CHAPTER IV.. Usages and Customs With Respect to Lands and to Food

USAGES AND CUSTOMS WITH RESPECT TO LANDS AND TO FOOD

THE OWNERSHIP OF LANDS IN COMMON.

Among the Iroquois the tribal domain was held and owned by the tribe in common. Individual ownership, with the right to sell and convey in fee-simple to any other person, was entirely unknown among them. It required the experience and development of the two succeeding ethnical periods to bring mankind to such a knowledge of property in land as its individual ownership with the power of alienation in fee-simple implies. No person in Indian life could obtain the absolute title to land, since it was vested by custom in the tribe as one body; and they had no conception of what is implied by a legal title in severalty with power to sell and convey the fee. But he could reduce unoccupied land to possession by cultivation, and so long as he thus used it he had a possessory right to its enjoyment which would be recognized and respected by his tribe. Gardens planting-lots, apartments in a long-house, and, at a later day, orchards of fruit were thus held by persons and by families. Such possessory right was all that was needed for their full enjoyment and for the protection of their interest in them. A person might transfer or donate his rights to other persons of the same tribe, and they also passed by inherence, under established customs, to his gentile kin. This was substantially the Indian system in respect to the ownership of lands and apartments in houses among the Indian tribes within the areas of the United States and British America in the Lower Status of barbarism. In later times, when the State or National Government acquired Indian lands and made compensation therefor, payment for the lands went to the tribe, and for improvements to the individual who had the possessory right. At the Tonawanda Reservation of the Seneca-Iroquois, a portion of the lands are divided into separate farms, which are fenced and occupied in severalty, while the remainder are owned by the tribe in common. When a young man marries and has no land on which to subsist, the chiefs may allot him a portion of these reserved lands. The title to all these lands, occupied and unoccupied, remains in the tribe in common. Individuals may sell or rent their possessory rights to each other, or rent them to a white man. No white man can now acquire a title from an Indian to Indian lands in any part of the United States. A person could transfer his possessions to another, but apartments in a house must remain to his gentile kindred. In the time of James II the right to acquire lands was vested in the Crown exclusively as a royal prerogative, to which prerogative our State and National Governments succeeded.

The same usages prevail on the Tuscarora Reservation, near the Niagara River, where this Iroquois tribe owns in common about 8,000 acres of fine agricultural land in one body. A part of this reservation has long been parceled out to individuals in small farms, fenced, and cultivated by the possessors. The remainder is unparceled and under the control of the chiefs. The people are allowed to remove from the wood-land of the reserve the dead wood and litter but are not permitted to touch the standing timber. When a young man marries, if he has no land the chiefs allot him forty acres to cultivate for his subsistence; but, before giving him possession, the lot is first open to all the tribe to cut off the timber for fire-wood. Thus the double object is gained of supplying the people with fire-wood and of clearing the land for cultivation for the new family. These possessory rights pass by inheritance to the recognized heirs. A person may transfer or rent his possession to another person; he may rent to a white man, but in no case can he sell to a white man.

And here I may be allowed a brief digression, to notice a recent opinion of the late Secretary of the Interior, Hon. Carl Schurz, shared in to some extent by the National Government, in relation to the division of our Indian reservations into lots or tracts, and their conveyance in severalty to the Indians themselves, with power of alienation to white men after a short period, say twenty-five years. It is to be hoped that this policy will never be adopted by any National Administration, as it is fraught with nothing but mischief to the Indian tribes. The Indian is still, as he always has been, and will remain for many years to come, entirely incapable of meeting the white man, with safety to himself, in the field of trade and of resisting the arts and inducements which would be brought to bear upon him. He is incapable of steadily attaching that value to the ownership of land which its importance deserves, or of knowing how far the best interests of himself and family are involved in its continued possession. The result of individual Indian ownership, with power to sell, would unquestionably be, that in a very short time he would divest himself of every foot of land and fall into poverty. The case of the Shawnee tribe of Kansas affords a perfect illustration of this pernicious policy. The Shawnees were removed to Kansas under the Jackson policy, so called, and occupied a splendid reservation on the Kansas River, where they were told they were to make their home forever. But after a few years of undisturbed possession, our people, in the natural flow of population, reached Kansas, where they found the Shawnees in possession of the best part of what has since been the State of Kansas. Our people at once wanted these Indian lands, and they determined to root out the Shawnees in the interest of civilization and progress. They accomplished this result in the most speedy and scientific manner, using as their proposed lever this identical plan since adopted by Mr. Schurz. First, the government was induced to re-purchase a part of the reservation on the ground that they had more land than they needed for cultivation; and, secondly, the government induced the Indians to have the remainder divided up into farms and conveyed to heads of families in severalty, with power of alienation. In 1859, when this scheme was being worked out, I visited Kansas, and found the Shawnee's cultivating and improving their farms, some of which embraced a thousand acres, and owning them, too, like other farmers. When next in Kansas, ten years later, the work was done. There was not a Shawnee in Kansas, but American farmers were in possession of all these lands. It was this individual ownership with power to sell that had done the work.

