less the system of feudality. 10 
 
 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. 11 
 
 from these seven families, and this city of Huehuetlapallan has the gloiy 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 expose 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," often extended to " Chichimecatl-tecuhtli," is found 
 very frequently, not only among the Mexicans, but also the Tezcucans and Tlaxcallans. 
 It was an appellation given in reward of personal merit in war. 
 
 10 Ixtlilxochitl 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 ChichimCques," Cap. IV, p. 30). ' lie arrived 
 in a place called Tenayucan Oztopolco, where there were many grottoes and caves, 
 which formed the principal dwellings of that nation." Id. cap. IX, p. (i5 and <>G), Tor- 
 qnemada (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. G(i): "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 Ixtlilxochitl (Cap. IX, p. 3 and (U) asserts that the 
 culture of the soil, even the maize plant, was unknown to them until the twelfth century 
 of our era. Torqnemada is still more explicit (Lib. I, cap. XLII, p. G7) : " 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 the liel Is, tints 
 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 furnished of the condi 
 tion of the Chichimecas north of the Mexican valley, at the time of the conquest (Mot- 
 olinia, Trat. Ill, cap. VII, p. 185). "Tuvieon Senores en e*ta tierra, como ahora son y 
 estan los Espanoles, porque se ensenorearon de la tierra, no do la man era. que los 
 Espanoles." 
 
 11 See " Zwoelf Sprachen aus dem Siidwesten 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. 12 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; 13 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 Linguistics and Ethnography). Also " Lieut. 
 G. M. Wheeler's Zweite Expedition nach Neu Mexiko und Colorado, 1876," by Oscar 
 Loew (in Vol. 22 of Dr. Petermann's " Geographisehe 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 
 bands among and around them. 
 
 "These facts are generally acknowledged, as well as that they migrated from the 
 North. In addition to the authors already nained 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 e Indias Occidentales" Madrid, 1729 (2nd Edition, Original appeared in, 
 print about 1(!06). ' 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 Provineia 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 sufficient to demonstrate their common origin. 
 
 13 All the older authors agree in stating that the different tribes settled independent 
 of each other. See Motolinia (''Hist, de los Indios de Nueva Espafia," in Col: de 
 Docum : Vol. I. " Epistola proemial ") Sahagun (Lib. X, cap. XXIX, p. 145). " Succes- 
 ivamente se volvieron los Nahoas, que son los Tepanecas, los Acolhoaques, los Chalcas 
 los Vexotzincas, y los Tlaxcaltecas, cada familia por si, y vinieron a estas partes de 
 Mexico . . . . y asi venidos todos a estas partes y tomada la posesion de las tierras, 
 y puestas las mohoneras entre cada familia." Duran (" 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 Tecpanecas 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 Cortes about the 
 utterances of Montezuma, " Carta Segunda," p. 25, in Vol. I of Vedia.) Gomara (" Con 
 quista de Mejico," p. 432, etc., Vedia, Vol. I). Fray Geronimo 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 have 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 
 
306 
 
 sometimes associated (or even perhaps confederated) against sur 
 rounding tribes. 14 
 
 These settlers, who all spoke closely related dialects of the same 
 language as their predecessors the Toltecs, namely: the " Nah- 
 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 dhilecti- 
 cally varied; still, eventually, became their most inveterate 
 enemies. 15 
 
 Although quite a respectable literature has arisen on the subject 
 of the organization, customs and manners of these u 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 different tribes wore 
 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 
 
 14 The reports about a preponderance of certain tribes, such as the Tezcucans or the 
 Tecpanecans, resolve themselves into a result of intertribal relations in the valley 
 of Mexico. We need but consult the writings of Ixtlilxochitl for that purpose. (See 
 "Hist, des Chichime'ques" cap. XI, XII, XIV, and XVI). Toiquemada (Lib. I, cap. 
 XXXVII, p. 62). 
 
 18 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 Tlaxeallans. The rela 
 tions of the latter to the valley-tribes were always rather unfriendly. See Torquemada 
 (Lib. Ill, cap. IX, p. 258, and 259. Cap. XI, p. 264, and 2(!5). Duran (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 Chichimeques " cap. XLI, p. 292). It is corroborated by the state 
 ments of the Tlaxcaltecas themselves to Cortes (" 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. 16 We need hardly say here, 
 
 16 In regard to the Tecpanecas, Acosta says (Lib. VII, cap. II, p. 477) : " From this 
 it may be interred, 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 Tezozomoc 
 ("Cronica Mexicana," Lord Kingsborough, Vol. IX, cap. IV, p. 11; also cap. V, p. 12, 
 cap. VI, p. 13, " a esto respondio el rey y senado Tecpaneca : Digeronle : mira atempan- 
 ecatl (que muy bien le conocian) bien conozco la humillacion y sugecion de los Mexi- 
 canos ; ya es por demas, porque estan alborotados, y corajudos los Tecpauecas :") 
 Duran (Cap. VIII, p. 64, and 05). 
 
 The Xuchimilcas were governed by two chiefs (Tezozomoc, cap. XVI, p. 25. Duran, 
 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: (Duran, cap. XVI, p. 13t, Montezuma Ilhuicamina 
 said to Tlacaelel: " I wish, if thou agreed, 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 Cortes after the voluntary 
 surrender of Chalco, when he installed two chiefs. Bernal Diez : cap. CXXXIX, p. 154 
 and 15.-), Vedia, II). 
 
 With the Tezcucans or Aculhuns 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 requires close proof. We adduce here, in a general way, Saha- 
 gim (Lib. VIII, cap. XXX. "De la Manera que tuvieron en elegir los sefiores," p. 318, of 
 2d Vol ): Duran (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, Neaualpilli's son . . . ." Tezozomoc (Cap. CI and CII). Ixtlilxochitl con 
 curs ("Histoire des Chichimeques," 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 1'omar (who wrote about 1582) who says, that this choice extended to the en 
 tire kin oi the deceased head chief. Mendieta (Lib. II, cap. XXXVII, p. 153). " Although 
 the Indians of this New Spain inherited the chieftaincy in direct lines, they took great 
 care in ascertaining which one of his sons had to succeed to him." He mentions the 
 succession in the cases of Netzahualcoyotl and of Xetzahualpilli, 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 informed 
 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 
 BUS antiguos Reyes," Mexico, 1826. Part III, cap. IV, pp. 218, 219 and 220). Alonzo de 
 Zurita (' Rapport sur les differentes 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 the 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 lully established. 
 
398 
 
 that all the tribes of Mexico, issuing from a common stock, 
 speaking the "Nahuutl" tongue, and living under the same geo 
 graphical influences, 17 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. 18 
 
 While thus horticultural tribes had secured the fertile portions 
 of that valle}^, dividing its expanse among themselves, and sepa 
 rated by unoccupied "neutral" soil, 19 a small band of their o\yn 
 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 
 "Mexico,." %o 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 
 
 17 The difference between the valley tribes and those of the Tlaxcaltecan mountain 
 country, is not even very great. It is in fact but apparent. From the nature of the 
 soil, the kinships of Tlaxcallan 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, pt . 37 and 38), and E. G. Squier. (* Nicaragua," Vol. II. 
 "Aborigines of Nicaragua," cap. II, p. 340-348). 
 
 18 Otherwise the confederacy, on equal 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. 
 
 18 See " Art of War," p. 135. The boundary line mentioned by Ixtlilxochitl (Histoire 
 des Chichimeques," cap. XXXIII, p. 125), and also by Veytia (Cap. Ill of Book III. p. 1(7 
 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." 
 
 20 " 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. 1)2 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 ol 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 laguiies 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 ; 21 only temporarily, for emergency's sake. 22 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. 23 
 There was yet 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. 24 Thus they retired to ground 
 which ivas neither held nor claimed by 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 
 
 11 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 eaudillos diez personas nombradas . . . ." (Vol. V, p. 40). 
 Duran 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). Duran 
 (C;ip. Ill, 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. I). This is a new version. .See also 
 Gregorio Garcia (" Origen de los Indies " Lib. V, cap. III). If we eliminate the mythi 
 cal Huitziton, we find occasional head war-chiefs. Veytia even assxires 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). 
 
 22 xhc regular series of Mexican head war-chiefs (' tlaca-tecuhtli ") commences about 
 the middle of the 14th century. Previous to it, the office 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. 408 and 409), etc., etc. 
 
 23 Motolinia (Trat. Ill, cap. VII, p. 180). Duran (Cap. III). Tezozomoc (Cap. I, II 
 and III). Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. 4, p. 459). Garcia ("Origen, etc." Lib. Ill, cap. Ill, 
 V, p. 99 and 100. "que los haria Principes, i Senores de todas los Provincias, que 
 havian poblado las otras seis naciones, que antes en ellos havian salido.") 
 
 24 " 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 cuadrd 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 pudicseu empecer sus vecinos." 
 
400 
 
 soil which they might hold as their own. 125 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 to Jive. 26 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. 27 It remained independent 
 until about forty years before the conquest. 28 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 
 
 25 Ixtlilxochitl (' Histoire des Chichimeques," cap. X, p. 72), says that the Mexicans 
 "asked the King of Azcaputzalco 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). Dm an (Cap. V, p. 41), has the remarkable passage fol 
 lowing: " que nun el suelo no era suyo, pues era sitio y termino de los de Azcaputzalco 
 y de los de Tezcuco; porque alii llegaban los terminos del uno y del otro pueblo, y por 
 la otra parte del Mediodia, teYminos de Culhuacan :" (Thin shows they were on neutral 
 ground, dividing the tribes of their surroundings.) Tezozomoc confirms (Cap. Ill, p. 
 9), "estando en terminos de los de Atzcapuzalco, Aculhuaques Tezcucanos y los de 
 Culhuacan." Duran (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 (" Epistola proemial," p. 5). Gomara (" Couquista," p. 431. Vedia, 1st 
 volume). 
 
 26 We have already alluded to the number of chiefs leading the Mexicans at the time 
 of their settlement in ihe lagune. 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). 
 
 27 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 different sources 
 of authority. If the statement is correct that even during their migrations, the Mex 
 icans proper and the Tlatilulcas 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 Sefior Chavero.) 
 
