The "community of goods, which is so prevalent among them," is explained by their large households formed of related families, who shared their provisions in common. The "seven families of Shoshones" in one house, and also the houses "crowded with men, women, and children," mentioned by Lewis and Clarke, are fair samples of Indian households in the early period.
We turn again to the southern tribes of the United States, the Cherokees, Choctas, Chickasas, and Confederated Creek tribes. James Adair, whose work was published in 1775, remarks generally upon their usages in the following language. "They are so hospitable, kind-hearted, and free, that they would share with those of their own tribe the last part of their own provisions, even to a single ear of corn; and to others, if they called when they were eating; for they have no stated meal time. An open generous temper is a standing virtue among them; to be narrow-hearted, especially to those in want, or to any of their own family, is accounted a great crime, and to reflect scandal on the rest of the tribe. Such wretched misers they brand with bad characters…. The Cherokee Indians have a pointed proverbial expression to the same effect— simtaweh ne wara, the great hawk is at home. However, it is a very rare thing to find any of them of a narrow temper; and though they do not keep one promiscuous common stock, yet it is to the very same effect; for every one has his own family or tribe; and when one of them is speaking, either of the individuals or habitations of any of his tribe, he says, 'he is of my house,' or 'it is my house'…. When the Indians are traveling in their own country, they inquire for a house of their own tribe [gens]; and if there be any, they go to it, and are kindly received, though they never saw the persons before—they eat, drink, and regale themselves with as much freedom as at their own table, which is the solid ground covered with a bear-skin…. Every town has a state-house or synedrion, as the Jewish sanhedrim, where, almost every night, the head men convene about public business; or the town's people to feast, sing, dance, and rejoice in the divine presence, as will fully be described hereafter. And if a stranger calls there, he is treated with the greatest civility and hearty kindness—he is sure to find plenty of their simple home fare, and a large cane-bed covered with the softened skins of bears or buffaloes to sleep on. But, when his lineage is known to the people (by a stated custom, they are slow in greeting one another), his relations, if he has any there, address him in a familiar way, invite him home, and treat him as a kinsman." [Footnote: History of the American Indians, London ed., 1775, p. 17.]
All these tribes were organized in gentes or clans, and the gentes of each tribe were usually reintegrated in two or more phratries. It is the gens to which Mr. Adair refers when he speaks of the "family," "relations," and "lineage." We find among them the same rule of hospitality, substantially, as prevailed among the Iroquois.
It is a reasonable conclusion, therefore, that among all the tribes, north of New Mexico, the law of hospitality, as practiced by the Iroquois, was universally recognized; and that in all Indian villages and encampments without distinction the hungry were fed through the open hospitality of those who possessed a surplus. Notwithstanding this generous custom, it is well known that the Northern Indians were often fearfully pressed for the means of subsistence during a portion of each year. A bad season for their limited productions, and the absence of accumulated stores, not unfrequently engendered famine over large districts. From the severity of the struggle for subsistence, it is not surprising that immense areas were entirely uninhabited, that other large areas were thinly peopled, and that dense population nowhere existed.
Among the Village Indians of New Mexico the same hospitality is now extended to Americans visiting their pueblos, and which presumptively is simply a reflection of their usage among themselves and toward other tribes. In 1852 Dr. Tenbroeck, assistant surgeon United States Army, accompanied his command to the Moki pueblos. In his journal he remarks: "Between eleven and twelve to-day we arrived at the first towns of Moki. All the inhabitants turned out, crowding the streets and house-tops to have a view of the white men. All the old men pressed forward to shake hands with us, and we were most hospitably received and conducted to the governor's house, where we were at once feasted upon guavas and a leg of mutton broiled upon the coals. After the feast we smoked with them, and they then said that we should move our camp in, and that they would give us a room and plenty of wood for the men, and sell us corn for the animals." [Footnote: Schoolcraft's History, Condition, and Prospects of the Indian Tribes, iv. 81.]
In 1858 Lieut. Joseph C. Ives was at the Moki Pueblo of Mooskahneh [Mi-shong-i-ni-vi]. "The town is nearly square," he remarks, "and surrounded by a stone wall fifteen feet high, the top of which forms a landing extending around the whole. Flights of stone steps lead from the first to a second landing, upon which the doors of the houses open. Mounting the stairway opposite to the ladder, the chief crossed to the nearest door and ushered us into a low apartment, from which two or three others opened towards the interior of the dwelling. Our host courteously asked us to be seated upon some skins spread along the floor against the wall and presently his wife brought in a vase of water and a tray filled with a singular substance that looked more like sheets of thin blue wrapping paper rolled up into bundles than anything else that I have ever seen. I learned afterwards that it was made of corn meal, ground very fine, made into a gruel, and poured over a heated stone to be baked. When dry it has a surface slightly polished like paper. The sheets are folded and rolled together, and form the staple article of food with the Moki Indians. As the dish was intended for our entertainment, and looked clean, we all partook of it. It had a delicate fresh-bread flavor, and was not at all unpalatable, particularly when eaten with salt." [Footnote: Report upon Colorado River of the West, Lieut. Ives, p. 121.]
Lieutenant-Colonel (now General) Emory visited the Pima villages on the Gila River in 1846. "I rode leisurely in the rear through the thatched huts of the Pimas. Each abode consisted of a dome-shaped wicker-work about six feet high, and from twenty to fifty feet in diameter, thatched with straw or cornstalks. In front is usually a large arbor, on top of which is piled the cotton on the pod for drying. In the houses were stowed watermelons, pumpkins, beans, corn, and wheat, the three last articles generally in large baskets. Sometimes the corn was in baskets, covered with earth, and placed on the tops of the domes. A few chickens and dogs were seen, but no other domestic animals except horses, mules, and oxen…. Several acquaintances formed in our camp yesterday, were recognized, and they received me cordially, made signs to dismount, and when I did so offered watermelons and pinole. Pinole is the heart of Indian corn, baked, ground up, and mixed with sugar. When dissolved in water it affords a delicious beverage; it quenches thirst, and is very nutritious…. The population of the Pimas and Maricopas together is estimated variously at from three to ten thousand. The first is evidently too low. This peaceful and industrious race are in possession of a beautiful and fertile basin. Living remote from the civilized world they are seldom visited by whites, and then only by those in distress, to whom they generously furnish horses and food." [Footnote: Military Reconnaissance in New Mexico, pp. 85, 86.]