In managing the affairs of our Indian tribes, we must apply a little common sense to their condition. In their brains they are in the same stage of growth and development with our remote forefathers when they learned to domesticate animals, and, came to rely upon a meat and milk subsistence. The next condition of advancement at which the Indian would naturally reach is the pastoral, the raising of flocks and herds of domestic animals. The Indian has taught himself to raise the horse in herds, and some of the tribes raise sheep and goats. A few of them raise cattle. If the government could assist them in this until they were started, they would soon become expert herdsmen; would make a proper use of the unoccupied prairie area in the interior of the continent as well as of the reservations, and would become prosperous and abundant in their resources.

Among the sedentary Village Indians of New Mexico, who were in the Middle Status of barbarism, the land system is much the same in principle, but with special usages adapted to a more advanced condition. At Taos, the pueblo lands are held under a Spanish grant of 1689, covering four Spanish square leagues. This grant was afterward confirmed, as I am informed by David J. Miller, esq., of the surveyor-general's office at Santa Fe, by letters patent of the United States. It is, of course, to the Taos Indians in common as a tribe, and without the power of alienation except among themselves. These lands have been allotted from time to time to individuals, and held in severalty for cultivation; but these allotments, so to call them, are verbal, and the rights of persons to their possession are settled and adjusted by the chiefs in case of disputes. Mr. Miller wrote me from Taos, under date of December 5, 1877, that "A land-owner cannot, under any circumstance, sell to any but a Pueblo Indian, and one of this (Taos) pueblo. If he should do so he would be banished the pueblo, and the sale be treated as void." There is an instance now in this pueblo of a San Juan Indian man married here, but he is not allowed to acquire land in the pueblo premises. His wife has lands which he cultivates. A piece of land belonging to a man may or may not be utilized by him, but it is recognized and treated as his in fee until he sell it or dies. If a lad grows up and marries, and his father or father-in-law has no land to give him, he may purchase in the pueblo, or the pueblo may assign him land, whereby the title in fee as private property remains in him until he sells or dies. When he dies it is divided equally among widow and children. If the children are small, his brother or other relatives cultivate the land for them until they can do it for themselves; but the right of property is in the children. When a piece of land is sold it is done in the presence of witnesses, if it is so desired. Oftener the sale and transfer are made by and between the parties themselves. No documents are used. This is so in all the pueblos. The rules and customs in the sale and delivery of rooms in a house and of personal property, such as animals, are the same. There is no preference, as to males or females, in the descent of property rights and titles. There is a corn-field at each pueblo, cultivated by all in common, and when grain is scarce the poor take from this store after it is housed. It is in the charge of, and at the disposal of, the cacique (called the governor). Land cannot be sold to an alien; but an Indian coming from another pueblo to live at this may acquire land to subsist upon, though such immigration is rare. It is not allowed at any of the pueblos that a white person acquire property therein. An Indian woman is not allowed to marry a Mexican and live at the pueblo. A piece of land held and recognized as belonging to a person is his property, whether he utilizes it or not, and he may sell or donate it absolutely at his will to persons within the community.

"At Jemes and Zia (other pueblos in New Mexico), when a woman dies her property goes into the control of her husband; if a widow, it descends to her children; if she has no children, it goes to her brothers and sisters equally; and if none survive her, then to her nearest relatives; if she has no relatives, then to such friends as attend her in her last illness. It never reverts to the pueblo, which as a corporate community owns no land."

What Mr. Miller refers to as property rights and titles, and ownership in fee of land, is sufficiently explained by the possessory right found among the Northern tribes. The limitations upon its alienation to an Indian from another pueblo or to a white man, not to lay any stress upon the absence of written conveyances of titles made possible by Spanish and American intercourse, show quite plainly that their ideas respecting the ownership of the ultimate title to land, with power to alienate in fee, were entirely below this conception of property in land. The more important ends of individual ownership were obtained through the possessory right, while the ultimate title remained in the tribe for the protection of all. That the pueblo now owns no land, as Mr. Miller states, must be understood to mean that all the lands of the original grant have been parcelled out. The further statement of Mr. Miller, that if a father dies his land is divided between his widow and children, and that if a mother dies, leaving no husband, her land is divided equally between her sons and daughters, is important, because it shows an inheritance by the children from both father and mother, a total departure from the principles of gentile inheritance. While visiting the Taos pueblo in the summer of 1878 I was unable to find among them the gentile organization, and from lack of sufficient time could not inquire into their rules of descent and inheritance.