 29 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 curia' 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. 
 Duran 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 respectivel}', and it is expressly stated 
 that each one "might build in its quarter (barrio) as it liked." 30 
 The term for these relationships, in the Nahuatl tongue, and used 
 among all the tribes speaking it was : u Calpnlli." 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. 3i 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 lour 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 Redonda, and of San Sebastian. Alter 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 th number of the idols called Calpul- 
 teona (it should be " Calpulteoltzin " composed of Calpulli-quarter, and teotl-god), 
 which signifies god of the quarter." (See Acosta, Lib. VII, cap. VII, p. 4f>7.) 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 dividais tin trecho tinos de otros en cuatro 
 partes cercando en medio el templo de Huitzilopochtl', y nombrad los barrios cada una 
 parte, y asi concertados para dividirse . . . ." Torquemada confirms these statements 
 (Lib. Ill, cap. XXIV, p. 2!)5), 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 well 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. 
 
 soDuran (Cap. V, p. 42). Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. VII, p. 467). Herrera (Dec. Ill, Lib. 
 II, cap. XI, p. til). 
 
 31 Torquemada (Lib. II, cap. LXVIII, p. 104. " Estaba de ordinario, recogido en 
 una grande Sala (6 calpul)." (Lib. Ill, cap. XXVII, p. 305. Lib. IV, cap. XIX, p. 39(5, 
 (que asi Hainan las Salas grandes de Comunidad. li de Cabildo). We find, under the 
 corrupted name of " Galpon," 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 galpon . . . ." It is another evidence in favor of 
 our statements, that the kinship formed the original unit of the tribe, and at the same 
 time a hint that, as in New Mexico, originally an entire kin inhabited a single large 
 house. See Molina's Vocab. (p. 11). 
 
 REPORT PEABODY MUSEUM, II. 26. 
 
402 
 
 NOT, as Torquemada admits, assigned to it by a higher power , 3a the 
 tribal government itself held NO DOMAIN which it might apportion 
 among subdivisions or to individuals, either gratuitously or on 
 condition of certain prestations ; or barter against a consideration. 33 
 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. 24 
 
 The patches of solid ground, on which these "quarters" settled, 
 were gradually built over with dwellings, first made out of canes 
 and reeds, and latterty, 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 u 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. 35 
 
 32 Torquemada (lib. II, cap. VIII, p. 88, and Lib. Ill, cap. XXIV, p. 2!)5) attributes 
 the division into ''quarters" to a ''decree "of the Chiuhnnecan "emperor" Teehot- 
 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 wielded the discretionary power attributed to him, although there is btrong evi 
 dence against it, he would have ruled after the foundation of Mexico. (Clavigero, 
 Lib. II, cap. IX. Vejtia, Lib. II, cap. XX. p. 178.) Consequently after the settling and 
 localizing of the four quarters mentioned had taken place. 
 
 33 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, 011 the supposi 
 tion that they, although elective, were still hereditary monarchs. 
 
 34 There is no evidence of any tribute or prestation due by the quarters to the 
 tribe. The custom always remained, that the " calpulli " was sovereign within its limits. 
 See Alonzo de Zurita ("Rapport stir les diflerentes <-la>.-es de chefs de la Nouvelle- 
 Espagne" pp. 5M55). Besides, Ixtlilxochitl says: (" Hist, des Chichim." cap. XXXV, 
 p. 24-2), "Other fields were called Calpolalli or Altepetlalli." Now calpnlalli (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 land:-, 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, irithout the 
 leant connection with the other." (Lib. VII, cap. XI V.) This indicates plainly that the 
 kinships held the soil, whereas the tribe occupied the territorial expanse. The domain, 
 either as pertaining to a ''Lord," or to a " State," was unknown among the Indians in 
 general. Even among the Peruvians, who were more advanced than the Mexicans in 
 that respect, there was no domain of the tribe. 
 
 : '"' See Torquemada (Lib. II, cap. XI, and Lib. Ill, cap. XXII). Duran (cap. V). The 
 quotation is from Herrera (Dec. II, Lib. VII, cap. X11I, p. 190), and is confirmed by 
 Torquemuda (Lib. Ill, cap. XXIII, p. 21)1), 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 unmolested "in the midst of canes and reeds," their numbers 
 had augmented, and for residence as well as for food, a greater area 
 was needed. Fishing and hunting no longer satisfied a people 
 whose original propensities were horticultural ; they aspired to 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," 36 
 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 city 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 
 
 Mejico," p. 443. Vedia, I). "Many married people (" mnchos casados") live in one 
 house, either on account of the brothers and relations being together, as they do not 
 divide their grounds ( heredades "), or on account of the limited space of the pueblos ; 
 although the pueblos are large, and even the houses." Peter Martyr of Angleria ("De 
 Novo Orbe," translated by Itichard Eden and Michael Lok, London, 1612. Dec. V, cap. 
 X, p. 2-JS), says: "But the common houses themselves as hygh as a niannes Girdle, 
 were also built of stone, by reason of the swellyng of the lake through the floode, or 
 washing note of the Ry vers fallying into it. Vpon those greate foundations, they biiilde 
 the reste of the house, with Bricke dryed, or burned in the sunne, intermingled with 
 Beanies of rymber, and the common houses have but one floore or planchin." We 
 are forcibly reminded here of the houses of Itza on Lake Peten, which were found in 
 1<>95. " Hist, de la Oonq. de los Itzaex," Lib. VIII, cap. XII. p. 494." ''It was all tilled 
 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-Salazar 
 (" Mexico in 1554") by my excellent friend Sr. Icazbalceta (pp. 73 and 74). 
 
 36 " 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 lias even obtained from it the name of "Chinampanecas (fre 
 quently mentioned in Tezozomoc and Duran.) The word " Chinamitl "has been adopted 
 by the Qquiche of Guatemala, changed into "Chinamit," and used to designate a 
 kinship. (See " Popol-Vuh., pp. 301. 30*, 806, 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 iind in the 17th and 18th century, a tribe of " Chinamitas," who are said to 
 have inhabited an area surrounded by Mexican agaves ("Magueyes ") as a defensive 
 hedge. ("Hist, de la Couq. de los Itzaex," Lib. VIII, cap. XI, pp. 490-493.) It shows 
 that the original signilication of the word, at least, was connected with the notion of a 
 family -lot. 
 
404 
 
 intervening ditch, and throwing it on the chinarnpa, by which 
 means the ground is raised generally about a yard, and thus forms 
 a small fertile garden, covered with the finest culinary vegetables, 
 
 fruits and flowers " 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 ivas 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 and possessed ivithin 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 41 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 
 
 37 ' 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, Avith 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 '" camellon," or garden- 
 bed. (.See 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). 
 
 s" Alonzo de Zurita (p. 51). Ixtlilxochitl (" Hist, des Chichim," cap. XXXV, p. 242). 
 Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545). Bustamunte ("Tezcoco en los ultimos Tiem- 
 pos de sus antiguas Reyes," p. 232;. 
 
 40 Zurita (' Rapport, etc.," pp. 52, 56, 57, 60). De 1'Ordre de Succession observe par 
 les Indiens, etc., etc. (copy of an anonymous MSS. from Simancas, contained in the 
 Uguina collection, and translated by Mr. Teruaux-Compans in his "Recueil de pieces, 
 etc., pp. -2-2:J and 224.) 
 
 Zurita (' Rapport, etc.," pp. 51-84). Hen-era (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 Ternaux, p. 253). See also the Introduction to the 
 " Real Ejecutoria de S. M. sobre Tierras y Reservas de Pechos y Paga. IVrteneeiente 
 a los Caciques da Axapusco," in " Col. de Doc." of Icazbalceta (Vol. II, p. XI11). 
 
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 
 u calpulli," being formed. 42 For governmental purposes this seg 
 mentation produced a new result by leaving, more particularly in 
 military affairs, the first four clusters as great subdivisions. 43 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. 44 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. 45 
 
 42 This successive formation of new "calpulli" is nowhere explicitly stated, but it is 
 implied by the passage of Duran which we have already quoted (Cap. V, p. 42). It also 
 results from their military organization as described in the "Art of War," (p. 115). 
 With the increase of population, the original kinships necessarily disaggregated 
 further, as we have seen it to have occurred among the Qqniche (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 (Duran, cap. XI. p. 97), besides three more, 
 adopted then from those of Culhuacan (Id. pp. 98 and 99). This indicates an increase. 
 
 " Art of War, etc.," pp. 115 and 120. 
 
 "Torquemadn (Lib. Ill, cap. XXIV, p. 295). "I confess it to be truth that this city 
 of Mexico is divided into four principal quarters, each one of which contains others, 
 smaller ones, included, and all, in common as* well as in particular, have their 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. 545) : " 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 quarters, 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 from 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 Mejico," p. 434. 
 "Among tributaries it is a custom, etc., etc." Also p. 440). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. 
 XIV). " Each quarter has its own tract, without the least connection with the others." 
 
 Compare Duran (Cap. XI, p. 87^. Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. XXXI, p. 470). It appears 
 as if the u tecpan" had not been constructed previous to the middle of the 14th cen- 
 
406 
 
 This building was the "tecpan" 46 called, even by Torquemada 
 " house of the community;" 47 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 u 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 u 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 "teepan" 
 was occupied by the head war-chiefs only as long as they exercised 
 the functions of that office. 48 
 
 tnry, 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 Duran (Cap. IV, p. 42). Aeosta (Lib. VII, 
 cap. VII, p. 4(38). Veytia (Lib. II, cap. XVIII. pp. 15(i, 159. Cap. XXI, p. 180). Acosta 
 first mentions "unos palacios, niinque harto pobres." (Lib. VIE, cap. 8, p. 470), on the 
 occasion of the election of the first regular " tlacatecuhtli :" Acamapichtli, Torque- 
 mada says (Lib. XII, cap. XXII, p. 290), that they lived in miserable huts of reeds and 
 straw, erected around the open space where the altar or place of worship of Huitzil- 
 opochtli was built. The public building was certainly their latest kind of construction. 
 46 From "tecuhtli" chief, and the aflSxum "p;m," denoting a place. Therefore 
 "place of the chiefs." Molina translates: " casa 6 palacio real. 6 de algun seiior de 
 Salno " (II, p. 93). The word is also found in the Qquiche 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. 
 
 47 Torquemada (Lib. Ill, cap. XIV, pp. 2(59 and 270). " Tecpancalli, que quiere decir, 
 los Palacios Reales, 6 el Alca$ar, y casas de Senorio" (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 Xuchirnilco, he heard one night, etc. etc and that inquiring 
 
 next day why that shouting had taken place. the Indians answered, that from the 
 Teepan, or community (municipal house), they had been calling the macehuales to 
 work." 
 