In this case and in those stated by Lieutenant Ives and Dr. Tenbroeck we find a repetition of the Iroquois rule to set food before the guest when he first enters the house.
With respect to the Village Indians of Mexico, Central and South America, our information is, in the main, limited to the hospitality extended to the Spaniards; but it is sufficient to show that it was a part of their plan of life, and, as it must be supposed, a repetition of their usages in respect to each other. In every part of America that they visited, the Spaniards, although often in numbers as a military force, were assigned quarters in Indian houses, emptied of their inhabitants for that purpose, and freely supplied with provisions. Thus at Zempoala "the lord came out, attended by ancient men, two persons of note supporting him by the arms, because it was the custom among them to come out in that manner when one great man received another. This meeting was with much courtesy and abundance of compliments, and people were already appointed to find the Spaniards quarters and furnish provisions" [Footnote: Herrera's History of America, ii, 212.]
When near Tlascala the Tlascallans "sent three hundred turkeys, two hundred baskets of cakes of teutli, which they call tamales, being about two hundred arrobas; that is, fifty hundred weight of bread, which was an extraordinary supply for the Spaniards, considering the distress they were in;" and when at Tlascala, Cortes and his men "were generously treated, and supplied with all necessaries." [Footnote: ib., ii. 261, 279.]
"They entered Cholula and went to a house where they lodged altogether, and their Indians with them, although upon their guard, being for the present plentifully supplied with provisions." [Footnote: ib., ii, 311]
Although the Spaniards numbered about four hundred, and their allied Indians about a thousand, they found accommodations in a single joint tenement house of the Aboriginal American model. Attention is called to this fact, because we shall find the Village Indians, as a rule, living in large houses, each containing many apartments, and accommodating five hundred or more persons. The household of several families of the northern Indians reappears in the southern tribes in a much greater household of a hundred or more families in a single joint tenement house, but not unlikely broken up into several household groups. The pueblo consisted sometimes of one, sometimes of two or three, and sometimes of a greater number of such houses. The plan of life within these houses is not well understood, but it can still be seen in New Mexico, and it is to be hoped it will attract investigation.
Speaking of the Maya Indians of Yucatan, Herrera remarks that "they are still generous and free-hearted, so that they will make everybody eat that comes into their houses, which is everywhere practiced in traveling." [Footnote: Herrera's History of America, iv, 117.]
This is a fair statement of the Iroquois law of hospitality found among the Mayas, practiced among themselves and towards strangers from other tribes. When Grijalva, about 1517, discovered the Tabasco River, he held friendly intercourse with some of the tribes of Yucatan. "They immediately sent thirty Indians loaded with roasted fish, hens, several sorts of fruit, and bread made of Indian wheat." [Footnote: ib., ii, 126]
When Cortes, in 1525, made his celebrated expedition to Honduras, he passed near the pueblo of Palenque and near that of Copan without being aware of either, and visited the shore of Lake Peten. "Being well received in the city of Apoxpalan, Cortes and all the Spaniards, with their horses, were quartered in one house, the Mexicans being dispersed into others, and all of them plentifully supplied with provisions during their stay." [Footnote: ib., iii, 359.]
They numbered one hundred and fifty Spanish horse and several hundred Aztecs. It was at this place, according to Herrera, that Quatemozin, who accompanied Cortes as a prisoner, was barbarously executed by his command. [Footnote: ib., iii, 361.] Cortes next visited an island in Lake Peten, where he was sumptuously entertained by Canec, the chief of the tribe, where they "sat down to dinner in stately manner, and Canec ordered fowls, fish cakes, honey, and fruit." [Footnote: ib., iii, 362.]
In South America the same account of the hospitality of the Indian tribes is given by the early explorers. About the year 1500 Christopher Guerra made a voyage to the coast of Venezuela: "They came to an anchor before a town called Curiana, where the Indians entreated them to go ashore, but the Spaniards being no more than thirty-three in all durst not venture…. At length, being convinced of their sincerity, the Spaniards went ashore, and being courteously entertained, staid there twenty days. They plentifully supplied them for food with venison, rabbits, geese, ducks, parrots, fish, bread made of maize or Indian wheat, and other things, and brought them all the game they would ask for…. They perceived that they kept markets or fairs, and that they made use of jars, pitchers, pots, dishes, and porringers, besides other vessels of several shapes." [Footnote: Herrera's Hist. America, iv, 248.]
Pizarro found the same custom among the Peruvians and other tribes of the coast. At the time of his first visit to the coast of Peru he found a female chief by whom he was entertained. "The lady came out to meet them with a great retinue, in good order, holding green boughs and ears of Indian wheat, having made an arbor where were seats for the Spaniards, and for the Indians at some distance. They gave them to eat fish and flesh dressed in several ways, much fruit, and such bread and liquor as the country afforded." [Footnote: ib., i, 229.]
When on the coast of Tumbez, and before landing, "ten or twelve floats were immediately sent out with a plenty of provisions, fruits, pots of water, and of chica, which is their liquor, as also a lamb." [Footnote: ib., iv, 3.]
After entering Peru, on his second visit to the coast, "Atahuallpa's messengers came and presented the governor with ten of their sheep from the Inca, and some other things of small value, telling him very courteously that Atahuallpa had commanded them to inquire what day he intended to be at Caxamalca, that he might have provisions on the way." [Footnote: ib., iii, 399.]
* * * * *
"The next day more messengers came from Atahuallpa with provisions, which he received with thanks.". [Footnote: ib., iv, 244.]
The native historian, Garcilasso de la Viga, remarks: "Nor were the Incas, among their other charities, forgetful of the conveniences for travelers, but in all the great roads built houses or inns for them, which they called corpahuaci, where they were provided with victuals and other necessaries for their journeys out of the royal stores; and in case any traveler fell sick on the way, he was there attended and care taken of him in a better manner perhaps than at his own home." [Footnote: Royal Commentaries of Peru, Lond. ed., 1688; Recent Trans., p 145.]
