"In the course of time, as the population further increased, segmentation occurred within the four original 'quarters,' new 'calpulli' being formed."
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 4 relocated to chapter end.]
For governmental purposes this segmentation produced a new result by leaving, more particularly in military affairs, the first four clusters as great subdivisions. [Footnote: "Art of War, etc.," pp. 115 and 120.]
But these, as soon as they had disaggregated, ceased to be any longer units of territorial possession, their original areas being held thereafter by the 'minor quarters' (as Herrera, for instance, calls them), who exercised, each one within its limits, the same sovereignty which the original 'calpulli' formerly held over the whole.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 5 relocated to chapter end.]
A further consequence of this disaggregation was (by removing the tribal council farther from the calpules) the necessity for an official building, exclusively devoted to the business of the whole tribe alone.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 6 relocated to chapter end.]
This building was the 'teepan' called, even by Torquemada, 'house of the community'; it was, therefore, since the council of chiefs was the highest authority in the government, the 'council house' proper. It was erected near the center of the 'pueblo,' and fronting the open space reserved for public celebrations. But, whereas formerly occasional, gradually merging into regular, meetings of the chiefs were sufficient, constant daily attendance at the 'teepan' became required, even to such an extent that a permanent residence of the head-chief there resulted from it and was one of the duties of the office. Consequently the 'tlacatecuhtli, his family, and such assistants as he needed (like runners), dwelt at the 'official house.' But this occupancy was in no manner connected with a possessory right by the occupant, whose family relinquished the abode as soon as the time of office expired through death of its incumbent. The 'teepan' was occupied by the head war-chiefs only as long as they exercised the functions of that office. [Footnote: Nearly every author who attempts to describe minutely the "chief-house" (teepan) mentions it as containing great halls (council-rooms). See the description of the teepan of Tezcuco by Ixtlilxochitl ("Hist. des Chichimbuques," cap. XXXVI, p. 247)]
"Of those tracts whose products were exclusively applied to the governmental needs of the pueblo or tribe itself (taken as an independent unit) there were, as we have already seen, two particular classes:
"The first was the 'teepan-tlalli,' land of the house of the community, whose crops were applied to the sustenance of such as employed themselves in the construction, ornamentation, and repairs of the public house. Of these there were sometimes several within the tribal area. They were tilled in common by special families who resided on them, using the crops in compensation for the work they performed on the official buildings.
"The second class was called 'tlatoca-tlalli,' land of the speakers. Of these there was but one tract in each tribe, which was to be 'four hundred of their measures long on each side, each measure being equal to three Castilian rods."
[Footnote: Ixtlilxochitl ("Hist. des Chichim," cap. XXXV, p. 242). Vedia (Lib. III, cap. VI, p. 195). "This had to be four hundred of their measures in square ('encuadro,' each side long), each one of these being equal to three Castilian rods"…. See "Art of War" (p. 944, note 183). "The rod" (vara) is equal to 2.78209 feet English (Guyot).]
The crops raised on such went exclusively to the requirements of the household at the 'teepan,' comprising the head-chief and his family with the assistants. The tract was worked in turn by the other members of the tribe, and it remained always public ground, reserved for the same purposes. [Footnote: Veytia (Lib. III, cap. VI, p. 195). It is superfluous to revert to the erroneous impression that the chiefs might dispose of it.]
Both of these kinds were often comprised in one, and it is even not improbable that the first one may have been but a variety of the general tribute-lands devoted to the benefit of the conquering confederates. Still the evidence on this point is too indefinite to warrant such an assumption.
While the crops raised on the 'teepan-tlalli,' as well as on the 'tlatoca-tlalli,' were consumed exclusively by the official houses and households of the tribe, the soil itself which produced these crops was neither claimed nor possessed by the chiefs themselves or their descendants. It was simply, as far as its products were concerned, official soil.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 7 relocated to chapter end.]
The establishing and maintaining of these areal subdivisions was very simple with the tribes of the mainland, since they all possessed ample territories for their wants and for the requirements of their organizations. Their soil formed a contiguous unit. It was not so, however, with the Mexicans proper. With all their industry in adding artificial sod to the patch on which they had originally settled, the solid surface was eventually much too small for their numbers, and they themselves put an efficient stop to further growth thereof by converting, as we have seen elsewhere, for the purpose of defence, their marshy surroundings into water-sheets, through the construction of extensive causeways. [Footnote: "Art of War" (pp. 150 and 151). L. H. Morgan ("Ancient Society," Part II, cap. VII, pp. 190 and 191)].