 48 Nearly every author who attempts to describe minutely the "chief-house "(teepan) 
 mentions it as containing great halls (council-rooms). See the description of the teepan 
 of Tezcuco by Ixtlilxochitl ("Hist, des Chichimoques," 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 hall 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. XXXVIII), 
 by Torquemada (Lib. Ill, cap. XXVli, p. 30o. Lib. II, cap. XLIV, pp. 140 and 147. Lib. 
 
407 
 
 About the time these changes occurred, the dignity of " tlaca- 
 tecuhtli" seems to have become a permanent feature in the govern- 
 
 XF, cap. XXVI, pp. 354 and 355). Cortes himself (Vedia, I, carta segunda, pp. 34 and 35), 
 speaks of the great halls contained in what he calls the " house of Muteczuma." Bernal- 
 Diez del Castillo (Vedia II, cap. XCI, pp. 86 and 87), confirms. See also Gomara (Vedia, 
 J, p. 342 and 343. " Adonde el moraba y residia a la continua, Hainan Tepac, qne es como 
 
 decir palacio . . . habia en el mnchas salas.") Sahagun (Lib. VIII, cap. 
 
 XIV, p. 302. "El palacio de los Senores 6 casas reales, tenia muchas salas.") The 
 tecpan was near the centre of the pueblo. See Gomara (Vedia I, p. 341. " Llegaron 
 pues a un patio grande, recamera de los idolos, que ftie casas de Axaiaca.") Cortes 
 (Vedia, I, ' Carta Tercera," pp. 74 and 7(5, etc.). 
 
 Bernal-Diez (Vedia, II, cap. LXXXVIII, p. 84, etc.). According to Sr. Icazbalceta 
 ("Mexico in 1554. note 38, p. 182, to the 2d Dialogue of Cervantes-Salazar), 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 tiie ancient pueblo. (Torquemada, 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 office 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 them 
 in detail. There was, consequently, a house where the kinship of the chief liced, 
 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 cwith 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, Duran 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. LX, 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 were 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 Kin^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, Acolnahuacatl, 
 Hezhuahuaeatl, 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 
 finally 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 office was elective, and not hereditary. 
 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. 49 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 cautiously 
 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 simply 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. 50 
 
 49 We 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 Duran, Tezozomoc, 
 Aeosta and Torquemada. (Especially " Monarchia Indiana," Lib. II, cap. XIV, p. 98). 
 
 50 A11 the authors agree upon the fact that the early life of the Mexican tribe on the site 
 of Tenuc-htitlan 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, surrounded by canes and grasses, called by them 
 Xacnlli, . . . 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. Duran, cap. 
 V. Clavigero, Lib. II, cap. XVII. Sahagun, Lib. X, cap XXIX, pp. 145 and Hfi. 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 Espaua," cap. V, 
 pp.41 and 42. "Empero juntandose todos en consejo ovoalguuos que fueron de pareccr 
 que con inucha omildad se fuesen a los de Azcaputzalco y a los Tepanecas, que son los 
 de Cuyuacan y Tacuba, y que se les ofreciesen y diesen por amigos y se les subjeta-cn 
 con intencion de pedillespiedray madera para el edificiodesu cindad . . . ." ''Cronica 
 Mexicana,"eap. Ill, 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 Duran (Cap. V, p. 41 : " pues era sitio y ter- 
 niino de los de Azcaputzalco y de los de Tezcuco; porque alii llegaban los terminos 
 del uno y del otro pueblo, y por la otra parte del mediodia, terminos de Culhuacan ; . ." 
 " y que como seiiores ya de aquel sitio, sin hacer buz ni reconocer subjecion a ninguno, 
 pues su dios los auia dado aquel sitio, fuesen y comprasen piedra y madera, etc., etc.") 
 and Tezozomoc (Cap. Ill, pp. 9 and 10). 
 
 Even Torquemada acknowledges the fact, that the Mexicans were originally inde 
 pendent (Lib. II, cap. XI), and that they were connected 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 hospitality 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. 51 
 
 lite (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), therefore their intercourse with the tribes of the 
 mainland was voluntary (Acosta, Lib. VII, cap. VII, p. 4(57), and necessarily took the 
 form of alliance or league. In this case military assistance was the main point. And 
 indeed we do find, in what we may call the " Tezcucan " chroniclers, like Ixtlilxochitl, 
 Torquemada, Vey tia, and Clavigero, the Mexicans assisting the Tecpanecas (vide " His- 
 toire des Chichimuques," cap. XV, p. 102. Cap. XVI, p. 108. Cap. XX, pp. 131 and 132. 
 "Monarchia Indiana," Lib. II, cap. XIX, p. 108. "Historia Antigua de Mejico," Lib. 
 
 II, cap. XXVIII, pp. 236, 237, 238. Cap. XXIX, pp. 241-243. Cap. XXX, p. 250. "Storiade 
 Messic.o," Lib. Ill, cap. VIII). Bustamante (" Tezcoco en los ultimos Tiempos," p. 2), 
 who claims to follow Boturini, confirms. The military achievements of the Mexicans in 
 the wars between the Tecpanecas and Tezcucans are not even claimed by these authors 
 as a due service, but as the actions of allies or confederates of the former. 
 
 51 Cortes (" 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 
 ridors 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 were 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 ("futron aposentados en las casas reales"). Idem, 
 cap. I, III, pp. 416-421. Cap. LIV, p. 428. The delegates from Chalco, Tlaxcallan, Chol- 
 nllan, 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 a tales tributaries, aposentandoles, vistiendoles y dandoles lo necessario para las 
 
 vueltas de sus tierras con los viejos y viejas mucho amor, dandolos para el 
 
 sustento humano : regalados los principales teniendoles en mucho, y dandoles la honra 
 que merecen : llamarlos cada dia al palacio que comian con vos." This indicates that 
 the hospitality was obligatory, etc.). Zurita ("Rapport, etc.," p. 65). Herrera (Dec. 
 
 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. 52 
 
 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 kin. 
 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, 
 
 "These houses, sometimes called "calpulli," at other times " calpixoa." 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- 
 structionsfrom 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 Palenque in Chiapas. Compare further: Zurita (" Rapport, etc;.," p. C2). 
 " At the annual gatherings, they (the chiefs of the calpulli) distribute gratuitously food 
 and drink, to keep the Indians in good humor." Hen-era (Dec. II, lib. VII. rap. XIII, 
 p. 190). If we were to believe the picture presented of Mexico by the authors of the 
 16th and 17th centuries, Mexico would have possessed innumerable ediiices 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. 53 
 
 For nearly a century after the first settlement of the Mexicans 
 
 53 No mention is made of any t\x or tribute gathered for official purposes among the 
 Mexicans until under the last Montezuma, when it is generally admitted, as Gomara 
 says : " That all tributed to the chief of Mexico " (" Conq. de Mejico," p. 345, Vedia, I). 
 Without accepting the view.s expressed by Robertson ("History of America." Book 
 VII, p. 2J)I. Vol. Ill, 9th Edition, 18CO), 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 officers and their families. The first step was to 
 cultivate such patches of land for them as they held being members of some calpulli. 
 These lands were the " pillali," commonly treated 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 ( u 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 
 wei*e ennobled therefor. 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 gilt 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 
 "ceualli" 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 cal/mlli in whose area they were located, in order that the said duster might pay tribute 
 according to the quantity of land contained; also, if any one of them died without 
 heirs, the chief inherited " Hen-era (Dec. Ill, lib. IV, cap. XVII, p. 138). " 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 
 u<*ed in the house of the King, because there, besides all the principals, also ate the travel 
 lers, and the paupers, 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, and 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. 53(5, of 3d vol.) Now we have already established, that 
 individual tenure of the soil was unknown, it is further proved 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 car: 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. Bnstamante, 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 alone, and not to the tribes of the mainland. 
 
412 x 
 
 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. 5 [ 
 
 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. 55 
 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 
 quered tribe, and, besides, it was thereafter held to tribute. This 
 
 "Duran (Cap. IX and X). Tezozomoc (Cap. VII, VIIF. IX, X, XF, XII, XIII. XIV 
 and XV). Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. XIII and XIV). Hen-era (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 XXXVII). Veytia YLib. II, cap. I, LI. LII, LIU 
 and LIV). Clavigero (Lib. Ill, cap. XVII, XVIII and XIX). Bustamante (Part I. cap. 
 XXIII). Prescott (< History of the Conquest of Mexico," Book I, cap. I, pp. 15 and 18). 
 
 66 It is even stated that the petition of the Mexicans for stone and wood to construct 
 therewith a channel leading from Chapultepec to their pueblo, was the cause of the war. 
 See Puran (Cap. VIII, p. 63). Tezozomoc (Cap. V, pp. 11 and 12). Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. 
 II, p. 47G. ' Con esta ocasion, ora sea que ellos de proposito lo buscassen, para romper 
 con los Tepanecas, ora que con poca consideracion se moviessen, al efecto embiaron 
 una embaxada al Rey de Azeapuzalco muy resoluta diziendo, que del agua qne los 
 auia hecho merced, no podian aprovccharse, por auerseles desbaratado el cafio por 
 muchas partes, por tanto le pedian los proviniesse de madera, y cal, y piodra, y 
 embiasse sus oflciales que con ellos hiziessen un caiio de cal y canto que no M- dcsbar- 
 atase.") Chapultepec remained specifically Mexican soil thereafter, it being the source 
 of fresh water for the pueblo of Mexico. When Cortes moved against the tribe the 
 second time, he seized the hill after a short but desperate struggle. (Cories "Carta 
 Tercera," p. 71, Vedia I. Bernal-Diez, cap. CL, p. 17(i, Vedia II. Clavigero, Lib. X. 
 cap. XVII). See al*o Icazbalceta, in his Introduction to the 3d Dialogue of Cervantes. 
 Salazar (' Mexico in 155V pp. 2. r ><5 and 257). Vcytia (Lib. Ill, cap. I, p. U2, of 3d vol.). 
 Bustamante (" Tezcoco en los ult: Tiempos." Parte Ha, cap. I, p. 148). 
 
