Chapter XV: The Culture of the Civilized Tribes.1 (1)

Different views on this question—Reason for the same—Their
architecture—Different styles of houses—The communal house—The
tecpan—The teocalli—State of society indicated by this
architecture—The gens among the Mexicans—The phratry among the
Mexicans—The tribe—The powers and duties of the council—The head
chiefs of the tribe—The duties of the “Chief-of-men”—The mistake
of the Spaniards—The Confederacy—The idea of property among the
Mexicans—The ownership of land—Their laws—Enforcement of the
laws—Outline of the growth of the Mexicans in power—Their tribute
system—How collected—Their system of trade—Slight knowledge of
metallurgy—Religion—Quietzalcohuatl—Huitzilopochtli—Mexican
priesthood—Human sacrifices—The system of Numeration—The calendar
system—The calendar stone—Picture writing—Landa
alphabet—Historical outline.

Alandscape presents varied aspects according to the standpoint
from which it is viewed. Here we have a glimpse of hill and dale;
there a stretch of running water. But two persons, standing in
the same position, owing to their different mental temperaments,
will view things in a different light. Where one, an artist born,
is carried away with the beautiful scenery, another, with a more
practical turn of mind, perceives only its adaptability for
investments. Education and habits of life are also very potent
factors in determining our views on various questions. Scholars
of wide and extended learning differ very greatly in their views
of questions deeply affecting human interests. We know how true
that is of abstruse topics, such as religion and questions of
state polity. It is also true of the entire field of scientific
research. The unknown is a vastly greater domain than the known,
and men, after deep and patient research, adopt widely different
theories to explain the same facts.

It need, therefore, occasion no surprise to learn that there is a
great difference of opinion as to the real state of culture among
the so-called civilized tribes of Mexico and Central America. We
have incidentally mentioned this difference in describing the
ruins and their probable purpose. As one of the objects we have
in view, and perhaps the most important one, is to learn what we
can of the real state of society amongst the prehistoric people
we treat of, it becomes necessary to examine these different
views, and, if we can not decide in our own minds what to accept
as true, we will be prepared to receive additional evidence that
scholars are now bringing forward, and know to how weigh them and
compare them with others.

It has only been within the last few years that we have gained an
insight into the peculiar organization of Indian society. After
some centuries of contact between the various tribes of Indians
and whites, their social organization was still unknown. But we
are now beginning to understand this, and the important discovery
has also been made that this same system of government was very
widely spread, indeed. This subject has, however, been as
extensively treated as is necessary in chapter xii, so we need
not stop longer. But if, with all the light of modern learning,
we have only lately gained a clear understanding of the social
organization of Indian tribes, it need occasion no surprise, nor
call for any indignant denial, to affirm that the Spaniards
totally misunderstood the social organization of the tribes with
which they came in contact in Mexico.

We must also take into consideration the political condition of
Europe at this time. Feudalism still exercised an influence on
men’s minds. The Spanish writers, in order to convey to Europeans
a knowledge of the country and its inhabitants, applied European
names and phrases to American Indian (advanced though they were)
personages and institutions. But the means employed totally
defeated the object sought. Instead of imparting a clear idea, a
very erroneous one was conveyed.

As an illustration of this abuse of language, we might refer to
the case of Montezuma, which name itself is a corruption of the
Mexican word “Motecu-zoma,” meaning literally “my wrathy chief.”
Mr. Bandelier2 and Mr. Morgan have quite clearly shown what his
real position was. His title was “chief of men.”3 He was simply
one of the two chief executive officers of the tribe and general
of the forces of the confederacy. His office was strictly
elective, and he could be deposed for misdemeanor. Instead of
giving him his proper title, and explaining its meaning, the
Spaniards bestowed on him the title of king, which was soon
enlarged to that of emperor, European words, it will be observed,
which convey an altogether wrong idea of Mexican society. Many
such illustrations could be given.

The literature that has grown up about this subject is very
voluminous, but the authors not being acquainted with the
organization of Indian society, have not been able to write
understandingly about them. We do not flatter ourselves that we
have now solved all the difficulties of the case. But since Mr.
Morgan has succeeded in throwing such a flood of light on the
constitution of ancient society, and especially of Indian
society, and Mr. Bandelier has given us the results of his
careful investigation of the culture of the Mexicans, we feel
that a foundation has been laid for a correct understanding of
this vexed problem.

We will now examine their architecture, or style of building. In
dealing with prehistoric people, we have several times referred
to the tribal state of government, involving village life and
communism in living. We have seen how this principle enabled us
to understand the condition of Europe during the Neolithic Age.
In still another place we have used this principle to show the
connection of the Pueblo Indians and other tribes of the United
States. Now we think this is the key which is to explain many of
the ruins we have described in the preceding chapter. But another
principle to be borne in mind, is that of defense. War, we have
seen, is really the normal state of things amongst tribal
communities. Therefore, either some position naturally strong
must be selected as a village site, or the houses themselves must
be fortified, after the fashion of Indians. This will be found to
explain many peculiarities in their method of construction.