These illustrations, which might be multiplied, are sufficient to show the universality of the practice of hospitality among the Indian tribes of America at the epoch of European discovery. Among all these forms, as stated by different observers, the substance of the Iroquois law of hospitality is plainly found, namely: If a man entered an Indian house, whether a villager, a tribesman, or a stranger, and at whatever hour of the day, it was the duty of the women of the house to set food before him. An omission to do this would have been a discourtesy amounting to an affront. If hungry, he ate, if not hungry, courtesy required that he should taste the food and thank the giver. It is seen to have been a usage running through three ethnic conditions of the Indian race, becoming stronger as the means of subsistence increased in variety and amount, and attaining its highest development among the Village Indians in the Middle Status of barbarism. It was an active, well-established custom of Indian society, practiced among themselves and among strangers from other tribes, and very naturally extended to Europeans when they made their first appearance among them. Considering the number of the Spaniards often in military companies, and another fact which the aborigines were quick to notice, namely, that a white man consumed and wasted five times as much as an Indian required, their hospitality in many cases must have been grievously overtaxed. [Footnote: "The appetite of the Spaniards appeared to the American inhabitants voracious; and they affirmed that one Spaniard devoured more food in a day than was sufficient for ten Americans."— (Robertson's History of America, Lond. ed., 1856, i, p. 72.)]
Attention has been called to this law of hospitality, and to its universality, for two reasons: firstly, because it implies the existence of common stores, which supplied the means for its practice; and secondly, because, wherever found, it implies communistic living in large households. It must be evident that this hospitality could not have been habitually practiced by the Iroquois and other northern tribes, and much less by the Village Indians of Mexico, Central and South America, with such uniformity, if the custom in each case had depended upon the voluntary contributions of single families. In that event it would have failed oftener than it would have succeeded. The law of hospitality, as administered by the American aborigines, indicates a plan of life among them which has not been carefully studied, nor have its effects been fully appreciated. Its explanation must be sought in the ownership of lands in common, the distribution of their products to households consisting of a number of families, and the practice of communism in living in the household. Common stores for large households, and possibly for the village, with which to maintain village hospitality, are necessary to explain the custom. It could have been maintained on such a basis, and it is difficult to see how it could have been maintained on any other. The common and substantially universal practice of this custom, among the American Indian Tribes, at the period of their discovery, among whom the procurement of subsistence was their vital need, must be regarded as evidence of a generous disposition, and as exhibiting a trait of character highly creditable to the race.
[Relocated Footnote: PROPOSED ETHNIC OR CULTURE PERIODS.
PERIOD OF SAVAGERY. PERIOD OF BARBARISM.
Subperiods. Conditions. Subperiods. Conditions.
Older Period ….. Lower Status Older Period …. Lower Status
Middle Period …. Middle Status Middle Period … Middle Status
Later Period ….. Upper Status Later Period …. Upper Status.
PERIOD OF CIVILIZATION
RECAPITULATION
OLDER PERIOD OF SAVAGERY.—From the infancy of the human race to the knowledge of fire and the acquisition of fish subsistence.
MIDDLE PERIOD.—From the acquisition of a fish subsistence to the invention of the bow and arrow.
LATER PERIOD.—From the invention of the bow and arrow to the invention of the art of pottery.
OLDER PERIOD OF BARBARISM.—From a knowledge of pottery to the domestication of animals in the eastern hemisphere, and in the western to the cultivation of maize and plants by irrigation.
MIDDLE PERIOD.—From the domestication of animals, &c., to the invention of the process of smelting iron ore.
LATER PERIOD.—From the knowledge of iron to the invention of a phonetic alphabet, or the use of hieroglyphs upon stone as an equivalent.
CIVILIZATION.—From the invention of a phonetic alphabet and the use of letters in literary composition to the present time.]
CHAPTER III.
COMMUNISM IN LIVING.
We are now to consider the remaining usages and customs named in the last chapter.
THEIR COMMUNISM IN LIVING.
Communism in living had its origin in the necessities of the family, which, prior to the Later Period of barbarism, was too weak an organization to face alone the struggle of life. In savagery and in the Older and the Middle Period of barbarism the family was in the syndyasmian or pairing form into which it had passed from a previous lower form. [Footnote: Ancient Society, p. 459.]
Wherever the gentile organization prevailed, several families, related by kin, united as a rule in a common household and made a common stock of the provisions acquired by fishing and hunting, and by the cultivation of maize and plants. They erected joint tenement houses large enough to accommodate several families, so that, instead of a single family in the exclusive occupation of a single house, large households as a rule existed in all parts of America in the aboriginal period. This community of provisions was limited to the household; but a final equalization of the means of subsistence was in some measure affected by the law of hospitality. To a very great extent communism in living was a necessary result of the condition of the Indian tribes. It entered into their plan of life and determined the character of their houses. In effect it was a union of effort to procure subsistence, which was the vital and commanding concern of life. The desire for individual accumulation had not been aroused in their minds to any sensible extent. It is made evident by a comparison of the conditions of barbarous tribes on different continents that communism has widely prevailed among them, and that the influence of this ancient practice had not entirely disappeared among the more advanced tribes when civilization finally appeared. The common meal-bin of the ancient and the common tables of the later Greeks seem to be survivals of an older communism in living. This practice, though never investigated as a specialty, may be shown by the known customs of a number of Indian tribes, and may be confirmed by an examination of the plans of their houses.
Our first illustration will be taken from the usages of the Iroquois. In their villages they constructed houses, consisting of frames of poles covered with bark, thirty, fifty, eighty, and a hundred feet in length, with a passage-way through the center, a door at each end, and with the interior partitioned off at intervals of about seven feet. Each apartment or stall thus formed was open for its entire width upon the passage-way. These houses would accommodate five, ten, and twenty families, according to the number of apartments, one being usually allotted to a family. Each household was made up on the principle of kin. The married women, usually sisters, own or collateral, were of the same gens or clan, the symbol or totem of which was often painted upon the house, while their husbands and the wives of their sons belong to several other gentes. The children were of the gens of their mother. While husband and wife belonged to different gentes, the preponderating number in each household would be of the same gens, namely, that of their mothers. As a rule the sons brought home their wives, and in some cases the husbands of the daughters were admitted to the maternal house. Thus each household was composed of a mixture of persons of different gentes; but this would not prevent the numerical ascendency of the particular gens to whom the house belonged. In a village of one hundred and twenty houses, as the Seneca village of Tiotohatton described by Mr. Greenbalgh i n 1677, there would be several such houses belonging to each gens. It presented a general picture of Indian life in all parts of America at the epoch of European discovery. [Footnote: Documentary History of New York, i, 13.]