413 
 
 tribute was gathered by stewards, the only Mexicans permanently 
 residing on Tecpanecan soil, and it was distributed in accordance 
 witli 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 reserved for the 
 purpose of religious worship. 56 
 
 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. 
 
 scAcosta says (Lib. VII, cap. XIII, p. 485), that they took all the lands for them 
 selves: -with this, those of Azcapuzalco were left so poor, that they had not even 
 crops of their own." Duran (Cap. IX, p. 79. " They went to Azcaputzalco and seized 
 (' se entregaron ') its lands and distributed them among themselves.") Tezozomoc (Cap. 
 IX. p. 1(> and 17). It is difficult to connect these and similar statements with the posi 
 tive facts asserted by Zurita (Rapport sur les differentes classes de chefs delaNouvelle 
 Espagne.") "The sovereign of Mexico had beneath him. in all matters relating to war 
 fare, those of Tctcuba 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. 10) 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 tribute, to military aid, and for the pur 
 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 further on. The 
 tracts in question must, therefore, have been given to such persons 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, Duran 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 lauds" 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. 483), and by Durau 
 (Cap. IX). 
 
414 
 
 The crops raised thereon were again apportioned by the latter 
 among themselves as we have explained previously, but the}* did 
 not acquire any title to the possession, still less to the ownership 
 of the soil itself. 57 Once started on their career of conquest, the 
 
 C7 8ee Duran (Cap. IX, p. 79 and 80). Tezozomoc (Cap. IX fc p. 16. " Para aninnsnr y 
 traher & paz a los Mexicanos que tan pujantes y orgullosos estavan contra los Tecpan- 
 ecas, digeron estos: eenores Mexicanos, como vencidos qne somos de vostros, y os 
 tenemos dadas nuestras hermanas y hijas que os sirvan y nuestras mugeres, y nos pro- 
 ferimos a vasallage, y de todas las veces que fueredes en guerras y batallas con estra- 
 iias, \remos nosotros como vasallos, y llevaremos a cuestas vuestro matalotage, y 
 llevare^nos & cuestas vuestras armas, y en caso que en las guerras, algunos, a alguno 
 de los Mexicanos muriere, nos proferimos & traheros los cuerpos cargados ft vuestra 
 tierra. ciudad, a ser con honra enterrados, y venidos que seais de las guerras, y antes y 
 despues bareremos, y regaremos, vuestras casas, tcndremos cuidado de vosotros con 
 nue&tro servicio personal, pues asi estamos obligados confonne a 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, offering 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. 6H and G7). " When the Kings of Mexico, Tezcuco and Tacuba 
 conquered a province, they used to retain all the native chiefiains in their offices; 
 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 officers ("des intendants") established by the 
 sovereigns of Mexico, of Tezcuco, or Tacuba, accord. ng as the vanquished hud 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. -21): 
 it was done at the time that such chiefs received cert. tin titles or dignities. These titles 
 and dignities, however, were not hereditary, but elective (Duran, 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 tlie 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 were sons or brothers ot 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 (descendant-^ ), 
 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 of their lands to the quarters (Cap. IX. p. Til. Duran, and 
 Acosta, Lib. VII, cap. XIII, p. 485. "Senalaron tambien tierras de coinun para los 
 barrios de Mexico a cada uno las suyas, para que con ellas ucudiessen al culto y sac- 
 riflcio de BUS 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 Tecpanecaus. 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. 58 
 
 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, 59 the Mexicans were really the 
 leading power of the valle3 T . 60 Their means of subsistence, besides, 
 had greatly increased through tribute, among which the crops of 
 the tribute-lauds were most conspicuous as well as through trade. 
 One single tribe of the "Nahuatl" of the valley remained unsub 
 dued, the Aculhuas of Tezcuco. Instead, however, of engaging 
 in a deadly conflict, 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 efteeted by the conquest. 
 (2). That certain expanse-! were set aside, which continued to be held by the con 
 quered, and worked by thorn 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" ) (' calpulh" 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 'onquest of the Tecpanecas v simply indicates that these lands were applied to the 
 maintenance of such offices, and not an hereditary ''fief" to a certain family. Duran 
 positively expresses, that the office belonged in the *'kin" ("lignea" "generacion,") 
 and was not hereditary. The 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 crops), went to the tecpan or its 
 occupants, as a governmental feature of the tribe (Bustamante, Paite 111 cap. V, 
 p. 283). 
 
 M Duran (Cap. XII. Id. XIII. p. 114. XIV, p. 123). Tezozomoc (Cap. XVII, p. 28, 
 XVIII, p. 2J>), and Acosta. 
 
 so Duran (Cap. XVII, p. 152). Tezozomoc (Cap. XXVI, pp. 39 and 40). Acosta (Lib. 
 VII, cap. XVI, p. 493), etc. etc. 
 
 eo Out of the live Nahuatl tribes who had originally settled in the valley of Mexico, 
 three were then subjected to the Mexicans. Consequently the Tezcncans or Aculhu- 
 acans alone 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. 61 
 
 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. 62 
 
 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. 63 
 
 The military command of the forces belonged to the head-war- 
 
 Duran (Cap. XIV, p. 124. Cap. XV, pp. 125-132), mentions a sham fight between 
 the Mexicans and Tezrucans, ending in a confederacy. Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. XV, p. 
 490), confirms. Herrera (Dec. Ill, lib. II, cap. XIII, p. 64), speaks of a voluntary " sub 
 mission " by the Tezcucans. Tezozomoc (Cap. XIX and XX), asserts that the Tezcucans 
 were actually conquered by the Mexicans. On the other hand, Ixtlilxochitl ("Hist. des 
 Chichim." Cap. XXXIV). Torquemada (Lib. II, cap. LVII, p. 175). Veytia (Lib. Ill, 
 cap. V). Bustamaute ("Tezcoco" Parte Ila, 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 Toi-quemada (Lib. II, cap. LVII, p. 175). Duran (Cap. XIV, p. 125), 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). 
 
 62 The only confession found in specifically Mexican authors on the subject of the 
 Tecpanecas of Tlacopan is the quotation from Duran (Cap. XIV, p. J'23). 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). 
 Clavigero (Lib. IV, caps. II and III), and Bustamante (Parte Ilia. cap. IT, pp. Kil, liii 
 and 1(33). All are positive in affirming that the Tezcucans insisted upon having the 
 Tecpanecas as a third member. The Mexican antl ors not contradicting, and impartial 
 sources, like Zurita and Herrera, establishing the fact of equality of power, and ter 
 ritorial autonomy (See note (51), we, therefore, feel justified in recognizing the fact as 
 established. 
 
 de Zurita ("Rapport sur les diffeientes classes do chefs de la Nouvelle- 
 Espagne," p. 11). 
 
417 
 
 chief of the Mexican tribe, with power probably to delegate the 
 
 same. 64 
 
 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. 65 
 
 Each tribe could carry on its own wars, defensive as well as 
 offensive, independently ; but if required, the others had to assist, 
 in which case the Mexicans took the lead. 66 
 
 Consequently, each tribe could have its own conquests, and levy 
 its own tribute upon tribes which it had conquered alone. 61 
 
 But wherever the confederacy had subjugated a foreign tribe, the 
 spoils as well as all the subsequent tribute were divided among the 
 three, members as follows : Mexico and Tezcuco each two-fifths, 
 and Tlacopan one-fifth. 68 
 
 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 
 
 e* Zuvita (p. 11). Herrera (Dec. Ill, lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 133). 
 
 65Mendieta (Lib. II, cap. XXXV II, p. 153). Torquemada (Lib. XI, cap. XXVI, p. 
 35:5). Duran (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 14:*). Ixtlilxochitl (" 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 Tezcnco and Tacuba), were honorary 
 assistants to the election of the Mexican Kings. They had but to sanction the election 
 . . . .") 
 
 GO Zurita (p. 67). Herrera (Dec. Ill, lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 133). Torquemada (Lib. XIV. 
 cap. VIII, pp. 546 and 547). 
 
 67 Herrera (Dec. Ill, lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 133). 
 
 os Torquemada (Lib. II, cap. LVII, p. 175; cap. XXXIX. p. 144; lib. XIV. cap. VIII, 
 pp. 546, 517 and 548). Zurita (" Rapport.'' p. 12). Ixtlilxochitl (Cap. XXXI I, pp. 21!) and 
 220). Veytia (Lib. Ill, cap. Ill, pp. 164 and 1(55). Bustamante ("Tezcoco, etc.," Parte 
 II, cap. Ill, pp. 163 and 165). Clavigero (Lib. IV, cap. III). 
 
 REPORT PEABODY MUSEUM, II. 27. 
 
418 
 
 tributaries. 69 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. 70 This wide 
 diffusion of the name, coupled with the still more extensive spread 
 of the language, 71 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 Na- 
 huatl tribes of the valley of Mexico. 72 
 
 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 
 
 69 Zurita ("Rapport, etc.," p. 67). "This kind of tribute or allegiance ( i( honiage- 
 lige") \vas paid to officers 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. <;<). Andres de 
 Taiiia ("Relacion, etc." Col. de Documentos," vol. JI, p. 579). " Art of War" (p. 100, 
 note 17). Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VIII, p. 547). Veytia (Lib. Ill, cap. VI, p. 197). 
 
 ""Itinerario de 1'Armata del Re Cnthclico in India Verso la Isola de luchathan del 
 Anno M.D. XVIII," in Col. de Docum, vol. I, p. 21)3, taken from llamusio. Originally 
 published (1.V22), in the " Itinerario de Varthema," an exceedingly rare book. Bernal- 
 Diez (*' Hist, verdadera," Vedia II, rap. XI, )>. 10). 
 
 71 Orozco y IJerra (' Geografla de las Lenguas, etc.," Parte II, p. 83, and the splendid 
 ethnographical chart). 
 
 "Zurita ("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 u 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). 73 
 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-lands ") , 74 As 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. Tliej" 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. 75 
 
 73 Brasseur de Bourbourg (" Ruines de Palenque," Cap. II, p. 32, and note 10) makes 
 the very sensible remark 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. 
 
 74 MSS. from Simancas " De Ford re de succession observe par les Indiens relative- 
 ment a leurs Torres et ae leurs Territoires communaux," translated by Mr. Ternaux- 
 Compans in " Recueil de Pieces," etc., pp. 223 and 224. Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. 
 VII, p. 540). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. XIV. He includes them positively in the soil 
 of the kinships, and tieats them as communal lands, the produce of which furnished 
 military supplies). " Yaotlalli" is improper (see '' Art of War," p. 135, note 158), but 
 'Milchimalli" is possible. 
 