While the remnants of the original 'teepantlalli' and of the 'tlatocatlalli' still remained visible in the gardens, represented to us as purely ornamental, which dotted the pueblo of Mexico, the substantial elements wherewith to fulfill a purpose for which they were no longer adequate had, in course of time, to be drawn from the mainland. But it was not feasible, from the nature of tribal condition, to extend thither by colonization. The soil was held there by other tribes, whom the Mexicans might well overpower and render tributary, but whom they could not incorporate, since the kinships composing these tribes could not be fused with their own. Outposts, however, were established on the shores, at the outlets of the dykes, at Tepeyacac on the north, at Iztapalapan, Mexicaltzinco, and at Huitzilopocheo to the south, but these were only military positions, and beyond them the territory proper of the Mexicans never extended.
[Footnote: Humboldt ("Essai politique sur la Nouvelle Espagne," Vol. II, Lib. III, cap. VIII, p. 50): Nearly all the old authors describe the pueblo buildings as surrounded by pleasure-grounds or ornamental gardens. It is very striking that, the pueblo having been founded in 1325, and nearly a century having been spent in adding sufficient artificial soil to the originally small solid expanse settled, the Mexicans could have been ready so soon to establish purely decorative parks within an area, every inch of which was valuable to them for subsistence alone!]
[Footnote: The Mexican tribe proper clustered extensively within the pueblo of Tenuchtitlan. The settlements at Iztapalapan, Huntzilopocheo, and Mexicaltzinco were but military stations— outworks, guarding the issues of the causeways to the South. Tepeyacac (Guadalupe Hidalgo) was a similar position—unimportant as to population—in the north. Chapultepec was a sacred spot, not inhabited by any number of people and only held by the Mexicans for burial purposes, and on account of the springs furnishing fresh water to their pueblo.]
Tribute, therefore, had to furnish the means for sustaining their governmental requirements in the matter of food, and the tribute lands had to be distributed and divided, so as to correspond minutely to the details of their home organization. For this reason we see, after the overthrow of the Tecpanecas, lands assigned apparently to the head war-chiefs, to the military chiefs of the quarters, 'from which to derive some revenue for their maintenance and that of their children.' [Footnote: Tezozomoc (Cap. XV, p. 24)1]
These tracts were but 'official tracts,' and they were apart from those reserved for the special use of the kinships. The latter may have furnished that general tribute which, although given nominally to the head war-chief, still was 'for all the Mexicans in common.'
The various classes of lands which we have mentioned were, as far as their tenure is concerned, included in the 'calpulalli' or lands of the kinships. Since the kin, or 'calpulli,' was the unit of governmental organization, it also was the unit of landed tenure. Clavigero says: 'The lands called altepetlalli, that is, those who belonged to the communities of the towns and villages, were divided into as many parts as there were quarters in a town, and each quarter held its own for itself, and without the least connection with the rest. Such lands could in no manner be alienated.' [Footnote: "Storia del Messico" (Lib. VII, cap. XVI).] These 'quarters' were the 'calpulli'; hence it follows that the consanguine groups held the altepetlalli or soil of the tribe.
"We have, therefore, in Mexico the identical mode of the tenure of lands which Polo de Ondogardo had noted in Peru and reported to the King of Spain, as follows…. 'Although the crops and other produce of these lands were devoted to the tribute, the land itself belonged to the people themselves. Hence a thing will be apparent which has not hitherto been properly understood. When any one wants land, it is considered sufficient if it can be shown that it belonged to the Inca or to the sun. But in this the Indians are treated with great injustice; for in those days they paid the tribute, and the land was theirs."
[Footnote: "Narratives of the Rites and Laws of the Yncas, translated from the original Spanish manuscripts, and edited by Clement R. Markham." Publication of the "Hackluyt Society," 1873. "Report of Polo de Ondegardo," who was "Regidor" of Cuzco in 1560, and a very important authority (see Prescott, "History of the Conquest of Peru," note to Book I, cap. V). Confirmed by Garcia ("El Origen de los Indios," Lib. IV, cap, XVI, p. 162).] …
"The expanse held and occupied by the calpulli, and therefore called 'calpulalli' was possessed by the kin in joint tenure. It could neither be alienated nor sold; in fact, there is no trace of barter or sale of land previous to the conquest."
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 8 relocated to chapter end.]
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 9 relocated to chapter end.]
If, however, any calpulli weakened, through loss of numbers from any cause whatever, it might farm out its area to another similar group, deriving subsistence from the rent.
[Footnote: Zurita (p. 93): "In case of need it was permitted to farm out the lands of a calpulli to the inhabitants of another quarter." Herrera (Dec. III, lib. IV, cap, XV, p. 134): "They could be rented out to another lineage."]
