Mr. Bandelier reaches the following conclusions:
1. Abstract ownership either by the state or the individual was unknown.
2. Right of possession was vested in the kin, or clan. The idea of alienation was never entertained.
3. Individuals only held the right to use certain lots.
4. No rights of possession were attached to any office or chieftaincy.
5. For tribal business certain lands were set apart independent of persons.
6. Conquest was followed not by annexation or apportionment, but by tribute.
7. Feudalism could not prevail under these conditions.
Of the kin, or clan, it should be noted that, first, the kin claimed the right to name its members; second, it was the duty of the kin to educate its members; third, it was accustomed to regulate marriage; fourth, one attribute of the kin was the right of common burial; fifth, the kin had to protect its members; sixth, it exercised the right of electing its officers and of deposing them. (Montezuma, “chief of men,” was deposed before he died.)—M.
[43] This was an exception.—In Egypt, also, the king was frequently taken from the warrior caste, though obliged afterwards to be instructed in the mysteries of the priesthood: ὁ δὲ ἐκ μαχίμων ἀποδεδειγένος εὐθὺς ἐγίνετο τῶν ίέρων. Plutarch, de Isid. et Osir., sec. 9.