Amongst the pueblo structures of to-day, and among the ruins of
the cliff-dwellers, we have seen how compact every thing was. The
estufa, or place of council and worship, was built in close
proximity to the other building, and sometimes it formed part of
it, and we do not learn that there was any thing distinguishing
about the apartments of the chief. Further South a change is
noticed. A specialization of structures, if we may use such an
expression, has taken place, and, among the Mexicans, three kinds
of houses were distinguished. It is extremely probable the same
classification could be made elsewhere. There was, first of all,
the ordinary dwelling houses. Every vestige of aboriginal
buildings in the pueblos of Mexico has long since disappeared,
and our knowledge of these structures can only be gathered from
the somewhat confused accounts of the early writers.

Many, perhaps most, of the houses had a terraced, pyramidal
foundation. Some were constructed on three sides of a court, like
those on the Rio Chaco, in New Mexico. Others probably surrounded
an open court, or quadrangle. The houses were of one and two
stories in height. When two stories, the upper one receded from
the first, probably in the terraced form. As serving to connect
them with the more ornamental structures in Yucatan, we are told
they were sometimes “adorned with elegant cornices and stucco
designs of flowers and animals, which were often painted with
brilliant colors. Prominent among these figures was the coiling
serpent.”4 After pointing out, by many citations, that the
evidence always was that these houses were occupied by many
families, Mr. Morgan concludes, “They were evidently joint
tenement-houses of the aboriginal American model, each occupied
by a number of families ranging from five and ten to one hundred,
and perhaps, in some cases, two hundred families in a house.”5

We can discern this kind of dwelling-house in many of the
descriptions we have given of the ruins in the preceding chapter.
M. Charney evidently found them at Tulla and Teotihuacan. Mr.
Bandelier concludes that similar ruins once crowded the terraces
at Cholula, and that to this class belongs the ruins at Mitla.
The Palace, at Palenque, is evidently but another instance, as
well as the House of Nuns, at Uxmal. In fact, with our present
knowledge of the pueblos of Arizona, and the purposes which they
subserved, as well as the uses made of such houses by the
Mexicans, we are no longer justified in bestowing upon the
structures in Yucatan the name of palaces.

The mistake was excusable among the Spaniards. They were totally
ignorant of the mode of life indicated by these joint
tenement-houses. When they found one of these large structures,
capable of accommodating several hundred occupants, with its
inner court, terraced foundation, and ornamented by stucco work,
or sculpture, it was extremely natural that they should call it a
palace, and cast about for some titled owner.

A second class of houses includes public buildings. The Mexicans,
when at the height of their power, required buildings for public
use, and this was doubtless true of the people who inhabited
Uxmal and Palenque. The most important house was the tecpan, the
official house of the tribe, the council house proper. This was
the official residence of the “chief of men” and his assistants,
such as runners. This was the place of meeting of the council of
chiefs. It was here that the hospitality of the Pueblo was
exercised. Official visitors from other tribes and traders from a
distance were provided with accommodations here. When Cortez and
his followers entered Mexico they were provided for at the
tecpan. We would not expect to find these public buildings,
except in rich and prosperous pueblos. It has been suggested that
the Governor’s House at Uxmal was the official house of that
settlement. The large halls, suitable for council purposes, favor
this idea.6

A third class of buildings was the teocalli, or “House of God”—in
other words, the temple. These were quite common. Each of the
gens that composed the Mexican tribe had its own particular
medicine lodge or temple. This was doubtless true of each and
every tribe of sedentary Indians in the territory we are
describing. “The larger temples were usually built upon pyramidal
parallelograms, square or oblong, and consisted of a series of
superimposed terraces with perpendicular or sloping sides.”7 It
is not necessary to dwell longer on this style of buildings. We
have only to recall the temples of the Sun, of the Cross, and of
the Beau-relief at Palenque; the House of the Dwarf at Uxmal, and
the Citadel at Chichen-Itza, to gather a clear idea of their
construction.

The architecture of a people is a very good exponent of their
culture. Yet all have seen what different views are held as to
the culture of the tribes we are considering. We have, perhaps,
said all that is required on this part of the subject, yet even
repetition is pardonable if it enables us to more clearly
understand our subject. The ornamentation on the ruins of Yucatan
is so peculiar that in our opinion it has unduly influenced the
judgment of explorers in this matter. They lose sight of the fact
that the apartments of the houses are small, dark, and illy
ventilated.

That they should hive gone to the trouble of so profusely
decorating their usual places of abode is, indeed, somewhat
singular.8 But Mitla was certainly an inhabited pueblo at the
time of the Spanish conquest, and there is no good reason for
concluding it was ever any thing more than a group of communal
buildings. Yet, from the description given of it, we can not see
that the buildings are greatly inferior in decoration to the
structures in Yucatan. And yet again, from the imperfect accounts
we have of the aboriginal structures in the pueblo of Mexico, we
infer they were constructed on the general plan of communal
buildings. As for the decorations, we have seen they had
sometimes elaborate cornices, and were covered with stucco
designs of animals and flowers. In this case some of them were,
to be sure, public buildings for tribal purposes, but the
majority of them were certainly communal residences. With these
facts before us, we can not do otherwise than conclude that these
so-called ruins of great cities we have described are simply the
ruins of pueblos, consisting of communal houses, temples, and, in
the case of large and powerful tribes, official houses. To this
conclusion we believe American scholars are tending more and
more.