 75 From "tec-pan," chief-house (Molina, Parte II, p. 95), and "tlalli," soil (Id. p. 1-24). 
 Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 546). "There was another class of lands which 
 belonged to the chiel's income; and those who dwelt on them and cultivated them were 
 
420 
 
 The second class was called "tlatoca-tlalli" 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 Castilian rods." 76 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. 77 The tract was worked in turn by the other members 
 
 called Tecpanpouhqui. or Tecpnntlaca, 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, 
 find 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," flower-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 (' parcialidnd ") to put an 
 other in his place, according to the commands of the King, or of the Lord." Herrera 
 (Dec. Ill, lib. cap. XV, p. 135). Veytia (Lib. Ill, cap. VI, p. 19G). ' 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 ctiltivated 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 Chichimeques cap. XXXV, p. 242. "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"). 
 Bustamante (' Tezcoco," etc., Parte HI, 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 biids 
 which they offered to the King in token of allegiance. 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 case the King gave him the use of another tract, or left 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." 
 
 if Ixtlilxochitl (Hist. desChichim," cap. XXXV, p. 242). Vedia (Lib. Ill, cap. Vf, p. 
 195). "This had to be four-hundred of their measures in square (' encuadro, 1 each 
 side long); each one of these being equal to three castilian rods. . . ." See ''Art of 
 War" (p. 'J44, note 183). " The rod" (vara) is equal to 2.7S2()!> feet English ((iiiyot). 
 
 77 From " tlatoca" speakers, or "tlatoani" speaker, and "thilli." Simancus .M. S. S. 
 on the customs of succession (" Recueil do Pieces, etc." p. 22.'J). Herrera (Dec. Ill, 
 lib. IV, cap. XVII, p. 138). "There were other kind,- of lands that were attached to 
 the lordship (office!), Mhich they called of the lord*hip, and of these the Lords could 
 nut 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. 78 
 
 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 u 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, official soil. 79 
 
 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). Veytia, 
 (Lib. Ill, cap. VI, p. 195, confirms Ixtlilxochitl almost verbally, adding: "For the sow 
 ing and cultivation of these the ealpixque, 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 adopted, 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 gwned by the 
 chiefs, is plain. 
 
 78 Veytia (Lib. IK, cap. VI, p. 195). It is superfluous to revert to the erroneous im 
 pression, that the chiefs might dispose of it. 
 
 79 " 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 
 lalli," show an}- trace of individual ownership. " Eredad" (heirloom) is called indis 
 criminately " milli" and " cuemitl " (Molina Parte la, p. 57). The latter is also rendered 
 as " tierra labrada, 6 camellon " (Molina, Parte Ho. p. 20). It thus reminds us of the 
 " chinamitl " or garden-bed (as the name '* camellon" also implies), and reduces it to 
 the proportion of an ordinary cultivated lot among the others contained within the 
 area of the calpulli. It is also called ' tlalli," but that is the general name for soil or 
 ground. "Tierras o eredades de partieulares, 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. 80 
 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, 81 
 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. 82 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." 83 These 
 
 8" " 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 Nonvelle 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 
 been founded in 1325, and nearly a century having been spent in adding sufficient 
 artificial sod to the originally small solid expanse settled, the Mexicans could have 
 been ready so soon to establish purely decoi-ative parks within an area, every inch of 
 which was valuable to them for subsidence alone 1 
 
 "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." 84 
 
 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 sa}-s : "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." 85 
 These " quarters" were the " Calpulli," hence it follows that the con 
 sanguine groups held the "altepetlalli" or Soil of the tribe. 86 
 
 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 
 airy 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 " 87 
 
 The expanse held and occupied by the calpulli, and therefore 
 called calpulalli," was possessed by the kin in joint tenure. 88 It 
 
 s* 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 Seiior disponer de estos Tributes a su 
 voluntad, porque se alteraba la Gente, i los Principales." This refers specially to the 
 tribute by quarters ' barrios.") 
 
 ss Storia del Messico " (Lib. VII, cap. XIV). 
 
 soixtlilxochitl ("Histoire des Chichim.," Cap. XXXV, p. 212). Torquemada (Lib. 
 XIV, cap. VII, p. 545). 
 
 87 ''Narratives of the Kites and Laws of the Yncas, translated from 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 15GO; 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 Indies," 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 IIo, p. 
 
424 
 
 could neither be alienated nor sold ; in fact, there is no trace ot 
 barter or sale of land, previous to the conquest. 89 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. 90 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. 91 The calpulli was 
 
 21), or an enclosed area, and if we connect it with the old original "chinamitl" we are 
 forcibly carried ba,ck to the early times, when the Mexicans but dwelt on a lew Hakes 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 QQuiche 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. 1%). 
 " Finally there were other tracts of lands in each tribe, called calpulalli, which is. land 
 of the calpules (barrios), which also were worked in common." Oviedo (Lib. XXXII, 
 cap. LI, pp. 536 and 537). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. XIV 7 ). Bustamante (" Tezcoco, 
 etc.," Partc Ilia. cap. V, p. 232). 
 
 89 Zurita (p. 52). ' He who obtained them from the sovereign has not the right to 
 dispose of them." HeiTera (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 
 the} 7 refer to the enjoyment and possession, and not the transfer of the land. Baron 
 Humboldt (' Vues des Cordilleres et monuments indigenes des peuples de 1' Ameriqtie," 
 Vol. I, Tab. V), reproduces a Mexican painting representing a litigation about laud. 
 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. 
 
 90 Zurita (p. !)3). "In case of need it was permitted to farm out the lands of a cal 
 pulli to the inhabitants of another quarter." Herrera (Dec. Ill, Lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 134). 
 " They could be rented out to another lineage." 
 
 91 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 democratic 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). 93 This office was for life or 
 during good behavior. 94 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. 95 Such changes, if unimportant, might be made by him ; 
 
 92 Zurita (pp. 60, 61, 62). Ramirez de Fuenleal ("Letter, etc." Ternaux-Compans, p. 
 249). 
 
 93 Znvita (p. 60). " The calpulli have a chief taken necessarily from among the tribe, 
 he must be one of the principal inhabitants, an able man who can assist and defend the 
 people. The election takes place among them. . . . The office of this chief is not hered 
 itary ; when any one dies, they elect in his place the most respected old man. . . . If the 
 deceased has left ft 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 
 1'ordre 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). 
 
 4 Zurita (pp. 60 and 61). Herrera (Dec. Ill, Lib. IV, cap. XV, cap. 125). " I le ele- 
 gian entre si y teniau por maior." 
 
 95 Zurita (pp. 61 and 62). " This chief has charge of the lands of the calpnlli. 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 "Epistola proemial" ("Col. de 
 Doc. :" Icazbalceta, Vol. I, p. 5), among the five " books of paintings " which he says the 
 Mexicans had, makes no mention of the above. Neither does he notice it in his letter 
 dated Cholula 27 Aug., 1554 ("Recueilde pieces, etc., "Ternaux-Compans). Sahagun (Lib. 
 VIII, cap. XV, p. 304) says, " porque primeramente demandaban la pintura en que es- 
 taban escritas 6 pintadas las causas, como hazieudas, casas, 6 maizales " (Id. cap. XXV, 
 p. 314). This tends to prove the existence of such paintings. Mendieta (Lib. II, .cap. 
 XXVII, p. 1.35). Torquemada (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 fiesh- 
 red, and the lands of the Kings income of a fiery 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 significant. 
 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 the 
 council of the kinship, which in turn often appealed to a gathering 
 of the entire quarter. 96 
 
 The "calpulalli" was divided into lots or arable beds, "tlal- 
 milli." 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 
 removed 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. 98 
 
 Therefore the chiefs and their families, although they could not, 
 from the nature of their duties, till the land themselves, still could 
 remain entitled to their share of "tlalmilpa," as members of the 
 calpulli. Such tracts were cultivated by others for their use. 
 They were called by the specific name of "pillali" (lands of the 
 chiefs or of the children, from "piltontli" boy, or "piltzintli," 
 
 "oZurita ("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, a heredades de particulars, que estan juntas en alguna vega " 
 (Molina, Part Ila, p. 124). 
 
 98 Each family, represented by its male head, obtained a certain tract or lot for culti 
 vation and use, Zurila (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. 5.'J), 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 go to his heirs 
 
 " Id. (p. 56.) "The proprietor who did not cultivate during two years, either 
 
 through his own fault or through negligence, without just cause he was called 
 
 upon to improve them, and if he failed to do so, they were given to another the follow 
 ing year." Bustamante ("Tezcoco, etc.," Parte III, p. 190, cap. I). The fact, that 
 any holder of a " tlalmilli" might rent out his share, if he himself was occupied in a 
 line precluding him from actual work on it, results from the lands of the " calpulli " being 
 represented alternately treated as communal, and again as private lands. Besides, 
 it is said of the traders who, from the nature of their occupation, were mostly absent, 
 that they were also members and participants of a " calpulli " (Zurita, p. 223. Sahagun 
 Lib. VIII, cap. 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 performing other duties subservient to the interests of the 
 community, still preserved their tracts by having others to work them for their benelit. 
 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), 99 and those who cultivated them carried the appellation of 
 "tlalmaitl" hands of the soil. 100 
 
 The " tlalmilpa," whether held by chiefs or by ordinary members 
 of the kin ("macehuales") were, therefore, the only tracts of land 
 possessed for use by individuals in ancient Mexico. They were 
 so far distinguished from the "tecpantlalli" and "tlatocatlalli" in 
 their mode of tenure as, whereas the latter two were dependent 
 
 "It is just the "pillali" 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 54(>), distinguishes two kinds of " pillali." The first 
 one he says might be sold. but lie places the restriction upon them, that such as held 
 lands through conquest (" sujecion") 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 pertained 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 Ha, p. 
 124), has : " tlalmaitl" " labrador, 6 gaiian." This name is given in distinction of the 
 "macehuales" or people working the soil in general. The tlalmaites are identical 
 with the " mayeques." See Zurita (p. 224), "tlalmaites or mayeques, which signifies 
 tillers of the soil of others . . . ." He distinguishes them plainly from the "teccallec" 
 which are the " tecpanpouhque " or " tecpautlacti " formerly mentioned as attending to 
 a class of official lands (p. 221, Zurita). Herrera (Dec. Ill, 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- 
 eros") 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 
 'piltontli" "niiio 6 nifia, muchacho 6 muchacha" (Molina, II, p. 82), or "piltzintli" 
 nino 6 niiia" therefore 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. 
 Bustamante ("Tezcoco, etc.," p, 330. "The sovereigns as well as the inferior Lords 
 and other principals had their own patrimonial estates, and in them their mayeqnes 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 free 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 "tlalmilli" was assigned to a certain family, and its pos 
 session, therefore, connected with customs of inheritance. 101 
 