My friend, Mr. Ad. F. Bandelier, now recognized as our most eminent scholar in Spanish American history, has recently investigated the subject of the tenure of lands among the ancient Mexicans with great thoroughness of research. The results are contained in an essay published in the Eleventh Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, p. 385 (Cambridge, 1878). It gives me great pleasure to incorporate verbatim in this chapter, and with his permission, so much of this essay as relates to the kinds or classes of land recognized among them, the manner in which they were held, and his general conclusions.

In the pueblo of Mexico (Tenochtitlan), he remarks, "Four quarters had been formed by the localizing of four relationships composing them respectively, and it is expressly stated that each one might build in its quarter (barrio) as it liked." [Footnote: Duran (Cap V p. 42), Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. VII, p. 467), Herrera (Dec. III, Lib. II, cap. XI, p. 61).]

The term for these relationships, in the Nahuatl tongue, and used among all the tribes speaking it was 'calpulli.' It is also used to designate a great hall or house and we may therefore infer that, originally at least, all the members of one kinship dwelt under one common roof.

The ground thus occupied by the 'calpulli' was NOT, as Torquemada admits, assigned to it by a higher power; the tribal government itself held NO DOMAIN which it might apportion among subdivisions or to individuals, either gratuitously or on condition of certain prestations, or barter against a consideration. [Footnote: The division into "quarters" is everywhere represented as resulting from common consent. But nowhere is it stated that the tribal government or authority assigned locations to any of its fractions. This is only attributed to the chiefs, on the supposition that they, although elective, were still hereditary monarchs.]

The tribal territory was distributed, at the time of its occupancy, into possessory rights held by the KINDRED GROUPS AS SUCH, by common and tacit consent, as resulting naturally from their organization and state of culture.

The patches of solid ground, on which these 'quarters' settled, were gradually built over with dwellings, first made out of canes and reeds, and latterly, as their means increased, of turf, 'adobe', and light stone. These houses were of large size, since it is stated that even at the time of the conquest 'there were seldom less than two, four, and six dwellers in one house; thus there were infinite people (in the pueblo) since, as there was no other way of providing for them, many aggregated together as they might please.' Communal living, as the idea of the 'calpulli' implies, seems, therefore, to have prevailed among the Mexicans as late as the period of their greatest power.

"The soil built over by each 'calpulli' probably remained for some time the only solid expanse held by the Mexicans. Gradually, however, the necessity was felt for an increase of this soil. Remaining unmolested 'in the midst of canes and reeds,' their numbers had augmented, and for residence as well as for food a greater area was needed. Fishing and hunting no longer satisfied a people whose original propensities were horticultural; they aspired to cultivate the soil as they had once been accustomed to, and after the manner of the kindred tribes surrounding them. For this purpose they began throwing up little artificial garden beds, 'chinampas,' on which they planted Indian corn and perhaps some other vegetables. Such plots are still found as 'floating gardens,' in the vicinity of the present city of Mexico and they are described as follows by a traveler of this century:

"They are artificial gardens about fifty or sixty yards long, and not more than four or five wide. They are separated by ditches of three or four yards, and are made by taking the soil from the intervening ditch and throwing it on the chinampa, by which means the ground is raised generally about a yard, and thus forms a small fertile garden, covered with the finest culinary vegetables, fruits, and flowers...."

"Each consanguine relationship thus gradually surrounded the surface on which it dwelt with a number of garden plots sufficient to the wants of its members. The aggregate area thereof, including the abodes, formed the 'calpullalli'--soil of the 'calpulli'--and was held by it as a unit; the single tracts, however, being tilled and used for the benefit of the single families. The mode of tenure of land among the Mexicans at that period was therefore very simple. The tribe claimed its territory, 'altephetlalli,' an undefined expanse over which it might extend--the 'calpules,' however, held and possessed within that territory such portions of it as were productive; each 'calpulli' being sovereign within its limits, and assigning to its individual members for their use the minor tracts into which the soil was parcelled in consequence of their mode of cultivation. If, therefore, the terms 'altepetlalli' and 'calpulalli' are occasionally regarded as identical, it is because the former indicates the occupancy, the latter the distribution of the soil. We thus recognize in the calpulli, or kindred group, the unit of tenure of whatever soil the Mexicans deemed worthy of definite possession. Further on we shall investigate how far individuals, as members of this communal unit, participated in the aggregate tenure." [Footnote: Alonzo de Zurita (p. 51). Ixtlilxochitl ("Hist. des Chichim," cap. XXXV, p. 242). Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545). Bustamante ("Tezcoco en los ultimos Tiempos de sus antiguas Reyes" p 232).]

"In the course of time, as the population further increased, segmentation occurred within the four original 'quarters,' new 'calpulli' being formed."

For governmental purposes this segmentation produced a new result by leaving, more particularly in military affairs, the first four clusters as great subdivisions. [Footnote: "Art of War, etc.," pp. 115 and 120.]

But these, as soon as they had disaggregated, ceased to be any longer units of territorial possession, their original areas being held thereafter by the 'minor quarters' (as Herrera, for instance, calls them), who exercised, each one within its limits, the same sovereignty which the original 'calpulli' formerly held over the whole.