This requires us to dismiss the idea that the majority of the
people lived in houses of a poorer construction, which have since
disappeared, leaving the ruins of the houses of the nobles. There
was no such class division of the people as this would signify.
These ruins were houses occupied by the people in common. With
this understanding, a questioning of the ruins can not fail to
give us some useful hints. We are struck with their ingenuity as
builders. They made use of the best material at hand. In Arizona
the dry climate permits of the use of adobe bricks, which were
employed, though stone was also used. Further south the pouring
tropical rains would soon bring down in ruins adobe structures
and so stone alone is used.

In the Arizona pueblo we have a great fortress-built house, three
and four stories high, and no mode of access to the lower story.
This is in strict accord with Indian principles of defense, which
consists in elevated positions. Sometimes this elevated position
was a natural hill, as at Quemada, Tezcocingo, and Xochicalco.
Where no hill was at hand they formed a terraced pyramidal
foundation, as at Copan, Palenque, and Uxmal. In the highest
forms of this architecture this elevation is faced with stone, or
even composed throughout of stone, as in the case of the House of
Nuns at Chichen-Itza. In the construction of houses progress
seems to have taken place in two directions. The rooms increased
in size. In some of the oldest pueblo structures in Arizona the
rooms were more like a cluster of cells than any thing else.9

They grow larger towards the South. In the house at Teotihuacan
M. Charney found a room twenty-seven feet wide by forty-one feet
long. Two of the rooms in the Governor’s House at Uxmal are sixty
feet long. But the buildings themselves diminish in size. In
Mexico the majority of the houses were but one story high, and
but very few more than two stories. In Yucatan but few instances
are recorded of houses two stories high. We must remember that
throughout the entire territory we are considering the tribes had
no domestic animals, their agriculture was in a rude state, and
they were practically destitute of metals.10 They could have been
no farther advanced on the road to civilization than were the
various tribes of Europe during the Bronze Age. Remembering this,
we can not fail to be impressed with the ingenuity, patient toil,
and artistic taste they displayed in the construction and
decoration of their edifices.

It may seem somewhat singular that we should treat of their
architecture before we do of their system of government, but we
were already acquainted with the ruins of the former. When we
turn to the latter we find ourselves involved in very great
difficulties. The description given of Mexican society by the
majority of writers on these topics represent it as that of a
powerful monarchy. The historian Prescott, in his charming work11
draws a picture that would not suffer by comparison with the
despotic magnificence of Oriental lands. At a later date Mr.
Bancroft, supporting himself by an appeal to a formidable list of
authorities, regilds the scene.12 But protests against such views
are not wanting. Robertson, in his history, though bowing to the
weight of authority can not forbear expressing his conviction
that there had been some exaggeration in the splendid description
of their government and manners.13 Wilson, more skeptical, and
bolder, utterly repudiates the old accounts, and refuses to
believe the Aztecs were any thing more than savages.14

With such divergent and conflicting views, we at once perceive
the necessity of carefully scanning all the accounts given, and
make them conform, if possible, to what is known of Indian
institutions and manners. The Mexicans are but one of several
tribes that are the subjects of our research; but their
institutions are better known than the others, and, in a general
way, whatever is true of them will be true of the rest. We have
seen the efforts of the Spanish explorers to explain whatever
they found new or strange in America by Spanish words, and the
results of such procedure. We are at full liberty to reject their
conclusions and start anew.

What the Spaniards found around the lakes of Mexico was a union
or confederacy of three tribes. Very late investigations by Mr.
Bandelier have established the presence of the usual subdivisions
of the tribes. So we have here a complete organization according
to the terms of ancient society: that is, the gens, phratry,
tribe, and confederacy of tribes. It is necessary that we spend
some time with each of these subdivisions before we can
understand the condition of society among the Mexicans, and, in
all probability, the society among all of the civilized nations
of Central America.

We will begin with the gens, or the lowest division of the tribe.
We must understand its organization before we can understand that
of a tribe, and we must master the tribal organization before
attempting to learn the workings of the confederacy. To neglect
this order, and commence at the top of the series, is to make the
same mistake that the older writers did in their studies into
this culture. A gens has certain rights, duties, and privileges
which belong to the whole gens, and we will consider some of the
more important in their proper place. We must understand by a
gens a collection of persons who are considered to be all related
to each other. An Indian could not, of his own will, transfer
himself from one gens to another. He remained a member of the
gens into which he was born. He might, by a formal act of
adoption, become a member of another gens; or he might, in
certain contingencies, lose his connection with a gens and become
an outcast. There is no such thing as privileged classes in a
gens. All its members stand on an equal footing. The council of
the gens is the supreme ruling power in the gens. Among some of
the northern tribes, all the members in the gens, both male and
female, had a voice in this council. In the Mexican gens, the
council itself was more restricted. The old men, medicine men,
and distinguished men met in council—but even here, on important
occasions, the whole gens met in council.

Each gens would, of course, elect its own officers. They could
remove them from office as well, whenever occasion required. The
Mexican gentes elected two officers. One of these corresponded to
the sachem among northern tribes. His residence was the official
house of the gens. He had in charge the stores of the gens; and,
in unimportant cases, he exercised the powers of a judge. The
other officer was the war-chief. In times of war he commanded the
forces of the gens. In times of peace he was, so to speak, the
sheriff of the gens.