If the kinship died out, and its lands therefore became vacant, then they were either added to those of another whose share was not adequate for its wants or they were distributed among all the remaining calpulli.' [Footnote: Zurita (p. 52): "When a family dies out, its lands revert to the calpulli, and the chief distributes them among such members of the quarter as are most in need of it."]
The calpulli was a democratic organization. Its business lay in the hands of elective chiefs—'old men' promoted to that dignity, as we intend to prove in a subsequent paper, for their merits and experience, and after severe religious ordeals. These chiefs formed the council of the kin or quarter, but their authority was not absolute, since on all important occasions a general meeting of the kindred was convened. [Footnote: Zurita (pp. 60, 61, 62). Ramirez de Fuenleal ("Letter," etc., Ternaux-Compaus, p. 249).]
The council in turn selected an executive, the 'calpullec' or 'chinancallec,' who in war officiated as 'achcacauhtin' or 'teachcauhtin' (elder brother).
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 10 relocated to chapter end.]
This office was for life or during good behavior. [Footnote: Zurita (pp. 60 and 61). Herrera (Dec. III, Lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 125): "I le elegian entre si y tenian por maior."]
It was one of his duties to keep a reckoning of the soil of the calpulli, or 'calpulalli,' together with a record of its members, and of the areas assigned to each family, and to note also whatever changes occurred in their distribution.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 11 relocated to chapter end.]
Such changes, if unimportant, might be made by him; more important ones, or contested cases, had to be referred to the council of the kinship, which in turn often appealed to a gathering of the entire quarter. [Footnote: Zurita "Rapport," etc., pp. 56 and 62. We quote him in preference, since no other author known to us has been so detailed.]
The 'calpulalli' was divided into lots or arable beds, 'tlalmilli'.
[Footnote: "Tlalmilli: tierras, a heredades de particulares, que estan juntas en alguna vega" (Molina, Part IIa, p. 124).] These were assigned each to one of the married males of the kinship, to be worked by him for his use and that of his family. If one of these lots remained unimproved for the term of two consecutive years, it fell back to the quarter for redistribution. The same occurred if the family enjoying its possession removed from the calpulli. But it does not appear that the cultivation had always to be performed by the holders of the tract themselves. The fact of improvement under the name of a certain tenant was only required to insure this tenant's rights.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 12 relocated to chapter end.]
Therefore the chiefs and their families, although they could not, from the nature of their duties, till the land themselves, still could remain entitled to their share of 'tlalmilpa' as members of the calpulli. Such tracts were cultivated by others for their use. They were called by the specific name of 'pillali' (lands of the chiefs or of the children, from 'piltontli,' boy, or 'piltzintli', child), and those who cultivated them carried the appellation of 'tlalmaitl'—hands of the soil.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 13 relocated to chapter end.]
The 'tlalmilpa,' whether held by chiefs or by ordinary members of the kin ('macehuales'), were, therefore, the only tracts of land possessed for use by individuals in ancient Mexico. They were so far distinguished from the 'tecpantlalli' and 'tlatocatlalli' in their mode of tenure as, whereas the latter two were dependent from a certain office, the incumbent of which changed at each election, the 'tlalmilli' was assigned to a certain family, and its possession, therefore, connected with customs of inheritance.
Being thus led to investigate the customs of Inheritance of the ancient Mexicans, we have to premise here, that the personal effects of a deceased can be but slightly considered. The rule was, in general, that whatever a man held descended to his offspring.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 14 relocated to chapter end.]
Among most of the northern Indians a large cluster participated.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 15 relocated to chapter end.]
In conformity with the organization of society based upon kin, when in the first stage of its development, the kindred group inherited, and the common ancestor of this kin being considered a female, it follows that if a man died, not his children, still less his wife, but his mother's descendants, that is, his brothers, sisters, in fact the entire consanguine relationship from which he derived on his mother's side, were his heirs. [Footnote: "Ancient Society" (Part II, cap. II, p. 75; Part IV, cap. I, pp. 528, 530, 531, 536, and 537).] Such may have been the case even among the Muysca of New Granada.
[Footnote: Gomara ("Historia de las Indios," Vedia I, p. 201).
Garcia ("Origen de los Indios," Lib. IV, cap. 23, p. 247).
Piedrahita (Parte 1, Lib. I, cap. 5, p. 27). Joaquin Acosta
("Compredio historico del Descumbrimiento y Colonisazion de la
Nueva-Granada," Cap. XI, p. 201). Ternaux-Compans ("L'ancien
Cundinamarca," pp. 21 and 38).]
It was different, however, in Mexico, where we meet with traces of a decided progress. Not only had descent been changed to the male line, [Footnote: Motolinia (Trat. II, cap. V, p. 120). Gomara (p. 434). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap XIII). Zurita (pp. 12 and 43).] but heirship was limited, to the exclusion of the kin and of the agnates themselves, to the children of the male sex.