Whatever was gained by any member of the household on hunting or fishing expeditions, or was raised by cultivation, was made a common stock. Within the house they lived from common stores. Each house had several fires, usually one for each four apartments, which was placed in the middle of the passage-way and without a chimney. Every household was organized under a matron who supervised its domestic economy. After the single daily meal was cooked at the several fires the matron was summoned, and it was her duty to divide the food, from the kettle, to the several families according to their respective needs. What remained was placed in the custody of another person until it was required by the matron. The Iroquois lived in houses of this description as late as A. D. 1700, and in occasional instances a hundred years later. An elderly Seneca woman informed the writer, thirty years ago, that when she was a girl she lived in one of these joint tenement houses (called by them long-houses), which contained eight families and two fires, and that her mother and her grandmother, in their day, had acted as matrons over one of these large households. [Footnote: The late Mrs. William Parker, of Tonawanda.]
This mere glimpse at the ancient Iroquois plan of life, now entirely passed away, and of which remembrance is nearly lost, is highly suggestive. It shows that their domestic economy was not without method, and it displays the care and management of woman, low down in barbarism, for husbanding their resources and for improving their condition. A knowledge of these houses, and how to build them, is not even yet lost among the Senecas. Some years ago Mr. William Parker, a Seneca chief, constructed for the writer a model of one of these long-houses, showing in detail its external and internal mechanism.
The late Rev. Ashur Wright, DD., for many years a missionary among the Senecas, and familiar with their language and customs, wrote to the author in 1873 on the subject of these households, as follows: "As to their family system, when occupying the old long-houses, it is probable that some one clan predominated, the women taking in husbands, however, from the other clans; and sometimes, for a novelty, some of their sons bringing in their young wives until they felt brave enough to leave their mothers. Usually, the female portion ruled the house, and were doubtless clannish enough about it. The stores were in common; but woe to the luckless husband or lover who was too shiftless to do his share of the providing. No matter how many children or whatever goods he might have in the house, he might at any time be ordered to pick up his blanket and budge; and after such orders it would not be healthful for him to attempt to disobey; the house would be too hot for him; and unless saved by the intercession of some aunt or grandmother he must retreat to his own clan, or as was often done, go and start a new matrimonial alliance in some other. The women wore the great power among the clans, as everywhere else. They did not hesitate, when occasion required, to 'knock off the horns,' as it was technically called, from the head of a chief and send him back to the ranks of the warriors. The original nomination of the chiefs also always rested with them."
The mother-right and gyneocracy among the Iroquois here plainly indicated is not overdrawn. The mothers and their children, as we have seen, were of the same gens, and to them the house belonged. It was a gentile house. In case of the death of father or mother, the apartments they occupied could not be detached from the kinship, but remained to its members. The position of the mother was eminently favorable to her influence in the household, and tended to strengthen the maternal bond. We may see in this an ancient phase of human life which has had a wide prevalence in the tribes of mankind, Asiatic, European, African, American, and Australian. Not until after civilization had begun among the Greeks, and gentile society was superseded by political society, was the influence of this old order of society overthrown. It left behind, at least among the Grecian tribes, deep traces of its previous existence.
[Footnote: These statements illustrate the gyneocracy and mother-right among the ancient Grecian tribes discussed by Bachofen in "Das Mutterrecht." The phenomena discovered by Bachofen owes its origin, probably, to descent in the female line, and to the junction of several families in one house, on the principle of kin, as among the Iroquois.]
Among the Iroquois, those who formed a household and cultivated gardens gathered the harvest and stored it in their dwelling as a common stock. There was more or less of individual ownership of these products, and of their possession by different families. For example, the corn, after stripping back the husk, was braided by the husk in bunches and hung up in the different apartments; but when one family had exhausted its supply, their wants were supplied by other families so long as any remained. Each hunting and fishing party made a common stock of the capture, of which the surplus, on their return, was divided among the several families of each household, and, having been cured, was reserved for winter use The village did not make a common stock of their provisions, and thus offer a bounty to imprudence It was confined to the household But the principle of hospitality then came in to relieve the consequences of destitution We can speak with some confidence of the ancient usages and customs of the Iroquois; and when any usage is found among them in a definite and positive form, it renders probable the existence of the same usage in other tribes in the same condition, because their necessities were the same.
In the History of Virginia, by Capt. John Smith, the houses of the Powhatan Indians are partially described, and are found to be much the same as those of the Iroquois We have already quoted from this work the description of a house on Roanoke Island containing five chambers. Speaking of the houses in the vicinity of James River in 1606-1608, he remarks, "Their houses are built like our arbors, of small young sprigs bowed and tied, and so close covered with mats, or the bark of trees, very handsomely, that notwithstanding either wind, rain, or weather, they are as warm as stoves but very smoky, yet at the top of the house there is a hole made for the smoke to go into right over the fire. Against the fire they lie on little hurdles of reeds covered with a mat, borne from the ground a foot and more by a hurdle of wood On these, round about the house, they lie, heads and points, one by the other, against the fire, some covered with mats, some with skins, and some stark naked lie on the ground, from six to twenty in a house…. In some places are from two to fifty of these houses together, or but little separated by groves of trees." [Footnote: Smith's History of Virginia, Richmond ed., 1819, i, 130]
The noticeable fact in this statement is the number of persons in the house, which shows a household consisting of several families Their communism in living may be inferred Elsewhere he speaks of "houses built after their manner, some thirty, some forty yards long," and speaking of one of the houses of Powhatan he says, "This house is fifty or sixty yards in length," and again, at Pamunk, "A great fire was made in a long-house, a mat was spread on one side as on the other, and on one side they caused him to sit." [Footnote: 5, Ib, 1, 142, 143; Smith's Hist. Va., Richmond ed., 1819, i, 160.]
We here find among the Virginia Indians at the epoch of their discovery long-houses very similar to the long-houses of the Iroquois, with the same evidence of a large household. It may safely be taken as a rule that every Indian household in the aboriginal period, whether large or small, lived from common stores.
