Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines Part 9

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 a.s.sist 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 circ.u.mstance, 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 a.s.sign him land, whereby the t.i.tle 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 doc.u.ments 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 t.i.tles. 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 t.i.tles, 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 t.i.tles made possible by Spanish and American intercourse, show quite plainly that their ideas respecting the ownership of the ultimate t.i.tle 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 t.i.tle 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 cla.s.ses of land recognized among them, the manner in which they were held, and his general conclusions.

In the pueblo of Mexico (Tenocht.i.tlan), he remarks, "Four quarters had been formed by the localizing of four relationships composing them respectively, and it is expressly stated that each one might build in its quarter (barrio) as it liked." [Footnote: Duran (Cap V p.

42), Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. VII, p. 467), Herrera (Dec. III, Lib. II, cap. XI, p. 61).]

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

[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 1 relocated to chapter end.]

The ground thus occupied by the 'calpulli' was NOT, as Torquemada admits, a.s.signed 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 a.s.signed locations to any of its fractions. This is only attributed to the chiefs, on the supposition that they, although elective, were still hereditary monarchs.]

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

[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 2 relocated to chapter end.]

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

[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 3 relocated to chapter end.]

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

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

"Each consanguine relationship thus gradually surrounded the surface on which it dwelt with a number of garden plots sufficient to the wants of its members. The aggregate area thereof, including the abodes, formed the 'calpullalli'--soil of the 'calpulli'--and was held by it as a unit; the single tracts, however, being tilled and used for the benefit of the single families. The mode of tenure of land among the Mexicans at that period was therefore very simple.

The tribe claimed its territory, 'altephetlalli,' an undefined expanse over which it might extend--the 'calpules,' however, held and possessed within that territory such portions of it as were productive; each 'calpulli' being sovereign within its limits, and a.s.signing 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, partic.i.p.ated in the aggregate tenure." [Footnote: Alonzo de Zurita (p. 51).

Ixtlilxochitl ("Hist. des Chichim," cap. x.x.xV, p. 242). Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545). Bustamante ("Tezcoco en los ultimos Tiempos de sus antiguas Reyes" p 232).]

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

[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 4 relocated to chapter end.]

For governmental purposes this segmentation produced a new result by leaving, more particularly in military affairs, the first four cl.u.s.ters as great subdivisions. [Footnote: "Art of War, etc.," pp.

115 and 120.]

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

[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 5 relocated to chapter end.]

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

[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 6 relocated to chapter end.]

This building was the 'teepan' called, even by Torquemada, 'house of the community'; it was, therefore, since the council of chiefs was the highest authority in the government, the 'council house' proper.

It was erected near the center of the 'pueblo,' and fronting the open s.p.a.ce 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 a.s.sistants 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 inc.u.mbent. 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. x.x.xVI, 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 cla.s.ses:

"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 cla.s.s was called 'tlatoca-tlalli,' land of the speakers.

Of these there was but one tract in each tribe, which was to be 'four hundred of their measures long on each side, each measure being equal to three Castilian rods."

[Footnote: Ixtlilxochitl ("Hist. des Chichim," cap. x.x.xV, p. 242).

Vedia (Lib. III, cap. VI, p. 195). "This had to be four hundred of their measures in square ('encuadro,' each side long), each one of these being equal to three Castilian rods".... See "Art of War"

(p. 944, note 183). "The rod" (vara) is equal to 2.78209 feet English (Guyot).]

The crops raised on such went exclusively to the requirements of the household at the 'teepan,' comprising the head-chief and his family with the a.s.sistants. 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 a.s.sumption.

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

[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 7 relocated to chapter end.]

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

150 and 151). L. H. Morgan ("Ancient Society," Part II, cap. VII, pp.

190 and 191)].

While the remnants of the original 'teepantlalli' and of the 'tlatocatlalli' still remained visible in the gardens, represented to us as purely ornamental, which dotted the pueblo of Mexico, the substantial elements wherewith to fulfill a purpose for which they were no longer adequate had, in course of time, to be drawn from the mainland. But it was not feasible, from the nature of tribal condition, to extend thither by colonization. The soil was held there by other tribes, whom the Mexicans might well overpower and render tributary, but whom they could not incorporate, since the kinships composing these tribes could not be fused with their own.

Outposts, however, were established on the sh.o.r.es, at the outlets of the d.y.k.es, at Tepeyacac on the north, at Iztapalapan, Mexicaltzinco, and at Huitzilopocheo to the south, but these were only military positions, and beyond them the territory proper of the Mexicans never extended.

[Footnote: Humboldt ("Essai politique sur la Nouvelle Espagne," Vol.

II, Lib. III, cap. VIII, p. 50): Nearly all the old authors describe the pueblo buildings as surrounded by pleasure-grounds or ornamental gardens. It is very striking that, the pueblo having been founded in 1325, and nearly a century having been spent in adding sufficient artificial soil to the originally small solid expanse settled, the Mexicans could have been ready so soon to establish purely decorative parks within an area, every inch of which was valuable to them for subsistence alone!]

[Footnote: The Mexican tribe proper cl.u.s.tered extensively within the pueblo of Tenucht.i.tlan. The settlements at Iztapalapan, Huntzilopocheo, and Mexicaltzinco were but military stations-- outworks, guarding the issues of the causeways to the South.

Tepeyacac (Guadalupe Hidalgo) was a similar position--unimportant as to population--in the north. Chapultepec was a sacred spot, not inhabited by any number of people and only held by the Mexicans for burial purposes, and on account of the springs furnishing fresh water to their pueblo.]

Tribute, therefore, had to furnish the means for sustaining their governmental requirements in the matter of food, and the tribute lands had to be distributed and divided, so as to correspond minutely to the details of their home organization. For this reason we see, after the overthrow of the Tecpanecas, lands a.s.signed 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 cla.s.ses 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."