 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 slight^ considered. The rule was 
 in general, that whatever a man held, descended to his off 
 spring. 102 Among most of the northern Indians a larger cluster 
 participated. 103 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. 104 
 Such may have been the case even among the Muysca of New- 
 
 * Ramirez de Fnenleal ("Letter," see "Recueil. etc.," p. 253). "De 1' ordre de 
 succession, etc., etc." SimancasMSS. (Id. p. 224). Hen-era (Dec. Ill, lib. IV, cap. XVII, 
 p. 138). ,Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. XIV). 
 These anthors mention only the " pillali," 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 padre en toda la hacienda raiz y mueble, y que tenga y mantenga todos los her- 
 manos y sobrinos, con tal que hagan ellos lo qne 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.. 1 ' 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, participated in the property of the deceased. 
 He proves it among the Iroquois (" Ancient Society," Part II, cap. II pp. 75 and 70). 
 Wyandottes, Id.cap. VII, p. 153. Missouri-tribes, p. 155. Winnebagoes, p. 157. Mandans, 
 p. 158. Minnitarees, p. 159. Creeks, p. 161. Choctas, p. 1<>2. Chickasas, p. 163. Ojib- 
 was, p. 167; also Potowattomies and Crees, Miamis, p. 168. Shawnees, p. !{>. 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. 
 
 io4" Ancient Society" (Part II, cap. II, p. 75. Part IV, cap. I, pp. 528, 530, 531, 536 
 and 537). 
 
429 
 
 Granada. 105 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, 106 but heirship was limited, to the exclu 
 sion of the kin and of the agnates themselves, to the children of 
 the male sex. 107 Whatever personal effects a father left, which were 
 not offered up in sacrifice at the ceremonies of his funeral, 108 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. 109 But the other males could apply to the chief of the 
 calpulli for a " tlalmilli " of their own: 110 the females went with 
 
 105 Gomara ("Historia de las Indies," Vedia I, p. 201). Garcia ("Origen de los 
 Indies," Lib. IV, cap. 23, p. 247). Piedrahita (Parte 1, lib. I, cap. 6, p. 27). Joaquin 
 Acosta O'Compendio historico del Descubrimients y Colonisazion de la Nueva-Granada," 
 Cap. XI, p. 201). Ternaux-Compans (" L'ancien Cundinamarra," pp. 21 and 38). 
 
 " Motolinia (Trat. II, cap. V, p. 120). Gomara (p. 434). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. 
 XIII). Znrita (pp. 12 and 43). 
 
 107 Letter of Motolinia and Diego d'Olartc, to Don Luis de Velasco, Cholnla, 27 Aug., 
 1554 (" Recueil, etc., etc.," p. 407). " The daughters did not inherit, it was the principal, 
 wile'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 (Torquemada, Lib. XI, cap. XXII, p. 348). 
 In general, the position of woman in ancient Mexico was a very inferior one, and but 
 little above that which it occupies among Indians in general. (Compare the description 
 of Gomara, p. 440. Vedia I, with those of Sahagun. Lib. X, cap. I, p. 1; cap. XIII, pp. 
 30, 31, 32 and 33. The fact is generally conceded). H. H. Bancroft, "Native Races." 
 Vol. II. Cap. VI, p. 224, etc. 
 
 108 Motolinia (Trat. II, cap. V, p. 120). Torquemada (Lib. XIII, cap. XLII to XLVIII, 
 pp. 515 to 529). Acosta (Lib. V, cap. VIII, pp. 320, 321 and 322). Gomara (pp. 43(5 and 
 437. Vedia, I). Memlieta (Lib. II, cap XL, pp. 162 and 103). Clavigero (Lib. VI, cap. 
 XXXIX. "They burnt the clothes, arrows, and a portion of the household utensils 
 ") 
 
 i 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 a sus hijos, y el mayor, si- 
 era hombre, lo poseia y tenia cuidado de sus hermanos y Hermanns, y yendo los her. 
 manos creciendo y casandose, el hermano mayor partia con ellos segun tenia; y si los 
 hijos eran por casar, entrabanse en la hacienda los mismos hermanos, digo en las her 
 edades, y de ellas mantenian a sus sobrinos y de la olra hacienda." Gomara (' Conq. 
 de Mejico," p. 434). " It is customary among tributary classes that the oldest son shall 
 inherit the father's property, real and personal, and shall maintain and support all the 
 brothers and nephews, provided they do what he commands them. The reason why 
 they do not partition the estates is in order not to decrease it through such a partition 
 
 " Simancas M.S.S (" Recueil, etc., etc.," p. 224). "Relative to the calpulalli . . 
 
 . . the sons mostly inheritecV 
 
 110 Zurita (p. 55). " He who has no land applies to the chief of the tribe (calpulli), 
 who, upon the advice of the other old men, assigns to him a tract suitable for his wants, 
 and corresponding to his abilities and to his strength." Herrera.(Dec. Ill, 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. 111 
 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. 112 
 
 The customs of Inheritance, as above reported, were the same 
 with chiefs as well as with the ordinary members of the tribe. Of 
 the personal effects very little remained since, the higher the office 
 was which the deceased had held, the more display was made at 
 his cremation, and consequently the more of his dresses, weapons 
 and ornaments, were burnt with the body. 113 Of lands, the chiefs 
 only held each their "tlalmilli" in the usual way, as members of 
 their kin, whereas the other " official" lots went to the new 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, 114 at Mexico from brother to brother, and from uncle to 
 nephew. 115 This might, eventually, have tended -to perpetuate the 
 
 111 Such unmarried females were the " nuns " frequently mentioned by the old writers. 
 We shall have occasion to investigate the point in our paper on " the ancient Mexican 
 priesthood." As attendants to worship, they participated in the tributes furnished 
 towards it by each calpulli, of which we have spoken. 
 
 112 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., 1514, in which 
 the said Cano asserts that he married Montezuma's daughter, widow of Quauhtemotzin. 
 There is an indeiinite 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 Landa, " Relaciou de las cosas de Yucatan." 
 Paris, 18U5, by Mr. Brasseur de Bourbourg, p. 142, XXV. 
 
 113 See note No. 108, the same quotations apply to this cafe. Besides, we refer to the 
 numerous descriptions of funeral rites, or rather cremations, contained, for instance, 
 in Durai, Tezozomoc,Ixtlilxochitl, Veytia,and in Bustamantes" Tezcocoen los I'ltimos 
 Tiernpos, etc." Also to the cremation of the head chief of Michhuacan, a.s related by 
 Mendieta (Lib. II, cap. XLL pp. 1(54-107). We abstain from special quotations, the sub 
 ject being amply discussed in all the authors just mentioned. 
 
 "*Zurita (p. 12). Gomara (Vedia I, p. 434). Torquernada (Lib. IX, cap. IV, p. 177. 
 Lib. XI, cap. 27, p. 35(i, 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 family, and with it also the possession of certain lands, 
 attached to that officer's functions and duties. But it is quite 
 certain too that this stage of development had not yet been 
 reached by any of the tribes of Mexico at the time of its conquest 
 by the Spaniards. The principal idea had not yet been developed, 
 namely, that of the domain, which, in eastern countries at least, 
 gradually segregated into individually hereditary tenures and 
 ownerships. 
 
 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, en 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." 116 This title, although it partakes of the nature of a 
 
 "e Martin Fernandez de Navarrete (" Coleccion de los Viages y Descubrimientos que 
 hicieron por mar los Espanoles desde Fines del Siglo XV," Madrid, 1825. Tom. IIo, pp. 
 2i,'-35). " Et insupre mandamus vobis in virtnte sanctae obedintie, est (ficut pollicemini 
 et non dubitamus pro vestra maxima devotione et Regia magnanimitate vos esse 
 facturos) ad terras flrmas et insulas praedictas viros probo?, et Deum timentes, doctos, 
 peritos et expertos ad instruendam incolas et habitatores praefatos in Fide Catholica, 
 et in bonis moribus imbumdam destinare debeatis,omnum debitam diligentiam in pra- 
 emisis adhibentes." Mendieta (" Hist. Eccles. Ind.," Lib. I, cap. Ill, pp. 20 and 22). 
 Herrera (Dec. I, lib. II, cap. IV, p. 41). Gomara ('* Hi.-storia de las Indias," Vedia I, pp. 
 168 and 169). Oviedo (Lib. II, cap. VIII). 
 
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, 117 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 landing, as was done on many other points 
 of the American coast, 118 Cortes 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 countiy, al 
 though he attributed it to causes which were not really existing, 119 
 and it is well known how he improved it for his plans. He there 
 fore treated secret^, as much as possible, with members of tribes 
 subjected (or rather tributary) to the Mexicans and their confeder 
 ates, 120 and in consideration of their espousing the Spanish cause, 
 he promised them sundry favors. 121 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. 12 - It promises 
 
 i" Hen-era (Dec. J, lib. II, cap. IV, p. 41). Oviedo (Lib. II, cap. VIII, pp. 31 and 32). 
 Gomara ( Vedia I, p. 108). Mendieta (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. XVII, cap. XV, p. 525) 
 
 "8 Herrera (Dec. I, lib. VII, cap. XIV, pp. 197 and 198). Robertson (Vol. I, Book III, 
 p. 271 ; also note XXIII, p. 378). 
 
 119 Cortes supposed a Mexican state or empire and his measures were taken in conse 
 quence. ("Carta Segunda," Vedia I, p. 12). Gomara (" Conq. de Mejico," p. 313). 
 Bernal-Diez del Castillo ("Hist, verd. de la conq. de N. Espafia," Vedia II, pp. 32 and 
 33). Oviedo (Lib. XXXIII, cap. II, p. 201). Torquemada (Lib. IV, cap. XVI, pp. 386 
 and 387), etc. etc. 
 