A further consequence of this disaggregation was (by removing the tribal council farther from the calpules) the necessity for an official building, exclusively devoted to the business of the whole tribe alone.

This building was the 'teepan' called, even by Torquemada, 'house of the community'; it was, therefore, since the council of chiefs was the highest authority in the government, the 'council house' proper. It was erected near the center of the 'pueblo,' and fronting the open space reserved for public celebrations. But, whereas formerly occasional, gradually merging into regular, meetings of the chiefs were sufficient, constant daily attendance at the 'teepan' became required, even to such an extent that a permanent residence of the head-chief there resulted from it and was one of the duties of the office. Consequently the 'tlacatecuhtli, his family, and such assistants as he needed (like runners), dwelt at the 'official house.' But this occupancy was in no manner connected with a possessory right by the occupant, whose family relinquished the abode as soon as the time of office expired through death of its incumbent. The 'teepan' was occupied by the head war-chiefs only as long as they exercised the functions of that office. [Footnote: Nearly every author who attempts to describe minutely the "chief-house" (teepan) mentions it as containing great halls (council-rooms). See the description of the teepan of Tezcuco by Ixtlilxochitl ("Hist. des Chichimbuques," cap. XXXVI, p. 247)]

"Of those tracts whose products were exclusively applied to the governmental needs of the pueblo or tribe itself (taken as an independent unit) there were, as we have already seen, two particular classes:

"The first was the 'teepan-tlalli,' land of the house of the community, whose crops were applied to the sustenance of such as employed themselves in the construction, ornamentation, and repairs of the public house. Of these there were sometimes several within the tribal area. They were tilled in common by special families who resided on them, using the crops in compensation for the work they performed on the official buildings.

"The second class was called 'tlatoca-tlalli,' land of the speakers. Of these there was but one tract in each tribe, which was to be 'four hundred of their measures long on each side, each measure being equal to three Castilian rods."

The crops raised on such went exclusively to the requirements of the household at the 'teepan,' comprising the head-chief and his family with the assistants. The tract was worked in turn by the other members of the tribe, and it remained always public ground, reserved for the same purposes. [Footnote: Veytia (Lib. III, cap. VI, p. 195). It is superfluous to revert to the erroneous impression that the chiefs might dispose of it.]

Both of these kinds were often comprised in one, and it is even not improbable that the first one may have been but a variety of the general tribute-lands devoted to the benefit of the conquering confederates. Still the evidence on this point is too indefinite to warrant such an assumption.

While the crops raised on the 'teepan-tlalli,' as well as on the 'tlatoca-tlalli,' were consumed exclusively by the official houses and households of the tribe, the soil itself which produced these crops was neither claimed nor possessed by the chiefs themselves or their descendants. It was simply, as far as its products were concerned, official soil.

The establishing and maintaining of these areal subdivisions was very simple with the tribes of the mainland, since they all possessed ample territories for their wants and for the requirements of their organizations. Their soil formed a contiguous unit. It was not so, however, with the Mexicans proper. With all their industry in adding artificial sod to the patch on which they had originally settled, the solid surface was eventually much too small for their numbers, and they themselves put an efficient stop to further growth thereof by converting, as we have seen elsewhere, for the purpose of defence, their marshy surroundings into water-sheets, through the construction of extensive causeways. [Footnote: "Art of War" (pp. 150 and 151). L. H. Morgan ("Ancient Society," Part II, cap. VII, pp. 190 and 191)].

While the remnants of the original 'teepantlalli' and of the 'tlatocatlalli' still remained visible in the gardens, represented to us as purely ornamental, which dotted the pueblo of Mexico, the substantial elements wherewith to fulfill a purpose for which they were no longer adequate had, in course of time, to be drawn from the mainland. But it was not feasible, from the nature of tribal condition, to extend thither by colonization. The soil was held there by other tribes, whom the Mexicans might well overpower and render tributary, but whom they could not incorporate, since the kinships composing these tribes could not be fused with their own. Outposts, however, were established on the shores, at the outlets of the dykes, at Tepeyacac on the north, at Iztapalapan, Mexicaltzinco, and at Huitzilopocheo to the south, but these were only military positions, and beyond them the territory proper of the Mexicans never extended.

Tribute, therefore, had to furnish the means for sustaining their governmental requirements in the matter of food, and the tribute lands had to be distributed and divided, so as to correspond minutely to the details of their home organization. For this reason we see, after the overthrow of the Tecpanecas, lands assigned apparently to the head war-chiefs, to the military chiefs of the quarters, 'from which to derive some revenue for their maintenance and that of their children.' [Footnote: Tezozomoc (Cap. XV, p. 24)1]

These tracts were but 'official tracts,' and they were apart from those reserved for the special use of the kinships. The latter may have furnished that general tribute which, although given nominally to the head war-chief, still was 'for all the Mexicans in common.'