The next division of the tribe was the phratry—the word properly
meaning a brotherhood. Referring to the outline below, we notice
that the eight gentes were reunited into two phratries. Mr.
Morgan tells us that the probable origin of phratries was from
the subdivision of an original gens. Thus a tradition of the
Seneca Indians affirms that the Bear and the Deer gentes were the
original gentes of that tribe.15 In process of time they split up
into eight gentes, which would each have all the rights and
duties of an original gens—but, for certain purposes, they were
still organized into two divisions.

TRIBE.
First Phratry, or Brotherhood.
Bear Wolf Beaver Turtle
Gens.

Second Phratry, or Brotherhood.
Deer Snipe Heron Hawk
Gens.

Each of these larger groups is called a phratry. All of the
Iroquois tribes were organized into phratries, and the same was,
doubtless, true of the majority of the tribes of North America.
The researches of Mr. Bandelier have quite conclusively
established the fact, that the ancient Mexican tribe consisted of
twenty gentes reunited as four phratries, which constituted the
four quarters of the Pueblo of Mexico.

It is somewhat difficult to understand just what the rights and
duties of a phratry were. This division does not exist in all
tribes. But, as it was present among the Mexicans, we must learn
what we can of its powers. Among the Iroquois the phratry was
apparent chiefly in religious matters, and in social games. They
did not elect any war-chief. The Mexican phratry was largely
concerned with military matters. The forces of each phratry went
out to war as separate divisions. They had their own costumes and
banners. The four phratries chose each their war-chief, who
commanded their forces in the field, and who, as commander, was
the superior of the war-chiefs of the gentes.

In time of peace, they acted as the executors of tribal justice.
They belonged to the highest grade of war-chiefs in Mexico—but
there was nothing hereditary about their offices. They were
strictly elective, and could be deposed for cause. They were in
no case appointed by a higher authority. One of these chiefs was
always elected to fill the office of “Chief of Men;”16 and, in
cases of emergency, they could take his place—but this would be
only a temporary arrangement.

Ascending the scale, the next term of the series is the tribe.
The Spanish writers took notice of a tribe, but failed to notice
the gens and phratry. This is not to be considered a singular
thing. The Iroquois were under the observation of our own people
two hundred years before the discovery was made in reference to
them. “The existence among them of clans, named after animals,
was pointed out at an early day, but without suspecting that it
was the unit of a social system upon which both the tribe and the
confederacy rested.”17 But, being ignorant of this fact, it is
not singular that they made serious mistakes in their description
of the government.

We now know that the Mexican tribe was composed of an association
of twenty gentes, that each of these gens was an independent
unit, and that all of its members stood on an equal footing.
This, at the outset, does away with the idea of a monarchy. Each
gens would, of course, have an equal share in the government.
This was effected by means of a council composed of delegates
from each gens. There is no doubt whatever of the existence of
this council among the Mexicans. “Every tribe in Mexico and
Central America, beyond a reasonable doubt, had its council of
chiefs. It was the governing body of the tribe, and a constant
phenomenon in all parts of aboriginal America.”18 The Spanish
writers knew of the existence of this council, but mistook its
function. They generally treat of it as an advisory board of
ministers appointed by the “king.”

Each of the Mexican gens was represented in this council by a
“Speaking Chief,” who, of course was elected by the gens he
represented. All tribal matters were under the control of this
council. Questions of peace and war, and the distribution of
tribute, were decided by the council. They also had judicial
duties to perform. Disputes between different gentes were
adjusted by them. They also would have jurisdiction of all crimes
committed by those unfortunate individuals who were not members
of any gens, and of crimes committed on territory not belonging
to any gens, such as the Teocalli, Market-place, and Tecpan.

The council must have regular stated times of meeting; they could
be called together at any time. At the time of Cortez’s visits
they met daily. This council was, of course, supreme in all
questions coming before it; but every eighty days there was a
council extraordinary. This included the members of the council
proper, the war-chiefs of the four phratries, the war-chiefs of
the gentes, and the leading medicine men. Any important cause
could be reserved for this meeting, or, if agreed upon, a
reconsideration of a cause could be had. We must understand that
the tribal council could not interfere in any matter referring
solely to a gens; that would be settled by the gens itself.

The important points to be noticed are, that it was an elective
body, representing independent groups, and that it had supreme
authority. But the tribes needed officers to execute the decrees
of the council. Speaking of the Northern tribes, Mr. Morgan says,
“In some Indian tribes, one of the sachems was recognized as its
head chief; and so superior in rank to his associates. A need
existed, to some extent for an official head of the tribe, to
represent it when the council was not in session. But the duties
and powers of the office were slight. Although the council was
superior in authority, it was rarely in session, and questions
might arise demanding the provisional action of some one
authorized to represent the tribe, subject to the ratification of
his acts by the council.”19

This need was still more urgent among the Mexicans; accordingly
we find they elected two officials for this purpose. It seems
this habit of electing two chief executives was quite a common
one among the tribes of Mexico and Central America. We have
already noticed that the Mexican gentes elected two such officers
for their purpose. We are further told that the Iroquois
appointed two head war-chiefs to command the forces of the
confederacy.20

One of the chiefs so elected by the Mexicans bore the somewhat
singular title of “Snake-woman.” He was properly the head-chief
of the Mexicans. He was chairman of the council and announced its
decrees. He was responsible to the council for the tribute
received, as far as it was applied to tribal requirements, and
for a faithful distribution of the remainder among the gentes.
When the forces of the confederacy went out to war, he commanded
the tribal forces of Mexico; but on other occasions this duty was
fulfilled by his colleague, who was the real war-chief of the
Mexicans. His title was “Chief-of-men.” This is the official who
appears in history as the “King of Mexico,” sometimes, even, as
“Emperor of Anahuac.” The fact is, he was one of two equal
chiefs; he held an elective office, and was subordinate to the
council.