 120 Cortes ("Carta Segunda," Vedia I, pp. 13 and 15). Bernal-Die/ (Vedia II, cap. 
 XLI, p. 30). Oviedo (Lib. XXXIII. cap. II, p. 201). Andres de Tapia (" Col. de Docu- 
 mentos," of Icazbalceta, Vol. II, pp. 501 and 502). Gomara ("Conq. de Mejie<>," Vedia, 
 I, p. 320). But the main evidence is furnished by the document published by Iraxbalceta, 
 in his second volume of the "Coleccion de Documentos para la lli-toria de Mexico," 
 in the 2d volume, and entitled: ''Real Ejeeutoria de S. M. Sobre Tierras y Reservas de 
 Pechos y Paga, perteneciente filos Caciques de Axapusco, delujurisdiccion de Otumba" 
 (pp. 5. 0, 7, 8 and 9). 
 
 121 "Real Ejeeutoria" (Col. de doc. II, p. 7). Gomara (Vedia I, p. 320). Clavigero 
 (Lib. VIII, 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 proper, northwest >f 
 San Juan de Teotihuacan. As the Document to which we have already referred ini- 
 
433 
 
 to those chiefs lands of their own. The grantees had no conception 
 of the true import of what they accepted, neither did Cortes con 
 ceive the nature of their 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. Jose F. Ramirez. Its history 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, 1017, there appeared before the vicei-oy of New Spain 
 (Marques of Guadalcazar), Leonardo de Salazar " in the name of the governor, alcalde 
 and fiscals" of the pueblo of San Esteban Axapusco and Santiago Tepeyahualco, "of 
 the jurisdiction of Otumba," praying for a confirmation in writing by the viceroy, of a 
 certain grant made by Cortes, 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 
 DO 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 1(517, 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 far as it related to the contents of the 
 document ("obre la fe que hubiere lugar en derecho"). The desired copy and certifi 
 cates were accordingly issued on the 21st day of March, 1(517. 
 
 This copy embodies the mutilated text of a very singular official paper. It appears 
 from it that on the 20th day of May 1519, Cortes executed, in favor of two Indian chiefs 
 of the two aforesaid pueblos, and at their request, a certificate (signed by himself at 
 San Juan de Uliia on that day and countersigned: Pedro Hernandez), stating that the 
 said chiefs had joined the messengers sent from Mexico to greet and espy Cortes 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 Cortes 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 subtility 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 Cortes 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 Cortes acknowledges the 
 services rendered by the two chiefs during the conquest of Mexico, and that after 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 the chiefs of Axapusco 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 ("gobernadores") of the pueblo 
 to which they belonged. This grant of Cortes was confirmed by the Emperor Charles 
 V, and the royal council of the Indies, 2d November, 1537, and on the 9 and 10 Februarv, 
 1540, the said chieftains were duly installed in their new hereditary positions, and their 
 lands measured off to them. 
 
 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 after 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 the}- had been 
 previously ; but no thought entered their mind, at that time, of 
 ownership of the soil. 123 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. 124 
 
 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. Ramirez, as well as by the careful and thorough treatment of the editor, 
 Sr. Jcazbalceta. We cannot refrain from accepting the "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 Cortes : 
 
 (1). That the chiefs of Axapusco and Tepeyahualco held no lands as their own 
 
 property, untd Cortes granted such to them. 
 
 (2). That their offices were not hereditary, until Cortes established them as such; 
 
 through his aforesaid grant. The two conclusions just stated are of great 
 
 importance for the subject of this paper, and they should be kept present iu 
 
 mind, since we shall have occasion to make further use of the document. 
 
 123" Real Ejecutoria, etc., etc." ("Col.de Docum." Vol. II, p. (!) Andres de Tapia 
 
 ("Col. de Doc.," II, p. 561, etc.) Cortes ( Carta Segunda," Vedia, I, pp. 12 and 13). 
 
 Gomara ("Conq. de Mejico," Vedia I, p. 318. Very explicit and positive). Oviedo 
 
 (Lib. XXX1I1, cap. II, pp. 201, 202 and 203). Bernal-Diez ("Hist, verdadera, etc." 
 
 Vedia II, cap. XLVI and XLV11). Ixthlxochitl ('-Hist, des Chichim.." trap. LXXX, pp. 
 
 173, 174 and 175). Torquemada (Lib. IV, cap. XX, pp. 3V7, 3!J8 and 3'.)'.)). 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 ofrecian fleles y leaJes va>allos de sn miijestad 6 empenidor . . ." p. 7, 
 "y me supliearou les diese testimonio de la obediencia que dieron a Dios nuestro 
 Senor y S. M.; 
 
435 
 
 in Spanish power, consented to the ceremonies required for their 
 "swearing allegiance" to Spain, Cortes thenceforth regarded the 
 annexation of Mexico to the domains of his liege lord as complete. 125 
 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. 126 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 theoretical right was construed to be a 
 complete and violent revolution. 
 
 After the pueblo of Mexico had fallen, the first step of Cortes 
 in regard to the Indians was, therefore, to establish the system of 
 " Repartimientos." 127 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, decided 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." 1 ' 29 ' The Indians on such tracts became serfs to their Span- 
 
 125 Cortes ("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 uprising of the Mexicans during 
 Cortes' 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. 
 
 i-' Cortes (' Carta Cuarta," Vedia I, pp. 113, 114,115 and 11(>). Bernal-Diez (Vedia II, 
 Cap. CLXIX, pp. -237 and 238). Gomara (Vedia I, p. 394). Letter of the troops of Cortes 
 to the Emperor ("Col. de Doc.," I, p. 431). It is also acknowledged by Cortes himself 
 in his letter of 15 October, 1524, to the Emperor, wherein he expressly states (" Col. de 
 Doc.," I, pp. 472 and 473), that he dai-ed 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." 
 
 128 X ivarrete (" Colleccion de Viajus, etc." Tom. II, pp. 215 and 21G). Herrera (Dec. 
 I, lib. Ill, cap. II, p. 6(3). 
 
 Herrera (Dec. 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. 130 
 
 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. 131 Nevertheless, 
 several disturbing influences 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 land, 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. 132 
 
 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. AVe 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 orpwWic oivnersliip established 
 
 isoHerrera (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 Rnmirez de Fuenleal, Bishop of San Domingo (" Recueil, etc.," p. 244). 
 Letter of the Licentiate Ceynos (" Col. de Doc.," Vol. II, pp. 1(52 and 103). 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). 
 
 13<2 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. '.)">), 
 and by Oviedo (Lib. Ill, cap. VI, p. 72). The latter was a contemporary. 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 108), 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 516). Joint letter to the Emperor, 
 of 9 Franciscan and Dominican monks ( ik Col. de Doc. "pp. 549-553). Letter of Motolinia 
 (" Col. dc Doc." Vol. I), 2 Jan., 150.3. 
 
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. 133 This applied not only to the 
 " lands of the houses of the community " (tecpan-tlalli), and " kinds 
 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. 134 Thus, regarding them as owners of the dif 
 ferent classes of official 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 them "Repartimientos, or 
 gave them lands, sometimes unoccupied wastes, as their, oivn pri- 
 
 issHumboldt ("Essai politique sur la Nouvelle Espagne," Vol. II, lib. Ill, cap. VIII, 
 pp. 64 and 65). 
 
 134 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 macehualesand 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 left destitute" (" se quedan & 
 buenas noches") (p. 538). 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. (" Cruautes horribles des conquerauts du Mexique" Teruaux-Compans, 
 pp. 258, 259 and 260, appendix.) 
 
438 
 
 vote property. 5 Among these is to be classed the grant already 
 mentioned to the caciques of Axapusco and Tepeyahualco. 136 
 
 The documents partaking of the nature of " Repartimientos" 
 contain among their number a donation by Cortes to Dona 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 Cortes by her father, the entire territory 
 of the Tecpanecan tribe, at the same time acknowledging that it 
 belonged to her by right "as patrimonial estate." 131 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 Cortes to Dona 
 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 "Cruautes horribles desconquerants du Mexique"Ternaux- 
 Compans, p. 261). 
 
 138 It says : (' Real Ejecutoria, etc., etc." Col. de Doc. II, p. 18, " and since they were 
 such (faithful) servants of H. M., they should be freed, 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 office" 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 calpullis, 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 Dona Isabel Montezuma, Hija del gran Motezuma ultimo Rey Indio del 
 gran Reyno y Cibdad de Mexico, que bautizada y siendo Christiana caso con Alonso 
 Grado, natural de la villa de Alcantara, Hidalgo, y criado de su Magestad, que habia 
 Servido y servia en muchos oflcios de aquel Reyno. Otorgado por Don Hernando 
 Cortes, conquistador del dicho Reyno, etc., etc." Its date is 26 June, 1526. The Dona 
 Isabel is mentioned as " the principal and legitimate heiress of the said Lord Moteguma," 
 and the concession itself is worded as follows : " con la qual dicha Dona Isabel le pro- 
 meto y doi en dote y araas S la dicha Dona Isabel y sus descendientos, en nombre de 
 S. M. y como su governador y capitan general destas partes, y porque de derecho le 
 pertenece de su patrimomo y legitirna, el Senoria y naturales del Pueblo de Tacuba, 
 etc., etc." The following pueblos are added : Yeteve, Yzqui-Luca, Chimalpan, Chnpul- 
 maloyan, Escapulteango, Xiloango, Ocoiacaque, Castepeque, Talanco, Gatscrio, Duote- 
 peque, Tacala. Notwithstanding the defective orthography (Escapultango in place of 
 Azcaputzalco, Duotepeque instead of Ometepec, etc.) we easily discern the territory 
 of the Tecpanecan tribe; a fact still further proven by the own words of the grant : "' the 
 aforesaid settlements and pueblos are subjected to the pueblo of Tacuba and to its 
 Lord." 
 