Mr. Caleb Swan, who visited the Creek Indians of Georgia in 1790, found the people living in small houses or cabins, but in clusters, each cluster being occupied by a part of a gens or clan. He remarks that "the smallest of their towns have from ten to forty houses, and some of the largest from fifty to two hundred, that are tolerably compact. These houses stand in clusters of four, five, six, seven, and eight together…. Each cluster of houses contains a clan or family of relations who eat and live in common." [Footnote: Schoolcraft's Hist. Cond. and Pros. of Indian Tribes, vol. v. 262.]
Here the fact of several families uniting on the principle of kin, living in a cluster of houses, and practicing communism, is expressly stated.
James Adair, writing still earlier of the southern Indians of the United States generally, remarks in a passage before quoted, as follows: "I have observed, with much inward satisfaction, the community of goods that prevailed among them…. And though they do not keep one promiscuous common stock, yet it is to the very same effect, for every one has his own family or tribe, and when any one is speaking either of the individuals or habitations of his own tribe, he says, 'He is of my house,' or, 'It is my house.'" [Footnote: History of the American Indians, p. 17.]
It is singular that this industrious investigator did not notice, what is now known to be the fact, that all these tribes were organized in gentes and phratries. It would have rendered his observations upon their usages and customs more definite. Elsewhere he remarks further that "formerly the Indian law obliged every town to work together in one body, in sewing or planting their crops, though their fields were divided by proper marks, and their harvest is gathered separately. The Cherokees and Muscogees [Creeks] still observe that old custom, which is very necessary for such idle people." [Footnote: ib., p. 430.]
They cultivated, like the Iroquois, three kinds of maize, an "early variety," the "hominy corn," and the "bread corn," also beans, squashes, pumpkins, and tobacco. [Footnote: History of the American Indians, p. 430] Chestnuts, a tuberous root something like the potato but gathered in the marshes, berries, fish, and game, entered into their subsistence. Like the Iroquois, they made unleavened bread of maize flour, which was boiled in earthen vessels, in the form of cakes, about six inches in diameter and an inch thick. [Footnote: ib. pp. 406, 408.] Among the tribes of the plains, who subsist almost exclusively upon animal food, their usages in the hunt indicate the same tendency to communism in food. The Blackfeet, during the buffalo hunt, follow the herds on horseback in large parties, composed of men, women, and children. When the active pursuit of the herd commences, the hunters leave the dead animals in the track of the chase to be appropriated by the first persons who come up behind. This method of distribution is continued until all are supplied. All the Indian tribes who hunt upon the plains, with the exception of the half-blood Crees, observe the same custom of making a common stock of the capture. It tended to equalize, at the outset, the means of subsistence obtained. They cut the beef into strings, and either dried it in the air or in the smoke of a fire. Some of the tribes made a part of the capture into pemmican, which consists of dried and pulverized meat mixed with melted buffalo fat, which is baled in the hide of the animal.
During the fishing season in the Columbia River, where fish are more abundant than in any other river on the earth, all the members of the tribe encamp together, and make a common stock of the fish obtained. They are divided each day according to the number of women, giving to each an equal share. At the Kootenay Falls, for example, they are taken by spearing, and in huge baskets submerged in the water below the falls. The salmon, during the spring run, weigh from six to forty pounds, and are taken in the greatest abundance, three thousand a day not being an unusual number. Father De Smet, the late Oregon missionary, informed the writer, in 1862, that he once spent several days with the Kootenays at these falls, and that the share which fell to him, as one of the party, loaded, when dried, thirty pack mules. The fish are split open, scarified, and dried on scaffolds, after which they are packed in baskets and then removed to their villages. This custom makes a general distribution of the capture, and leaves each household in possession of its share.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote relocated to chapter end.]
Their communism in living is involved in the size of the household, which ranged from ten to forty persons. "The houses of the Sokulks are made of large mats of rushes, and are generally of a square or oblong form, varying in length from fifteen to sixty feet; the top is covered with mats, leaving a space of twelve or fifteen inches, the whole length of the house, for the purpose of admitting the light and suffering the smoke to pass through; the roof is nearly flat … and the house is not divided into apartments, the fire being in the middle of the large room, and immediately under the hole in the roof…. On entering one of these houses he [Captain Clarke] found it crowded with men, women, and children, who immediately provided a mat for him to sit on, and one of the party immediately undertook to prepare something to eat." [Footnote: Lewis and Clarke's Travels, pp. 351-353.]
Again: "He landed before five houses close to each other, but no one appeared, and the doors, which were of mats, were closed. He went towards one of them with a pipe in his hand, and pushing aside the mat entered the lodge, where he found thirty-two persons, chiefly men and women, with a few children, all in the greatest consternation." [Footnote: ib., p. 357.] And again: "This village being part of the same nation with the village we passed above, the language of the two being the same, and their houses being of the same form and materials, and calculated to contain about thirty souls." [Footnote: ib., p. 376.]
In enumerating the people Lewis and Clarke often state the number of inhabitants with the number of houses, thus:
"The Killamucks, who number fifty houses and a thousand souls."
"The Chilts, who … are estimated at seven hundred souls and thirty-eight houses."
"The Clamoitomish, of twelve houses and two hundred and sixty souls."
"The Potoashees, of ten houses and two hundred souls."
"The Pailsk, of ten houses and two hundred souls."
"The Quinults, of sixty houses and one thousand souls."
[Footnote: Lewis and Clarke's Travels, pp. 426-428.]
Speaking generally of the usages and customs of the tribes of the "Columbia plains," they make the following statements: "Their large houses usually contain several families, consisting of the parents, their sons and daughters-in-law and grandchildren, among whom the provisions are common, and whose harmony is scarcely ever interrupted by disputes. Although polygamy is permitted by their customs, very few have more than a single wife, and she is brought immediately after the marriage into the husband's family, where she resides until increasing numbers oblige them to seek another house. In this state the old man is not considered the head of the family, since the active duties, as well as the responsibility, fall on some of the younger members. As these families gradually expand into bands, or tribes, or nations, the paternal authority is represented by the chief of each association. This chieftain, however, is not hereditary." [Footnote: ib., p. 443.] Here we find among the Columbian tribes, as elsewhere, communism in living, but restricted to large households composed of several families.