When the confederacy was formed, the command of its forces was
given to the war-chief of the Mexicans; thus he was something
more than a tribal officer. His residence was the official house
of the tribe. “He was to be present day and night at this abode,
which was the center wherein converged the threads of information
brought by traders, gatherers of tribute, scouts and spies, as
well as all messages sent to, or received from, neighboring
friendly or hostile tribes. Every such message came directly to
the ‘Chief-of-men,’ whose duty it was, before acting, to present
its import to the ‘Snake-woman,’ and, through him, call together
the council.” He might be present at the council, but his
presence was not required, nor did his vote weigh any more than
any other member of the council, only, of course, from the
position he occupied, his opinion would be much respected. He
provided for the execution of the council’s conclusions. In case
of warp he would call out the forces of the confederacy for
assistance. As the procurement of substance by means of tribute
was one of the great objects of the confederacy, the gathering of
it was placed under the control of the war-chief, who was
therefore the official head of the tribute-gatherers.

We have thus very imperfectly and hastily sketched the
governmental organization of the Mexican tribe. It is something
very different from an empire. It was a democratic organization.
There was not an officer in it but what held his office by
election. This, to some, may seem improbable, because the
Spaniards have described a different state of things. We have
already mentioned one reason why they should do so—that was their
ignorance of Indian institutions. We must also consider the
natural bias of their minds. The rule of Charles the V was any
thing but liberal. It was a part of their education to believe
that a monarchical form of government was just the thing; they
were accordingly prepared to see monarchical institutions,
whether they existed or not.

Then there was the perfectly natural disposition to exaggerate
their achievements. To spread in Europe the report that they had
subverted a powerfully organized monarchy, having an emperor, a
full line of nobles, orders of chivalry, and a standing army,
certainly sounded much better than the plain statement that they
had succeeded in disjointing a loosely connected confederacy,
captured and put to death the head war chief of the principal
tribe, and destroyed the communal buildings of their pueblo.

We must not forget that, from an Indian point of view, the
confederacy was composed of rich and powerful tribes. This is
especially true of the Mexicans. The position they held, from a
defensive standpoint, was one of the strongest ever held by
Indians. They received a large amount of tribute from subject
tribes, along with the hearty hatred of the same. From the time
Cortez landed on the shore he had heard accounts of the wealth,
power, and cruelty of the Mexicans. When he arrived before Mexico
the “Chief-of-men,” Montezuma, as representative of tribal
hospitality, went forth to meet him, extending “unusual
courtesies to unusual, mysterious, and therefore dreaded,
guests.” We may well imagine that he was decked out in all the
finery his office could raise, and that he put on as much style
and “court etiquette” as their knowledge and manner of life would
stand.

The Spaniards immediately concluded that he was king, and so he
was given undue prominence. They subsequently learned of the
council, and recognized the fact that it was really the supreme
power. They learned of the office of “Snake-woman,” and
acknowledged that his power was equal to that of the
“Chief-of-men.” They even had some ideas of phratries and gentes.
But, having once made up their minds that this was a monarchy,
and Montezuma the monarch, they were loath to change their views,
or, rather, they tried to explain all on this supposition, and
the result is the confused and contradictory accounts given of
these officials and divisions of the people. But every thing
tending to add glory to the “Empire of Montezuma” was caught up
and dilated upon. And so have come down to us the commonly
accepted ideas of the government of the ancient Mexicans.

That these views are altogether erroneous is no longer doubted by
some of the very best American scholars. The organization set
forth in this chapter is one not only in accord with the results
obtained by the latest research in the field of ancient society,
but a careful reading of the accounts of the Spanish writers
leads to the same conclusions.21 In view of these now admitted
facts, it seems to us useless to longer speak of the government
of the Mexicans as that of an empire.

We have as yet said nothing of the league or confederacy of the
three tribes of Mexico, Tezcuco, and Tlacopan; nor is it
necessary to dwell at any great length on this confederacy now.
They were perfectly independent of each other as regards tribal
affairs; and for the purpose of government, were organized in
exactly the same way as were the Mexicans. The stories told of
the glories, the riches, and power of the kings of Tezcuco, if
any thing, outrank those of Mexico. We may dismiss them as
utterly unreliable. Tribal organization resting on phratries and
gentes, and the consequent government by the council of the tribe
was all the Spaniards found. These three tribes, speaking
dialects of the same stock language, inhabiting contiguous
territory, formed a league for offensive and defensive purposes.
The commander-in-chief of the forces raised for this purpose was
the “Chief-of-men” of the Mexicans.