The various classes of lands which we have mentioned were, as far as their tenure is concerned, included in the 'calpulalli' or lands of the kinships. Since the kin, or 'calpulli,' was the unit of governmental organization, it also was the unit of landed tenure. Clavigero says: 'The lands called altepetlalli, that is, those who belonged to the communities of the towns and villages, were divided into as many parts as there were quarters in a town, and each quarter held its own for itself, and without the least connection with the rest. Such lands could in no manner be alienated.' [Footnote: "Storia del Messico" (Lib. VII, cap. XVI).] These 'quarters' were the 'calpulli'; hence it follows that the consanguine groups held the altepetlalli or soil of the tribe.

"We have, therefore, in Mexico the identical mode of the tenure of lands which Polo de Ondogardo had noted in Peru and reported to the King of Spain, as follows.... 'Although the crops and other produce of these lands were devoted to the tribute, the land itself belonged to the people themselves. Hence a thing will be apparent which has not hitherto been properly understood. When any one wants land, it is considered sufficient if it can be shown that it belonged to the Inca or to the sun. But in this the Indians are treated with great injustice; for in those days they paid the tribute, and the land was theirs."

"The expanse held and occupied by the calpulli, and therefore called 'calpulalli' was possessed by the kin in joint tenure. It could neither be alienated nor sold; in fact, there is no trace of barter or sale of land previous to the conquest."

If, however, any calpulli weakened, through loss of numbers from any cause whatever, it might farm out its area to another similar group, deriving subsistence from the rent.

If the kinship died out, and its lands therefore became vacant, then they were either added to those of another whose share was not adequate for its wants or they were distributed among all the remaining calpulli.' [Footnote: Zurita (p. 52): "When a family dies out, its lands revert to the calpulli, and the chief distributes them among such members of the quarter as are most in need of it."]

The calpulli was a democratic organization. Its business lay in the hands of elective chiefs--'old men' promoted to that dignity, as we intend to prove in a subsequent paper, for their merits and experience, and after severe religious ordeals. These chiefs formed the council of the kin or quarter, but their authority was not absolute, since on all important occasions a general meeting of the kindred was convened. [Footnote: Zurita (pp. 60, 61, 62). Ramirez de Fuenleal ("Letter," etc., Ternaux-Compaus, p. 249).]

The council in turn selected an executive, the 'calpullec' or 'chinancallec,' who in war officiated as 'achcacauhtin' or 'teachcauhtin' (elder brother).

This office was for life or during good behavior. [Footnote: Zurita (pp. 60 and 61). Herrera (Dec. III, Lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 125): "I le elegian entre si y tenian por maior."]

It was one of his duties to keep a reckoning of the soil of the calpulli, or 'calpulalli,' together with a record of its members, and of the areas assigned to each family, and to note also whatever changes occurred in their distribution.

Such changes, if unimportant, might be made by him; more important ones, or contested cases, had to be referred to the council of the kinship, which in turn often appealed to a gathering of the entire quarter. [Footnote: Zurita "Rapport," etc., pp. 56 and 62. We quote him in preference, since no other author known to us has been so detailed.]

The 'calpulalli' was divided into lots or arable beds, 'tlalmilli'.

Therefore the chiefs and their families, although they could not, from the nature of their duties, till the land themselves, still could remain entitled to their share of 'tlalmilpa' as members of the calpulli. Such tracts were cultivated by others for their use. They were called by the specific name of 'pillali' (lands of the chiefs or of the children, from 'piltontli,' boy, or 'piltzintli', child), and those who cultivated them carried the appellation of 'tlalmaitl'--hands of the soil.

The 'tlalmilpa,' whether held by chiefs or by ordinary members of the kin ('macehuales'), were, therefore, the only tracts of land possessed for use by individuals in ancient Mexico. They were so far distinguished from the 'tecpantlalli' and 'tlatocatlalli' in their mode of tenure as, whereas the latter two were dependent from a certain office, the incumbent of which changed at each election, the 'tlalmilli' was assigned to a certain family, and its possession, therefore, connected with customs of inheritance.

Being thus led to investigate the customs of Inheritance of the ancient Mexicans, we have to premise here, that the personal effects of a deceased can be but slightly considered. The rule was, in general, that whatever a man held descended to his offspring.

Among most of the northern Indians a large cluster participated.

In conformity with the organization of society based upon kin, when in the first stage of its development, the kindred group inherited, and the common ancestor of this kin being considered a female, it follows that if a man died, not his children, still less his wife, but his mother's descendants, that is, his brothers, sisters, in fact the entire consanguine relationship from which he derived on his mother's side, were his heirs. [Footnote: "Ancient Society" (Part II, cap. II, p. 75; Part IV, cap. I, pp. 528, 530, 531, 536, and 537).] Such may have been the case even among the Muysca of New Granada.