A writer in Harper's Magazine, speaking of the Aleutians, remarks: "When first discovered this people were living in large yurts, or dirt houses, partially underground … having the entrances through a hole in the top or centre, going in and out on a rude ladder. Several of these ancient yurts were very large, as shown by the ruins, being from thirty to eighty yards long and twenty to forty in width…. In these large yurts the primitive Aleuts lived by fifties and hundreds for the double object of protection and warmth." [Footnote: Harper's Magazine, vol. 55, p. 806.]
Whether these tribes at this time were organized in gentes and phratries is not known. At the time of the Wilkes expedition (1838-1842) the gentile organization did not exist among them; neither does it now exist; but it is still found among the tribes of the Northwest Coast, and among the Indian tribes generally. The composition of the household, as here described, is precisely like the household of the Iroquois prior to A.D. 1700.
The Mandan village contained at the time of Catlin's visit (1832), as elsewhere stated, about fifty houses and about fifteen hundred people. "These cabins are so spacious," Catlin remarks, "that they hold from twenty to forty persons—a family and all their connections…. From the great numbers of the inmates in these lodges they are necessarily very spacious, and the number of beds considerable. It is no uncommon thing to see these lodges fifty feet in diameter inside (which is an immense room), with a row of these curtained beds extending quite around their sides, being some ten or twelve of them, placed four or five feet apart, and the space between them occupied by a large post, fixed quite firmly in the ground, and six or seven feet high, with large wooden pegs or bolts in it, on which are hung or grouped, with a wild and startling taste, the arms and armor of the respective proprietors." [Footnote: North American Indians, Philadelphia ed., 1857, i, 139.]
The household, according to the custom of the Indians, was a large one. The number of inhabitants divided among the number of houses would give an average of thirty persons to each house. It is evident from several statements of Catlin before given that the household practiced communism in living, and that it was formed of related families, on the principle of gentile kin, as among the Iroquois. Elsewhere he intimates that the Mandans kept a public store or granary as a refuge for the whole community in a time of scarcity. [Footnote: ib., i, 210.]
In like manner Carver, speaking generally of the usages and customs of the Dakota tribes and of the tribes of Wisconsin, remarks that "they will readily share with any of their own tribe the last part of their provisions, and even with those of a different nation, if they chance to come in when they are eating. Though they do not keep one common store, yet that community of goods which is so prevalent among them, and their generous disposition, render it nearly of the same effect." [Footnote: Travels, etc, p. 171.]
What this author seems to state is that community of goods existed in the household, and that it was lengthened out to the tribe by the law of hospitality. Elsewhere, speaking of the large village of the Sauks, he says: "This is the largest Indian town I ever saw. It contains about ninety houses, each large enough for several families." [Footnote: Travels, etc., Phila. ed. 1796, p. 29.]
In a previous chapter (supra p. 49.) Heckewelder's observations upon hospitality among the Delawares and Munsees, implying the principle of communism, have been given. He remarks further that "there is nothing in an Indian's house or family without its particular owner. Every individual knows what belongs to him, from the horse or cow down to the dog, cat, kitten, and little chicken…. For a litter of kittens or a brood of chickens there are often as many different owners as there are individual animals. In purchasing a hen with her brood one frequently has to deal for it with several children. Thus, while the principle of community of goods prevails in the State, the rights of property are acknowledged among the members of the family. This is attended with a very good effect, for by this means every living creature is properly taken care of." [Footnote: Indian Nations, p. 158.]
I do not understand what Heckewelder means by the remark that "the principle of community of goods prevails in the state," unless it be that the rule of hospitality was so all-pervading that it was tantamount to a community of goods, while individual property was everywhere recognized until it was freely surrendered. This may be the just view of the result of their communism and hospitality, but it is a higher one than I have been able to take.
The household of the Mandans consisting of from twenty to forty persons, the households of the Columbian tribes of about the same number, the Shoshone household of seven families, the households of the Sauks, of the Iroquois, and of the Creeks each composed of several families, are fair types of the households of the Northern Indians at the epoch of their discovery. The fact is also established that these tribes constructed as a rule large joint tenement houses, each of which was occupied by a large household composed of several families, among whom provisions were in common, and who practiced communism in living in the household.
Among the Village Indians of New Mexico a more advanced form of house architecture appears, and their joint tenement character is even more pronounced. They live in large houses, two, three, and four stories high, constructed of adobe brick, and of stone imbedded in adobe mortar, and containing fifty, a hundred, two hundred, and in some cases five hundred apartments in a house. They are built in the terraced form, with fireplaces and chimneys added since their discovery, the first story closed up solid, and is entered by ladders, which ascend to the platform-roof of the first story. These houses are fortresses, and were erected as strongholds to resist the attacks of the more barbarous tribes by whom they were perpetually assailed. Each house was probably occupied by a number of household groups, whose apartments were doubtless separated from each other by partition walls. In a subsequent chapter the character of these houses will be more fully shown.
Our knowledge of the plan of life in these houses in the aboriginal period is still very imperfect. They still practice the old hospitality, own their lands in common, but with allotments to individuals and to families, and are governed by a cacique or sachem and certain other officers annually elected. An American missionary to the Laguna Village Indians, Rev. Samuel Gorman, in an address before the Historical Society of New Mexico in 1869, remarks as follows: "They generally marry very young, and the son-in-law becomes the servant of the father-in-law, and very often they all live together in one family for years, even if there be several sons-in-law; and this clannish mode of living is often, if not generally, a fruitful source of evil among this people. Their women generally have control over the granary, and they are more provident than their Spanish neighbors about the future. Ordinarily they try to have one year's provisions on hand. It is only when they have two years of scarcity succeeding each other that pueblos as a community suffer hunger." [Footnote: Address, p. 14.]
The usages of these Indians have doubtless modified in the last two hundred years under Spanish influence; they have decreased in numbers, and the family group is probably smaller than formerly. But it is not too late to recover the aboriginal plan of life among them if the subject were intelligently investigated. It is to be hoped that some one will undertake this work.
The Spanish writers do not mention the practice of communism in living as existing among the Village Indians of Mexico or Central America. They are barren of practical information concerning their mode of life; but we have the same picture of large households composed of several families, whose communism in the household may reasonably be inferred.