We have confined our researches to the Mexicans. Mr. Bandelier,
speaking of the tribes of Mexico, remarks: “There is no need of
proving the fact that the several tribes of the valley had
identical customs, and that their institutions had reached about
the same degree of development.” Or if such proofs were needed,
Mr. Bancroft has furnished them. So that this state of society
being proven among the Mexicans, it may be considered as
established among the Nahua tribes. Neither is there any
necessity of showing that substantially the same state of
government existed among the Mayas of Yucatan. This is shown by
their architecture, by their early traditions, and by many
statements in the writings of the early historians. These can
only be understood and explained by supposing the same social
organization existed among them as among the Mexicans.

But this does not relegate these civilized nations to savagism.
On the other hand, it is exactly the form of government we would
expect to find among them. They were not further along than the
Middle Status of barbarism. They were slowly advancing on the
road that leads to civilization, and their form of government was
one exactly suited to their needs, and one in keeping with their
state of architecture. When we gaze at the ruins of their
material structures, we must consider that before us are not the
only ruins wrought by the Spaniards; the native institutions were
doomed as well. Traces of this early state of society are,
however, still recoverable, and we must study them well to learn
their secret.

We have yet before us a large field to investigate; that is, the
advance made in the arts of living among these people. This is
one of the principal objects of our present research. We are here
slightly departing from the prehistoric field, and entering the
domain of history. But the departure is justifiable, as it serves
to light up an extensive field, that is, the manner of life among
the civilized nations just before the coming of the Spaniards.
And first we will examine their customs in regard to property. We
have in a former chapter reverted to the influence of commerce
and trade in advancing culture. The desire for wealth and
property which is such a controlling power to-day was one of the
most efficient agents in advancing man from savagism to
civilization. The idea of property, which scarcely had an
existence during that period of savagism, had grown stronger with
every advance in culture. “Beginning in feebleness, it has ended
in becoming the master passion of the human mind.”

The property of savages is limited to a few articles of personal
use; consequently, their ideas as to its value, and the
principles of inheritance, are feeble. They can scarcely be said
to have any idea as to property in lands, though the tribe may
lay claim to certain hunting-grounds as their own. As soon as the
organization of gens arose, we can see that it would affect their
ideas of property. The gens, we must remember, was the unit of
their social organization.

They had common rights, duties, and privileges, as well as common
supplies; and hence the idea arose that the property of the
members of a gens belonged to the gens. At the death of an
individual, his personal property would be divided among the
remaining members of the gens. “Practically,” says Mr. Morgan,
“they were appropriated by the nearest of kin; but the principle
was general that the property should remain in the gens.”22 That
this is a true statement there is not the shadow of a doubt. This
was the general rule of inheritance among the Indian tribes of
North America. As time passed on, and the tribes learned to
cultivate the land, some idea of real property would arise—but
not of personal ownership.

This is quite an important topic; because, when we read of lords
with great estates, we are puzzled to know how to reconcile such
statements with what we now know of the nature of Mexican tribal
organization. Mr. Bandelier has lately gone over the entire
subject. He finds that the territory on which the Mexicans
originally settled was a marshy expanse of land which the
surrounding tribes did not value enough to claim.

This territory was divided among the four gentes of the tribe. As
we have already seen, each of these four gentes subsequently
split up into other independent gentes until there were twenty in
all. Each of these gens held and possessed a portion of the
original soil. This division of the soil must have been made by
tacit consent. The tribe claimed no ownership of these tracts,
still less did the head-chief. Furthermore, the only right the
gentes claimed in them was a possessory one. “They had no idea of
sale or barter, or conveyance, or alienation.” As the members of
a gens stood on equal footing, this tract would be still further
divided for individual use. This division would be made by the
council of the gens. But we must notice the individual acquired
no other right to this tract of land than a right to cultivate
it—which right, if he failed to improve, he lost. He could,
however, have some one else to till it for him. The son could
inherit a father’s right to a tract.

We have seen that the Mexicans had a great volume of tribal
business to transact, which required the presence of an official
household at the tecpan. Then the proper exercise of tribal
hospitality required a large store of provisions. To meet this
demand, certain tracts of the territory of each gens were set
aside to be worked by communal labor. Then, besides the various
officers of the gens, and the tribe, who, by reason of their
public duties, had no time to till the tracts to which, as
members of a gens, they would be entitled, had the same tilled
for them by communal labor. This was not an act of vassalage, but
a payment for public duties.

This is a very brief statement of their customs as regards
holding of lands. It gives us an insight into the workings of
ancient society. It shows us what a strong feature of this
society was the gens, and we see how necessary it is to
understand the nature of a gens before attempting to understand
ancient society. We see that, among the civilized nations of
Mexico and Central America, they had not yet risen to the
conception of ownership in the soil. No chief, or other officer,
held large estates. The possessory right in the soil was vested
in the gens composing the tribe, and they in turn granted to
individuals certain definite lots for the purpose of culture. A
chief had no more right in this direction than a common warrior.
We can easily see how the Spaniards made their mistake. They
found a community of persons holding land in common, which the
individuals could not alienate. They noticed one person among
them whom the others acknowledged as chief. They immediately
jumped to the conclusion that this chief was a great “lord,” that
the land was a “feudal estate,” and that the persons who held it
were “vassals” to the aforesaid “lord.”23

We must now consider the subject of laws, and the methods of
enforcing justice amongst the civilized nations. The laws of the
Mexicans, like those of most barbarous people, are apt to strike
us as being very severe; but good reasons, according to their way
of thinking, exist for such severity. The gens is the unit of
social organization; which fact must be constantly borne in mind
in considering their laws. In civilized society, the State
assumes protection of person and property; but, in a tribal state
of society, this protection is afforded by the gens. Hence, “to
wrong a person was to wrong his gens; and to support a person was
to stand behind him with the entire array of his gentile
kindred.”