It was different, however, in Mexico, where we meet with traces of a decided progress. Not only had descent been changed to the male line, [Footnote: Motolinia (Trat. II, cap. V, p. 120). Gomara (p. 434). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap XIII). Zurita (pp. 12 and 43).] but heirship was limited, to the exclusion of the kin and of the agnates themselves, to the children of the male sex.

Whatever personal effects a father left, which were not offered up in sacrifice at the ceremonies of his funeral, they were distributed among his male offsprings, and if there were none, they went to his brothers. Females held nothing whatever, beyond their wearing apparel and some few ornaments for personal use.

The 'tlalmilli' itself, at the demise of a father, went to his oldest son, with the obligation to improve it for the benefit of the entire family until the other children had been disposed of by marriage.

But the other males could apply to the chief of the calpulli for a 'tlalmilli' of their own; the females went with their husbands. Single blessedness, among the Mexicans, appears to have occurred only in case of religious vows, and in which case they fell back for subsistence upon the part allotted to worship, or in case of great infirmities, for which the calpulli provided.

No mention is made of the widow participating in the products of the 'tlalmilli,' still it is presumable that she was one of those whom the oldest son had to support. There are indications that the widow could remarry, in which case her husband, of course, provided for her.

"The customs of Inheritance, as above reported, were the same with chiefs as well as with the ordinary members of the tribe. Of the personal effects very little remained, since the higher the office was which the deceased had held, the more display was made at his cremation, and consequently the more of his dresses, weapons, and ornaments were burnt with the body. Of lands, the chiefs only held each their 'tlalmilli' in the usual way, as members of their kin, whereas the other 'official' lots went to the new incumbents of the offices. It should always be borne in mind that none of these offices were hereditary themselves. Still, a certain 'right of succession' is generally admitted as having existed. Thus, with the Tezcucans, the office of head war-chief might pass from father to son, at Mexico from brother to brother, and from uncle to nephew." [Footnote: Zurita (p. 12). Gomara (Vedia I, p. 434). Torquemada (Lib. IX, cap. IV, p. 177; Lib. XI, cap. 27, p. 356, etc. etc.).]

This might, eventually, have tended to perpetuate the office in the family, and with it also the possession of certain lands, attached to that officer's functions and duties. But it is quite certain too that this stage of development had not yet been reached by any of the tribes of Mexico at the time of its conquest by the Spaniards. The principal idea had not yet been developed, namely, that of the domain, which, in eastern countries at least, gradually segregated into individually hereditary tenures and ownerships.

"Out of the scanty remains thus left of certain features of aboriginal life in ancient Mexico, as well as out of the conflicting statements about that country's early history, we have now attempted to reconstruct the conceptions of the Mexican aborigines about tenure of lands, as well as their manner of distribution thereof. Our inquiries seem to justify the following conclusions:

"1. The notion of abstract ownership of the soil, either by a nation or state, or by the head of its government, or by individuals, was unknown to the ancient Mexicans.

"2. Definite possessory right was vested in the kinships composing the tribe; but the idea of sale, barter, or conveyance or alienation of such by the kin had not been conceived.

"3. Individuals, whatever might be their position or office, without any exception, held but the right to use certain defined lots for their sustenance, which right, although hereditary in the male line, was nevertheless limited to the conditions of residence within the area held by the kin, and of cultivation either by or in the name of him to whom the said lots were assigned.

"4. No possessory rights to land were attached to any office or chieftaincy. As members of a kin, each chief had the use of a certain lot, which he could rent or farm to others, for his benefit.

"5. For the requirements of tribal business, and of the governmental features of the kinships (public hospitality included), certain tracts were set apart as official lands, out of which the official households were supplied and sustained; but these lands and their products were totally independent from the persons or families of the chiefs themselves.

"6. Conquest of any tribe by the Mexicans was not followed by an annexation of that tribe's territory, nor by an apportionment of its soil among the conquerors. Tribute was exacted, and, for the purpose of raising that tribute (in part), special tracts were set off; the crops of which were gathered for the storehouses of Mexico.

"7. Consequently, as our previous investigations (of the warlike institutions and customs of the ancient Mexicans) have disproved the generally received notion of a military despotism prevailing among them, so the results of his review of Tenure and distribution of lands tend to establish 'that the principle and institution of feudality did not exist in aboriginal Mexico.'"

Among the Peruvians their land system was probably much the same as among the ancient Mexicans. But according to Garcilapo de la Vega, they had carried their system with respect to lands a little farther. Their lands, he remarks, were "divided into three parts and applied to different uses. The first was for the Sun, his priests and ministers; the second was for the King, and for the support and maintenance of his governors and officers.... And the third was for the natives and sojourners of the provinces, which was divided equally according to the needs which each family required." [Footnote: Royal Commentaries of Peru, Lond. ed., 1688. Rycaut, trans., p. 154.]