We have also the striking illustration of "Montezuma's Dinner," hereafter to be noticed, which was plainly a dinner in common by a communal household. Beside these facts we have the ownership of lands in common by communities of persons. Moreover, the ruins of ancient houses in Central and South America, and in parts of Mexico, show very plainly their joint tenement character. From the plans of these houses the communism of the people by households may be deduced theoretically with reasonable certainty.
Yucatan, when discovered, was occupied by a number of tribes of Maya Indians. The Maya language spread beyond the limits of Yucatan. This region, with Chiapas, Guatemala, and a part of Honduras, contained and still contains evidence, in the ruins of ancient structures, of a higher advancement in the arts of life than any other part of North America. The present Maya Indians of Yucatan are the descendants of the people who occupied the country at the period of the Spanish conquest, and who occupied the massive stone houses now in ruins, from which they were forced by Spanish oppression.
We have a notable illustration of communism in living among the present Maya Indians, as late as the year 1840, through the work of John L Stephens. At Nohcacab, a few miles east of the ruins of Uxmal, Mr. Stephens, having occasion to employ laborers, went to a settlement of Maya Indians, of whom he gives the following account: "Their community consists of a hundred labradores, or working men; their lands are held and wrought in common, and the products are shared by all. Their food is prepared at one hut, and every family sends for its portion, which explains a singular spectacle we had seen on our arrival, a procession of women and children, each carrying an earthen bowl containing a quantity of smoking hot broth, all coming down the same road, and disappearing among the different huts. Every member belonging to the community, down to the smallest pappoose, contributing in turn a hog. From our ignorance of the language, and the number of other and more pressing matters claiming our attention, we could not learn all the details of their internal economy, but it seemed to approximate that improved state of association which is sometimes heard of among us; and as theirs has existed for an unknown length of time, and can no longer be considered merely experimental, Owen on Fourier might perhaps take lessons from them with advantage." [Footnote: Incidents of Travel in Yucatan, ii, 14.]
A hundred working men indicate a total of five hundred persons, who were then depending for their daily food upon a single fire, the provisions being supplied from common stores, and divided from the caldron. It is, not unlikely, a truthful picture of the mode of life of their forefathers in the "House of the Nuns," and in the "Governor's House" at Uxmal, at the epoch of the Spanish conquest.
It is well known that Spanish adventurers captured these pueblos, one after the other, and attempted to enforce the labor of the Indians for personal ends, and that the Indians abandoned their pueblos and retreated into the inaccessible forests to escape enslavement, after which their houses of stone fell into decay, the ruins of which, and all there ever was of them, still remain in all parts of these countries.
It is hardly supposable that the communism here described by Mr. Stephens was a new thing to the Mayas; but far more probable that it was a part of their ancient mode of life, to which these ruined houses were eminently adapted. The subject of the adaptation of the old pueblo houses in Yucatan and Central America to communism in living will be elsewhere considered.
When Columbus first landed on the island of Cuba, he sent two men into the interior, who reported that "they traveled twenty-two leagues, and found a village of fifty houses, built like those before spoken of, and they contained about one thousand persons, because a whole generation lived in a house; and the prime men came out to meet them, led them by the arms, and lodged them in one of these new houses, causing them to sit down on seats … and they gave them boiled roots to eat, which tasted like chestnuts." [Footnote: Herrera, i, 55.]
One of the first expeditions which touched the main land on the coast of Venezuela in South America found much larger houses than these last described. "The houses they dwelt in were common to all, and so spacious that they contained one hundred and sixty persons, strongly built, though covered with palm-tree leaves, and shaped like a bell." [Footnote: ib., 216.]
Herrera further remarks of the same tribe, that "they observed no law or rule in matrimony, but took as many wives as they would, and they as many husbands, quitting one another at pleasure, without reckoning any wrong done on either part. There was no such thing as jealousy among them, all living as best pleased them, without taking offense at one another." [Footnote: ib., i, 216.]
This shows communism in husbands as well as wives, and rendered communism in food a necessity of their condition. Elsewhere the same author speaks of the habitations of the tribes on the coast of Carthagena. "Their houses were like long arbors, with several apartments, and they had no beds but hammocks." [Footnote: ib., 348.] Many similar statements are scattered through his work.
Among the more advanced tribes of Peru the lands were divided, and allotted to different uses; one part was for the support of the government, another for the support of religion, and another for the support of individuals. The first two parts were cultivated by the people under established regulations, and the crops were placed in public storehouses. This is the statement of Garcilasso. [Footnote: Royal Com. l. c., pp. 154, 157.]
Herrera, however, says generally that the people lived from common stores. "The Spaniards drawing near to Caxamalca begun to have a view of the Inca army lying near the bottom of a mountain…. They were pleased to see the beauty of the fields, most regularly cultivated, for it was an ancient law among these people that all should be fed from common stores, and none should touch the standing corn." [Footnote: Herrera, iv, 249.] The discrepancy between Herrera and Garcilasso may perhaps be explained by the reservation of the crops grown on lands set apart for the government and for religion.
The reason for presenting the foregoing observations of different authors concerning the households, the houses, and the practice of communism in food, has been to show, firstly, that the household of the Indian tribes was a large one, composed of several families; secondly, that their houses were constructed to accommodate several families; and thirdly, that the household practiced communism in living. These are the material facts, and they have been sufficiently illustrated. The single family of civilized society live from common stores, yet it is not communism; but where several families coalesce in one common household and make a common stock of their provisions, and this is found to be a general rule in entire tribes, it is a form of communism important to be noticed. It is seen to belong to a society in a low stage of development, where it springs from the necessities of their condition. These usages and customs exhibit their plan of life, and reveal the wide difference between their condition and that of civilized society; between the Indian family, without individuality, and the highly individualized family of civilization.
[Relocated Footnote: Alfred W. Howitt, F. G. S., Bariusdale, Australia, mentions, in a letter to the author, the following singular custom of an Australian tribe concerning the distribution of food in the family group:
A man catches seven river eels; they are divided thus (it is supposed that his family consists only of these named):
1st eel. Front half himself; hind half his wife.
2d eel. Front half his wife's mother; hind half his wife's sister.