439 
 
 " Nahuatl " confederacy of the valley of Mexico, that they and 
 their soil were totally independent from the Mexicans. 138 Still, 
 Cortes Ivonestly 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 community against which 
 those least favored revolted, whereas the preferred ones, now com 
 bining authority with landed property, were tempted to abuse 
 their new position. 139 Of this division and strife among the 
 
 138 In addition to the testimony already adduced, we refer here to the Letter of Fray 
 Toribio (Motolinia) and Fray Diego d' Olarte, dated Cholula 27 Aug., 1554. "All the 
 others obeyed to Montezuma, to the sovereign of Tezctico, and to him of Tacuba. 
 These three princes were closely confederated; they divided among themselves the 
 lands (countries) which they conquered." (" Recueil de pifices, et^.," p. 403.) In the 
 "Relation of the services rendered by the Marquis of the Valley (Cortes)," executed 
 between 1532 and 1535 and presented to the Emperor by the Licentiate Nunez, refer- 
 ence is made to the original grant to Cortes, 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 Nuno de Guzman and of 
 the auditors Matienzo and Delgadillo " as belonging to Mexico, but the case was tried 
 in New Spain, and Cortes furnished ample proof "how the 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" ("Col. de Doc.," Vol. II, p. 
 56). 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. 
 
 139 The grant to Cortes 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. 150), men- 
 tions " until 400 persons " of which 200 had to settle in the city of Mexico. The Bishop 
 Fuenleal in his ' Opinion " of 1532 (' Col. de Doc.," II, p. 176). mentions (among others) 
 the following Repartimieutos : " Huexotzinco to Diego de Ordaz." 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 la.nds, for the purpose of under 
 mining the influence and authority of the chieftains. 140 Fre 
 quently, also, the ignorance in which the Indians were, as to the 
 
 Tepeaca to Pedro Armildez Chirino, Chilchota to Juan de Samano, etc., etc. Each 
 of these, especially the first one, comprised several villages, nay a whole tribe. 
 
 Compare the letter of the Archbishop Mowtufar, 30 Nov., 1554 ("CruauU's 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 lands were given 
 out of the calpulalli. The petition of Monlufar 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 1). Motolinia (Trat. I, cap. I, p. 
 17) is very severe on the collectors of rent for the whites. But these collectors must 
 have been mostly Indians, chiefs, as he himself acknowledges in his Cholula-letters. 
 
 140 Motolinia (Trat. I, cap. I, p. 17). Montufar (pp. 255-260). Zurita (pp. 6 1 } and 64). 
 Ceynos, Second Letter, 1 March, 1565 (Col. de Doc. II, pp. 240 and 241). Zurita (p. 83) 
 is of special importance, exposing the intrigues of the Spanish conquerors 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 interpreters and lawyers, inciting the Indians to litigation before 
 the " Aiuliencia" 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 were 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 being naturally quarrelsome, disposed to tackle and injure each other, 
 they are so fond of it as to have them continually on hand, Avithout 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 little 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 II. M. gives them 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 Bartolome de Las Casas '.Col. de Doc. II, pp. 22!) 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. 141 Unacquainted with 
 the new order of things suddenly forced upon them, unable there 
 fore to profit 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. 142 
 
 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 difficulties 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 Ulua, a cluster of twelve 
 Franciscan friars, sent to Mexico in response to the original call of 
 Cortes, for the purpose of converting the Indians. 143 These monks 
 
 141 Znrita (pp. 63 and 64). Mendieta (Letter, in Col. de Doc. II). 
 
 J4>2 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 centimes 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. Bartolome de las Casas, in his joint memorial with Fray 
 Domingo de Santa Tonias, in favor of the Indians of Peru, written about 1560 (''Col. 
 de Doc." Bibliographical notes, p. XLII,) says: "Lo segundo, que porque los Espafi- 
 oles son siempre del bien de los indios contraries, y en especial lo son y nan de ser 
 impedidores de aqueste negocio y concierto, que han de estorbar por cuantas vias pudi- 
 eren que los indios no paguen a S. M. ni puedan pagar este servicio; por tanto es nec- 
 esario que se prohiba que ningun comendero entre por ninguna causa ni razon 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. XL VII), 
 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. 
 532). Motolinia (" Hist, de los Indios de N. Espafia," Trat. I, cap. I). 
 
 143 The Franciscan friars obtained their first concession from 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 Quinones (de los Angeles), and Fray Juan Clapion. But 
 these fathers never reached Mexico. Previous to it, three 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. 144 This could not fail 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 Toribio, 
 of Benavent (Motolinia), even notified the agents of the royal 
 "audiencia," who had come to Huexotzinco to seize the fugitives 
 and bring them to justice, to leave the settlement forthwith, 
 threatening, in case of non-compliance, with excommunication. 145 
 The protection thus afforded would have been far more efficacious, 
 had the good Friars understood at that time the true nature of 
 Indian land tenure, and their usages with 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 cluster^ 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 equally combined heroism in 
 protecting the Indians, with due regard to the conservation of their memories and 
 historical traditions. These " twelve " were : Fray Martin de Valencia, Fray Francisco 
 de Soto, Fray Martin de Corufia, 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. Andre's de Cordoba, Fray Juan de Palos (Mendieta, 
 lib. Ill, cap. X, also cap. XI, etc.). We shall have further occasion to use their writings, 
 therefore this humble tribute of gratitude to their memories. 
 
 144 Compare the beautiful introduction to Motolinia's "Historia de los Indios de 
 Nueva-Espana," by Sr. Jose 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 tirst " 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 Herrera about the convention ("Junta") at Barce 
 lona, in Spain in 1529 (Dec. IV, lib. VI, cap. XI, p. 118, etc). 
 
 " Introduction to Motolinia (" Col. de Doc.," Vol. I, p. L). Torquemada (Lib. XV, 
 cap. XXII, pp. 56, 57-59;. 
 
443 
 
 even in their letter to the emperor, dated 1st of September, 1526, 146 
 the "apostles of Mexico" insisted upon a thorough establishment 
 of what Mr. Prescott so justly calls the "vicious" S3 r stem of Re- 
 partimientos, representing that an immediate and thorough inter 
 mingling of both races alone could promote the interests of 
 conversion. 147 
 
 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, 148 was 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. 149 
 
 Although in many parts of Spanish America these laws were 
 but "obeyed though not executed/' 150 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.). 
 
 147 " Col. de Doc.," II, 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 
 Tomas (Col. II, pp. 231-236), and to the council of the Indies, of 1562 or 1563 (Col. II, 
 pp. 595-588), 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." 
 
 148 It was customary for each u encomendero " to exercise civil and criminal juris 
 diction within his " Repai'timiento." 
 
 149 .< Nuevas Leyes y Ordenanzas para la Gobernacion 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 I, pp. 249 and 
 250). 
 
 iso Se obedece, pero no se cumple." There are many evidences of this saying hav 
 ing been put in actual practice. Joaquin Acosta (''Compendio historico dol Descu- 
 brimiento y de la Colonizacion de Nueva Granada," 1848, cap. XVII, p. 316). At the 
 arrival of tlie 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 from Cali, in 1544, in regard to his action. Acosta 
 says : *' Entonces comenzo en el nuevo mundo Espanol & campear la formula irrisoria 
 de se obedece, pero no se cumple; con que se eludian las ordenes que no les convenia 
 ej'ecutar a los funcionarios de aquellas apartados comarcas." Herrera (Dec. VII, lib. 
 VII, 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 
 
 151 Mr. James Pascoe, an English gentleman, resident of Toluca, has in a letter re 
 ported upon by the French "Journal des Missions Evangeliqnes" (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, 18i7). 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 priest 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 corn and beans for 
 their food, they purchase nothing at the stores " (p. 175). Hon. E. G. Squier, hi 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, 152 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, 153 but especially from the conviction, that it was best 
 suited to the wants of the Mexican natives, being the mode of 
 
 cellent Avork 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 inhabitant's 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 17G4. 
 
 lr2 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 15H2 or 15(33). In that document he goes so far as to say: "First, that all the wars 
 called conquests (" conquistas " applying it to the New World exclusively), 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 sale 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 Chris; tian by the Turks Eighth: that the natives of all the>e 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 from the Bishop of 
 Chiapas, not only against the Emperor, but against the Holy See, which had donated 
 the Indies to Spain. 
 
 153 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 affairs. 
 
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. 154 
 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 official of 
 perspicacity, deep knowledge, and honest judgment, in his memo 
 rial to the King of Spain, written about the year 15G0. 155 
 
 154 The litigation over the grant to the caciques of Axapusco and Tepeyahualco, to 
 which we referred in note 151, is commented upon as follows by Sefiore J. F. Ramirez 
 in his letter proving the authenticity of the document, dated 30 Sept., 1863, and printed 
 in the Introduction to the "Real-Ejecutoria, etc., etc." " D. Juan de los Santos, D. 
 Antonio Esteban, D. Juan and D. Lorenzo Morales, with the title of caciques and prin 
 cipals of Tepeyahualco, and with the right of successors and lawful descendants of D. 
 Juan and D. Fernando Morales "companions (they saM), of the illustrious Hernan 
 Cortes in the conquest and pacification 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 tvas 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 former 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 Cortes exclu 
 sively (pp. X1I1 and XIV), and the pueblos attacked the authenticity of that document; 
 at the same time invoking the rights of possession ("plenario de posesion.") 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 office of chiefs, and the hereditary ownership of lands, 
 were Spanish innovations ("que a su principio fue mtiy ordinal io"). Now this origin 
 ("principle") 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 Cortes, and that they did not claim any prior right, connected with desceu- 
 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 Cortes, although to him the Spaniards 
 owed the conquest of the country. 
 
 106 Rapport sur les diflerentes classes de chefs de la Nouvelle Espagne," pp. f53 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 Documentor Iiu'-ditos relativos al Di-s- 
 cubrimiento, etc., etc." It is much to be regretted that my learned friend, Sr. Ica/.bal- 
 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- 
 
 ' Coleccion de Documentos para la Historia de Mexico." Alonso de Zurita lived in 
 America from 15iO till 1530; 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 all parts of Spanish 
 America, and all as elaborate and truthful as those of Zurita, Palucio and Oudogardo, 
 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 conve} T ance 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 official lands, out of which the official 
 households were supplied and sustained ; but these lands and their 
 products were totally independent from the persons or families of 
 the chiefs themselves. 
 
 6. Conquest of any tribe by the Mexicans was not followed by 
 an annexation of that tribe's territory, nor by an apportionment 
 of its soil among the conquerors. Tribute was exacted, and, for 
 the purpose of raising that tribute (in part), special tracts were 
 set off; the crops of which were gathered for the storehouses of 
 Mexico. 
 
 7. Consequently, as our previous 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 distribu 
 tion of lands tend to establish : "that the principle and institution 
 of feudality did not exist in aboriginal Mexico."