While these several statements may not present the exact case in all respects in Peru, Mexico, or among the Northern Indian tribes, they sufficiently indicate the ownership of land by communities of persons, larger or smaller, with a system of tillage that points to large households. Neither the Peruvians, nor the Aztecs, nor any Indian tribe had attained to a knowledge of the ownership of land in severalty in fee simple at the period of their discovery. This knowledge belongs to the period of civilization. There is not the slightest probability that any Indian, whether Iroquois, Mexican, or Peruvian, owned a foot of land that he could call his own, with power to sell and convey the same in fee simple to whomsoever he pleased.

THE CUSTOM OF HAVING BUT ONE PREPARED MEAL EACH DAY--A DINNER--AND THEIR SEPARATION AT MEALS, THE MEN EATING FIRST AND THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN AFTERWARDS.

This was the usage among the Indian tribes in the Lower Status of barbarism. In the Middle Status there seems to have been more method and regularity of life, but no change in their customs with respect to food, so marked in character that we are forced to recognize a new plan of domestic life among them. The Iroquois had but one cooked meal each day. It was as much as their resources and organization for housekeeping could furnish, and was as much as they needed. It was prepared and served usually before the noon-day hour, ten or eleven o'clock, and may be called a dinner. At this time the principal cooking for the day was done. After its division at the kettle, among the members of the household, it was served warm to each person in earthen or wooden bowls. They had neither tables, nor chairs, nor plates, in our sense, nor any room in the nature of a kitchen or a dining room, but ate each by himself, sitting or standing, and where most convenient to the person. They also separated as to the time of eating, the men eating first and by themselves, and the women and children afterwards and by themselves. That which remained was reserved for any member of the household when hungry. Towards evening the women cooked hominy, the maize having been pounded into bits the size of a kernel of rice, which was boiled and put aside to be used cold as a lunch in the morning or evening, and for the entertainment of visitors. They had neither a formal breakfast nor a supper. Each person, when hungry, ate of whatever food the house contained. They were moderate eaters. This is a fair picture of Indian life in general in America, when discovered. After intercourse commenced with whites, the Iroquois gradually began to adopt our mode of life but very slowly. One of the difficulties was to change the old usage and accustom themselves to eat together. It came in by degrees, first with the breaking up of the old plan of living together in numbers in the old long-houses, and with the substitution of single houses for each family, which ended communism and living in the large household, and substituted the subsistence of a single family through individual effort. After many years came the use of the table and chairs among the more advanced families of the Iroquois tribes. There are still upon the Iroquois reservations in this State many log homes or cabins with but a single room on the ground floor and a loft above, with neither a table or chair in their scanty furniture. A portion of them still live very much in the old style, with perhaps two regular meals daily instead of one. That they have made this much of change in the course of two centuries must be accounted remarkable, for they have been compelled, so to speak, to jump one entire ethnical period, without the experience or training of so many intervening generations, and without the brain-growth such a change of the plan of domestic life implies, when reached through natural individual experience. There is a tradition still current among the Seneca-Iroquois, if the memory of so recent an occurrence may be called traditional, that when the proposition that man and wife should eat together, which was so contrary to immemorial usage, was first determined in the affirmative, it was formally agreed that man and wife should sit down together at the same dish and eat with the same ladle, the man eating first and then the woman, and so alternately until the meal was finished.

The testimony of such writers as have noticed the house-life of the Indian tribes is not uniform in respect to the number of meals a day. Thus Catlin remarks, "As I have before observed these men (the Mandans) generally eat but twice a day, and many times not more than once, and these meals are light and simple.... The North American Indians, taking them in the aggregate, even when they have an abundance to subsist on, eat less than any civilized population of equal numbers that I have ever traveled among." [Footnote: North American Indians, Philadelphia ed., 1857, i, 203.]

And Heckewelder, speaking of the Delawares and other tribes, says: "They commonly make two meals every day, which they say is enough. If any one should feel hungry between meal-times, there is generally something in the house ready for him."

There was doubtless some variation in different localities, and even in the same household; but as a general rule, from what is known of their mode of life, one prepared meal each day expresses very nearly all the people in this condition of society can do for the sustenance of mankind.

Although the sedentary Village Indians were one ethnical period in advance of the Northern Indians, there can be but little doubt that their mode of life in this respect was substantially the same. Among the Aztecs or ancient Mexicans a dinner was provided about midday, but we have no satisfactory account of a breakfast or a supper habitually and regularly prepared. Civilization, with its diversified industries, its multiplied products, and its monogamian family, affords a breakfast and supper in addition to a dinner. It is doubtful whether they are older than civilization; and even if they can be definitely traced backward into the older period of barbarism, there is little probability of their being found in the Middle period. Clavigero attempts to invest the Aztecs with a breakfast, but he was unable to find any evidence of a supper. "After a few hours of labor in the morning," he observes, "they took their breakfast, which was most commonly atolli, a gruel of maize, and their dinner after midday; but among all the historians we can find no mention of their supper." [Footnote: History of Mexico, ii, 262.]