The punishment for theft varied according to the value of the
article stolen. If it were small and could be returned, that
settled the matter. In cases of greater value it was different.
In some cases the thief became bondsman for the original owner.
In still others, he suffered death. This was the case where he
stole articles set aside for religion—such as gold and silver, or
captives taken in war; or, if the theft were committed in the
market-place. Murder and homicide were always punished with
death. According to their teaching, there was a great gulf
between the two sexes. Hence, for a person of one sex to assume
the dress of the other sex was an insult to the whole gens—the
penalty was death. Drunkenness was an offense severely
punished—though aged persons could indulge their appetite, and,
during times of festivities, others could. Chiefs and other
officials were publicly degraded for this crime. Common warriors
had their heads shaved in punishment.

These various penalties necessarily suppose judicial officers to
determine the offense and decree the punishment. Having
established, on a satisfactory basis, the Mexican empire, the
historians did not scruple to fit it out with the necessary
working machinery of such an organization. Accordingly we are
presented with a judiciary as nicely proportioned as in the most
favored nations of to-day. But when, under the more searching
light of modern scholarship, this empire is seen to be something
quite different, we find the whole judicial machinery to be a
much more simple affair.

Not much need be added on this point to what we have already
mentioned. Each gens, through its council, would regulate its own
affairs, and would punish all offenses against the law committed
by one of its members against another. Of necessity the decision
of this council had to be final. There was no appeal from its
decision. The council of the tribe had jurisdiction in all other
cases—such as might arise between members of different gentes, or
among outcasts not connected with any gens, or such as were
committed on territory not belonging to any gens.

For this work, the twenty chiefs composing the council were
subdivided into two bodies, sitting simultaneously in the
different halls of the tecpan. This division was for the purpose
of greater dispatch in business. They did not form a higher and
lower court, with power of the one to review the decisions of the
other. They were equal in power and the decisions of both were
final. The decision of the council, when acting in a judicial
capacity, would be announced by their foreman, who was, as we
have seen, the head-chief of the Mexicans—the Snake-woman. It is
for this act that the historian speaks of him as the supreme
judge, and makes him the head of judicial authority.24 His
decisions were, of course, final, not because he made them, but
because they were the conclusions of the council.

The “Chief-of-men,” the so-called “king,” did not properly have
any judicial authority. He was their war-chief, and not a judge;
but from the very nature of his office he had some powers in this
direction. As commander-in-chief, he possessed authority to
summarily punish (with death, if necessary) acts of
insubordination and treachery during war. It was necessary to
clothe him with a certain amount of discretionary power for the
public good. Thus, the first runner that arrived from the coast
with news of the approach of the European ships was, by the order
of Montezuma, placed in confinement. “This was done to keep the
news secret until the matter could be investigated, and was
therefore a preliminary measure of policy.” Placed at the tecpan
as the official head of the tribe, he had power to appoint his
assistants. But this power to appoint implied equal power to
remove, and to punish.25

This investigation into their laws and methods of enforcing them,
carries us to the conclusion already arrived at. It is in full
keeping with what we would expect of a people in the Middle
Status of barbarism. We also see how little real foundation there
is for the view that this was a monarchy. There is no doubt but
that the pueblo of Mexico was the seat of one of the largest and
most powerful tribes, and the leading member of one of the most
powerful confederacies that had ever existed in America.

It may be of interest for us to inquire as to what was the real
extent of this power, and the means employed by the Mexicans to
maintain this power; also how they had succeeded in attaining the
same. They were not by nature more gifted than the surrounding
tribes. The valley of Mexico is an upland basin. It is oval in
form, surrounded by ranges of mountains, rising one above the
other, with depressions between. The area of the valley itself is
about sixteen hundred square miles. The Mexicans were the last
one of the seven kindred tribes who styled themselves,
collectively, the Nahuatlacs. We treat of them as the Nahuas.

The Nahuas on the north and the Mayas on the south included the
civilized nations. When the Mexicans arrived in this valley, they
found the best situations already occupied by other tribes of
their own family. To escape persecution from these, they fled
into the marsh or swamp which then covered the territory which
they subsequently converted into their stronghold. Here on a
scanty expanse of dry soil, surrounded by extensive marshes, they
erected their pueblo. Being few in numbers they were overlooked
as insignificant, and thus they had a chance to improve their
surroundings. They increased the area of dry land by digging
ditches, and throwing the earth from the same on the surrounding
surface, and thus elevated it. In reality, in the marshes that
surrounded their pueblo was their greatest source of strength.
“They realized that while they might sally with impunity, having
a safe retreat behind them, an attack upon their position was
both difficult and dangerous for the assailant.” They were,
therefore, strong enough for purposes of defense. But they wished
to open up communication with the tribes living on the shore of
the great marsh in the midst of which they had their settlement.
For this purpose they applied to their near and powerful
neighbors, the Tecpanics, for the use of one of the springs on
their territory, and for the privilege of trade and barter in
their market. This permission was given in consideration that the
Mexicans become the weaker allies of the Tecpanics, that is, pay
a moderate tribute and render military assistance when called
upon.

