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.).]
[Footnote: 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.]
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.