3d eel. Front half his elder sons; hind half his younger sons.
4th eel. Front half his elder daughters; hind half his younger daughters.
5th eel. Front half his brother's sons; hind half his brother's daughters.
6th eel. One whole eel to his married daughter's husband.
7th eel. One whole eel to his married daughter.
This custom may be supposed to show the ordinary household group, and the order of their relative nearness to Ego. It foots up himself and wife, wife's mother and sister, his sons and daughters, his brother's sons and daughters, and his daughter's husband. It implies also other members of the household, who are obliged to take care of themselves: viz. his brothers and sisters.]
CHAPTER IV.
USAGES AND CUSTOMS WITH RESPECT TO LANDS AND TO FOOD
THE OWNERSHIP OF LANDS IN COMMON.
Among the Iroquois the tribal domain was held and owned by the tribe in common. Individual ownership, with the right to sell and convey in fee-simple to any other person, was entirely unknown among them. It required the experience and development of the two succeeding ethnical periods to bring mankind to such a knowledge of property in land as its individual ownership with the power of alienation in fee-simple implies. No person in Indian life could obtain the absolute title to land, since it was vested by custom in the tribe as one body; and they had no conception of what is implied by a legal title in severalty with power to sell and convey the fee. But he could reduce unoccupied land to possession by cultivation, and so long as he thus used it he had a possessory right to its enjoyment which would be recognized and respected by his tribe. Gardens planting-lots, apartments in a long-house, and, at a later day, orchards of fruit were thus held by persons and by families. Such possessory right was all that was needed for their full enjoyment and for the protection of their interest in them. A person might transfer or donate his rights to other persons of the same tribe, and they also passed by inherence, under established customs, to his gentile kin. This was substantially the Indian system in respect to the ownership of lands and apartments in houses among the Indian tribes within the areas of the United States and British America in the Lower Status of barbarism. In later times, when the State or National Government acquired Indian lands and made compensation therefor, payment for the lands went to the tribe, and for improvements to the individual who had the possessory right. At the Tonawanda Reservation of the Seneca-Iroquois, a portion of the lands are divided into separate farms, which are fenced and occupied in severalty, while the remainder are owned by the tribe in common. When a young man marries and has no land on which to subsist, the chiefs may allot him a portion of these reserved lands. The title to all these lands, occupied and unoccupied, remains in the tribe in common. Individuals may sell or rent their possessory rights to each other, or rent them to a white man. No white man can now acquire a title from an Indian to Indian lands in any part of the United States. A person could transfer his possessions to another, but apartments in a house must remain to his gentile kindred. In the time of James II the right to acquire lands was vested in the Crown exclusively as a royal prerogative, to which prerogative our State and National Governments succeeded.
The same usages prevail on the Tuscarora Reservation, near the Niagara River, where this Iroquois tribe owns in common about 8,000 acres of fine agricultural land in one body. A part of this reservation has long been parceled out to individuals in small farms, fenced, and cultivated by the possessors. The remainder is unparceled and under the control of the chiefs. The people are allowed to remove from the wood-land of the reserve the dead wood and litter but are not permitted to touch the standing timber. When a young man marries, if he has no land the chiefs allot him forty acres to cultivate for his subsistence; but, before giving him possession, the lot is first open to all the tribe to cut off the timber for fire-wood. Thus the double object is gained of supplying the people with fire-wood and of clearing the land for cultivation for the new family. These possessory rights pass by inheritance to the recognized heirs. A person may transfer or rent his possession to another person; he may rent to a white man, but in no case can he sell to a white man.
And here I may be allowed a brief digression, to notice a recent opinion of the late Secretary of the Interior, Hon. Carl Schurz, shared in to some extent by the National Government, in relation to the division of our Indian reservations into lots or tracts, and their conveyance in severalty to the Indians themselves, with power of alienation to white men after a short period, say twenty-five years. It is to be hoped that this policy will never be adopted by any National Administration, as it is fraught with nothing but mischief to the Indian tribes. The Indian is still, as he always has been, and will remain for many years to come, entirely incapable of meeting the white man, with safety to himself, in the field of trade and of resisting the arts and inducements which would be brought to bear upon him. He is incapable of steadily attaching that value to the ownership of land which its importance deserves, or of knowing how far the best interests of himself and family are involved in its continued possession. The result of individual Indian ownership, with power to sell, would unquestionably be, that in a very short time he would divest himself of every foot of land and fall into poverty. The case of the Shawnee tribe of Kansas affords a perfect illustration of this pernicious policy. The Shawnees were removed to Kansas under the Jackson policy, so called, and occupied a splendid reservation on the Kansas River, where they were told they were to make their home forever. But after a few years of undisturbed possession, our people, in the natural flow of population, reached Kansas, where they found the Shawnees in possession of the best part of what has since been the State of Kansas. Our people at once wanted these Indian lands, and they determined to root out the Shawnees in the interest of civilization and progress. They accomplished this result in the most speedy and scientific manner, using as their proposed lever this identical plan since adopted by Mr. Schurz. First, the government was induced to re-purchase a part of the reservation on the ground that they had more land than they needed for cultivation; and, secondly, the government induced the Indians to have the remainder divided up into farms and conveyed to heads of families in severalty, with power of alienation. In 1859, when this scheme was being worked out, I visited Kansas, and found the Shawnee's cultivating and improving their farms, some of which embraced a thousand acres, and owning them, too, like other farmers. When next in Kansas, ten years later, the work was done. There was not a Shawnee in Kansas, but American farmers were in possession of all these lands. It was this individual ownership with power to sell that had done the work.
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 assist 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 circumstance, 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 assign him land, whereby the title 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 documents 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 titles. 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 titles, 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 titles made possible by Spanish and American intercourse, show quite plainly that their ideas respecting the ownership of the ultimate title 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 title 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 classes of land recognized among them, the manner in which they were held, and his general conclusions.
In the pueblo of Mexico (Tenochtitlan), 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, assigned 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 assigned 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 assigning 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, participated in the aggregate tenure." [Footnote: Alonzo de Zurita (p. 51). Ixtlilxochitl ("Hist. des Chichim," cap. XXXV, p. 242). Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545). Bustamante ("Tezcoco en los ultimos Tiempos de sus antiguas Reyes" p 232).]