The Pueblo of Mexico now rapidly increased in power.
Communication being opened with the mainland, it was visited by
delegates from other tribes, and especially by traders. They
fully perceived the advantages of their location and improved the
same. By the erection of causeways, they entirely surrounded
their pueblo with an artificial pond of large extent. To allow
for the free circulation of the water, sluices were cut,
interrupting these causeways at several places. Across these
openings wooden bridges were placed which could be easily removed
in times of danger.

Thus it was that they secured one of the strongest defensive
positions ever held by Indians. The Tecpanics had been the
leading power in the valley, but the Mexicans now felt themselves
strong enough to throw off the yoke of tribute to which they were
subject. In the war that ensued the power of the Tecpanics was
broken, and the Mexicans became at once one of the leading powers
of the valley. We must notice, however, that the Mexicans did not
gain any new territory, except the locality of their spring.
Neither did they interfere at all in the government of the
Tecpanics. They simply received tribute from them.

Once started on their career of conquest, the Mexicans, supported
by allies, sought to extend their power. The result was that soon
they had subdued all of the Nahua tribes of the valley except
one, that was a tribe located at Tezcuco. This does not imply
that they had become masters of the territory of the valley. When
a modern nation or state conquers another, they often add that
province to their original domain, and extend over it their code
of laws. This is the nature of the conquests of ancient Rome. The
territory of the conquered province became part of the Roman
Empire. They became subject to the laws of Rome. Public, works
were built under the direction of the conquerors, and they were
governed from Rome or by governors appointed from there.

Nothing of this kind is to be understood by a conquest by the
Mexicans, and it is necessary to understand this point clearly.
When they conquered a tribe, they neither acquired nor claimed
any right to or power over the territory of the tribe. They did
not concern themselves at all with the government of the tribe.
In that respect the tribe remained free and independent. No
garrisons of troops were stationed in their territory to keep
them in subjection; no governors were appointed to rule over
them. What the Mexicans wanted was tribute, and in case of war
they could call on them for troops. Secure in their pueblo
surrounded by water, they could sally out on the less fortunate
tribes who chose to pay tribute rather than to be subject to such
forays.

Instead of entering into a conflict with the tribe at Tezcuco,
the result of which might have been doubtful, a military
confederacy was formed, into which was admitted the larger part
of the old Tecpanic tribe that had their chief pueblo at
Tlacopan. The definite plan of this confederacy is unknown. Each
of the three tribes was perfectly independent in the management
of its own affairs. Each tribe could make war on its own account
if it wished, but in case it did not feel strong enough alone, it
could call on the others for assistance. When the force of the
confederacy went out to war, the command was given to the war
chief of the Mexicans, the “Chief-of-men.”

If a member of the confederacy succeeded in reducing by its own
efforts a tribe to tribute, it had the full benefit of such
conquest. But when the entire confederacy had been engaged in
such conquest, the tribute was divided into five parts, of which
two went to Mexico, two to Tezcuco, and one to Tlacopan. This
co-partnership for the purpose of securing tribute by the three
most powerful tribes of the valley, under the leadership of
Mexico, was formed about the year 1426, just about one hundred
years from the date of the first appearance of the Mexicans in
the valley.

From this time to the date of the Spanish conquest in 1520, the
confederate tribes were almost constantly at war with the
surrounding Indians, and particularly with the feeble village
Indians southward from the valley of Mexico to the Pacific, and
thence eastward well towards Guatemala. They began with those
nearest in position, whom they overcame, through superior
numbers, and concentrated action, and subjected to tribute. These
forays were continued from time to time for the avowed object of
gathering spoil, imposing tribute and capturing prisoners for
sacrifice, until the principal tribes within the area named, with
some exceptions, were subdued and made tributary.26

The territory of these tribes, thus subject to tribute,
constitutes what is generally known as the Mexican Empire.27 But,
manifestly, it is an abuse of language to so designate this
territory. No attempt was made for the formation of a State which
would include the various groups of aborigines settled in the
area tributary to the confederacy. “No common or mutual tie
connected these numerous and diverse tribes,” excepting hatred of
the Mexican confederacy. The tribes were left independent under
their own chiefs. They well knew the tribute must be forthcoming,
or else they would feel the weight of their conquerors’
displeasure. But such a domination of the strong over the weak,
for no other reason than to enforce an unwilling tribute, can
never form a nation, or an empire.28 These subject tribes, held
down by heavy burdens—inspired by enmity, ever ready to
revolt—gave no new strength to the confederacy: they were rather
an element of weakness. The Spaniards were not slow to take
advantage of this state of affairs. The tribes of Vera Cruz, who
could have imposed an almost impassable barrier to their advance
through that section, were ready to welcome them as deliverers.29
The Tlascaltecans, though never made tributary to the Mexicans,
had to wage almost unceasing war for fifty years preceding the
coming of the Spaniards. Without their assistance, Cortez would
never have passed into history as the conqueror of Mexico.