[Relocated Footnote 12: Each family, represented by its male head, obtained a certain tract or lot for cultivation and use, Zurita (p. 55). "The party (member of the calpulli, because no member of another one had the right to settle within the area of it—see Id., p. 53), who has no lands applies to the chief of the calpulli, who, upon the advice of the other old men, assigns to him such as corresponds 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 following year." Bustamante (Tezcoco, etc., Parte IIIa, 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. III, 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 themselves, 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 benefit. It was not the right of tenancy which authorizes the improvement, but the fact of improvement for a certain purpose and benefit, which secured the possession or tenancy.]
[Relocated Footnote 13: From "tlalli" soil, and "maitl" hand. Hands of the soil. Molma (Parte IIa, p. 124) has: "tlalmaitl"—"labrador, y ganyan." 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 "tecpantlaca" formerly mentioned as attending to a class official lands (p. 221, Zurita). Herrera (Dec. III, Lib. IV, cap. XVII, p. 138): "These mayeques could not go from one tract to another, neither leave those which they cultivated, and raised. They paid tribute to nobody else but the master of the land." This tends to show that there existed not an established obligation, a serfdom, but a voluntary contract, that the "tlalmaites" were not serfs, but simply renters.]
[Relocated Footnote 14: 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 hermanos y sobrinos, con tal que haganellos lo que el les mandare." Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. XIII): "In Mexico, and nearly the entire realm, the royal family excepted as already told, the sons succeeded to the father's rights; and if there were no sons, then the brothers, and the brothers' sons inherited." Bustamante ("Tezcoco," etc., p. 219): In all these cases, Bustamante only speaks of chiefs; but the quotations from Motolinia and Gomara directly apply to the people in general.]
[Relocated Footnote 15: Mr. L. H. Morgan has investigated the custom 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 organization 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 76). Wyandottes, Id., cap. VII, p. 153. Missouri-tribes, p. 155. Winnebagoes, p 157. Mandans, p 158. Minnitarees, p. 159. Creeks, p. 161. Choctas, p. 162. Chickasas, p. 163. Ojibwas, p. 167; also Potowattomies and Crees, Miamis, p. 168. Shawnees, p. 169. Sauks, Foxes and Menominies, p. 170. Delawares, p. 172. Munsees and Mohegans, p. 173. Finally, the pueblo Indians of New Mexico are shown to have, if not the identical at least a similar mode of inheritance. It would be easy to secure further evidence, from South America also.]
[Relocated Footnote 16: Letter of Motolinia and Diego d'Olarte, to Don Luis de Velasco, Cholula, 27 Aug., 1554 ("Recueil," etc., etc., p. 407): "The daughters did not inherit; it was the principal, wife's son" … "Besides, nearly every author designates but a son, or sons, as the heirs. There is no mention made of 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.]
CHAPTER V.
HOUSES OF INDIAN TRIBES NORTH OF NEW MEXICO.
The growth of the idea of house architecture in general is a subject more comprehensive than the scope of this volume. But there is one phase of this growth, illustrating as it does the condition of society and of the family in savagery and in barbarism, to which attention will be invited. It is found in the domestic architecture of the American aborigines, considered as a whole, and as parts of one system. As a system it stands related to the institutions, usages, and customs presented in the previous chapters. There is not only abundant evidence in the collective architecture of the Indian tribes of the gradual development of this great faculty or aptitude of the human mind among them, through three ethnical periods, but the structures themselves, or a knowledge of them, remain for comparison with each other. A comparison will show that they belong to a common indigenous system of architecture. There is a common principle running through all this architecture, from the hut of the savage to the commodious joint-tenement house of the Village Indians of Mexico and Central America, which will contribute to its elucidation.
The indigenous architecture of the Village Indians has given to them, more than aught else, their position in the estimation of mankind. The facts of their social condition in other respects, which, unfortunately, are obscure, have been much less instrumental in fixing their status than existing architectural remains. The Indian edifices in Mexico and Central America of the period of the Conquest may well excite surprise and even admiration; from their palatial extent, from the material used in their construction, and from the character of their ornamentation, they are highly creditable to their skill in architecture. But a false interpretation has, from the first, been put upon this architecture, as I think can be shown, and inferences with respect to the social condition and the degree of advancement of these tribes have been constantly drawn from it both fallacious and deceptive, when the plain truth would have been more creditable to the aborigines. It will be my object to give an interpretation of this architecture in harmony with the usages and customs of the Indian tribes. The houses of the different tribes, in ground-plan and mechanism, will be considered and compared, in order to show wherein they represent one system.
A common principle, as before stated, runs through all this architecture, from the "long-house" of the Iroquois to the "pueblo houses" of New Mexico, and to the so-called "palace" at Palenqne, and the "House of the Nuns" at Uxmal. It is the principle of adaptation to communism in living, restricted in the first instance to household groups, and extended finally to all the inhabitants of a village or encampment by the law of hospitality. Hunger and destitution were not known at one end of an Indian village while abundance prevailed at the other. Joint-tenement houses, each occupied by one large household, as among the Iroquois, or by several household groups, as in Yucatan, were the natural and inevitable result of their usages and customs. Communism in living and the law of hospitality, it seems probable, accompanied all the phases of Indian life in savagery and in barbarism. These and other facts of their social condition embodied themselves in their architecture, and will contribute to its elucidation.