The "gruel of maize" here mentioned as forming usually the Aztec breakfast suggests the "hominy of the Iroquois," which, like it, was not unlikely kept constantly prepared in every Mexican house as a lunch for the hungry. Two meals each day are mentioned by other Spanish authors, but as the Aztecs, as well as the tribes in Yucatan and Central America, were ignorant of the use of tables and chairs in eating their food, divided their food from the kettle, placing the dinner of each person usually in a separate bowl, and separated at their meals, the men eating first and by themselves, and the women and children afterwards, this similarity of usage renders it probable they were not far removed from the Iroquois in respect to the time and manner of taking their food. Montezuma's dinner, witnessed by Bernal-Diaz and others, and elaborately described by a number of authors, shows that the Aztecs had a smoking hot dinner each day, prepared regularly, and on a scale adequate to a large household; that the dinner of each person was placed in one bowl, and all these bowls to the number of several hundred were brought in and set down together upon the floor of one room, where they were taken up one by one by the male members of the household, and the contents eaten sitting down upon the floor or standing in the open court, as best suited them. The breakfast that preceded it, and the supper that follows, are not mentioned, from which we infer that there was neither a breakfast nor a supper for these inquisitive observers to see. Neither is the subsequent dinner of the women and children of the household mentioned, from which it may be inferred that as the men ate their dinner first in a particular hall by themselves, the women and children took their dinner later in another hall, not seen by the Spaniards.

In the accounts of Montezuma's dinner a cook-house or kitchen is mentioned, in which the dinner for the large household of the "Tecpan" or "official house," so fully explained above by Mr. Bandelier, was prepared. This kitchen, and the use of another room, where the bowls containing the dinner of each person separately were set down on the floor in a mass by themselves--an incipient dining-room--make their first appearance in the Middle Status of barbarism. But, as will be noticed, they are but rude realizations of the kitchen and dining-room of civilized man. The pueblo houses in Yucatan and Chiapas, now in ruins, are without chimneys, from which it may be inferred that no cooking was done within them. At Uxmal we recognize in the Governor's House, the Tecpan or official-house, and in the House of the Nuns, and other structures which formed the pueblo, the joint-tenement houses in which the body of the tribe resided. If the truth of the matter is ever ascertained, it will probably be found that the dinner for each household group, consisting of several families, was prepared in a common cook-house outside of the main structure, and that it was divided at the kettle to the individuals of each household.

The separation of the sexes at their meals has been sufficiently referred to among the Iroquois. Robertson states the usage as general. "They must approach their lords with reverence; they must regard them as more exalted beings, and are not permitted to eat in their presence." [Footnote: History of America, New York ed., 1856, 178.]

Catlin the same: "These women, however, although graceful and civil, and ever so beautiful, or ever so hungry, are not allowed to sit in the same group with the men while at their meals. So far as I have yet traveled in the Indian country, I have never seen an Indian woman eating with her husband. Men form the first group at the banquet, and women and children and dogs all come together at the next." [Footnote: North American Indians, i, 202.] And Adair "for the men feast by themselves and the women eat the remains." [Footnote: History of the American Indians, p. 140.]

Herrera remarks that "the woman of Yucatan are rather larger than the Spanish and generally have good faces ... but they would formerly be drunk at their festivals, though they did eat apart." [Footnote: History of America, iv, 175.] And Sahagun, speaking of the ceremony of baptism among the Aztecs, observes that "to the women, who ate apart, they did not give cacao to drink." [Footnote: Historia General, lib. iv, 36]

With these general references to the universality of the practice on the part of the men of eating first, and leaving the women and children to come afterwards, according to the manners of barbarism, we leave the subject.

"The calpullis, families or quarters, are very common in each province. Among the lands which were given to the chefs of the second class there were also calpullis. These lands are the property of the people in general ('de la masse du peuple') from the time the Indians reached this land. Each family or tribe received a portion of the soil for perpetual enjoyment. They also had the name of calpulli, and until now this property has been respected. They do not belong to each inhabitant of the village in particular, but to the calpulli, which possesses them in common." Don Ramirez de Fuenleal, letter dated Mexico, 3 Nov., 1532 ("Recueil de pieces," etc, Ternaux-Compans, p. 253): "There are very few people in the villages which have lands of their own ... the lands are held in common and cultivated in common." Herrera (Dec. III, Lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 135) confirms, in a condensed form, the statement of Zurita, "and they are not private lands of each one, but held in common." Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545.) Veytia (Lib. III, cap. VI, p. 196). "Finally, there were other tracts of lands in each tribe, called calpulalli, which is land of the calpules (barrios), which also were worked in common." Oviedo (Lib. XXXII, cap. LI, pp. 536 and 537). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. XIV). Bustamante ("Tezcoco," etc., Parte IIIa, cap. V. p. 232).]