[Transcriber's Note: Lengthy footnote 16 relocated to chapter end.]
Whatever personal effects a father left, which were not offered up in sacrifice at the ceremonies of his funeral, they were distributed among his male offsprings, and if there were none, they went to his brothers. Females held nothing whatever, beyond their wearing apparel and some few ornaments for personal use.
[Footnote: Motolinia (Trat. II, cap. V, p. 120). Torquemada (Lib. XIII, cap. XLII to XLVIII, pp. 515 to 529). Acosta (Lib. V, cap. VIII, pp. 320, 321, and 322). Gomara (pp. 436 and 437, Vedra, I). Mendieta (Lib. II, cap. XL, pp. 162 and 163). Clavigero (Lib. VI, cap. XXXIX). "They burnt the clothes, arrows, and a portion of household utensils … "]
The 'tlalmilli' itself, at the demise of a father, went to his oldest son, with the obligation to improve it for the benefit of the entire family until the other children had been disposed of by marriage.
[Footnote: Gomara ("Conq. de Mejico", p. 434): "It is customary among tributary classes that the oldest son shall inherit the father's property, real and personal, and shall maintain and support all the brothers and nephews, provided they do what he commands them. The reason why they do not partition the estates is in order not to decrease it through such a partition…." Simancas M. S. S. ("Recueil," etc., etc., p. 224): "Relative to the calpulalli … the sons mostly inherited."]
But the other males could apply to the chief of the calpulli for a 'tlalmilli' of their own; the females went with their husbands. Single blessedness, among the Mexicans, appears to have occurred only in case of religious vows, and in which case they fell back for subsistence upon the part allotted to worship, or in case of great infirmities, for which the calpulli provided.
[Footnote: Zurita (p. 55): "He who has no land applies to the chief of the tribe (calpulli), who, upon the advice of the other old men, assigns to him a tract suitable for his wants, and corresponding to his abilities and to his strength." Herrera (Dec. III, Lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 135).]
[Footnote: Such unmarried females were the "nuns" frequently mentioned by the old writers. We shall have occasion to investigate the point in our paper on "The ancient Mexican priesthood." As attendants to worship, they participated in the tributes furnished towards it by each calpulli, of which we have spoken.]
No mention is made of the widow participating in the products of the 'tlalmilli,' still it is presumable that she was one of those whom the oldest son had to support. There are indications that the widow could remarry, in which case her husband, of course, provided for her.
"The customs of Inheritance, as above reported, were the same with chiefs as well as with the ordinary members of the tribe. Of the personal effects very little remained, since the higher the office was which the deceased had held, the more display was made at his cremation, and consequently the more of his dresses, weapons, and ornaments were burnt with the body. Of lands, the chiefs only held each their 'tlalmilli' in the usual way, as members of their kin, whereas the other 'official' lots went to the new incumbents of the offices. It should always be borne in mind that none of these offices were hereditary themselves. Still, a certain 'right of succession' is generally admitted as having existed. Thus, with the Tezcucans, the office of head war-chief might pass from father to son, at Mexico from brother to brother, and from uncle to nephew." [Footnote: Zurita (p. 12). Gomara (Vedia I, p. 434). Torquemada (Lib. IX, cap. IV, p. 177; Lib. XI, cap. 27, p. 356, etc. etc.).]
[Footnote: This fact is too amply proven to need special references. We reserve it for final discussion in our proposed paper on the chiefs of the Mexicans, and the duties, powers and functions of their office.]
This might, eventually, have tended to perpetuate the office in the family, and with it also the possession of certain lands, attached to that officer's functions and duties. But it is quite certain too that this stage of development had not yet been reached by any of the tribes of Mexico at the time of its conquest by the Spaniards. The principal idea had not yet been developed, namely, that of the domain, which, in eastern countries at least, gradually segregated into individually hereditary tenures and ownerships.
"Out of the scanty remains thus left of certain features of aboriginal life in ancient Mexico, as well as out of the conflicting statements about that country's early history, we have now attempted to reconstruct the conceptions of the Mexican aborigines about tenure of lands, as well as their manner of distribution thereof. Our inquiries seem to justify the following conclusions:
"1. The notion of abstract ownership of the soil, either by a nation or state, or by the head of its government, or by individuals, was unknown to the ancient Mexicans.
"2. Definite possessory right was vested in the kinships composing the tribe; but the idea of sale, barter, or conveyance or alienation of such by the kin had not been conceived.
"3. Individuals, whatever might be their position or office, without any exception, held but the right to use certain defined lots for their sustenance, which right, although hereditary in the male line, was nevertheless limited to the conditions of residence within the area held by the kin, and of cultivation either by or in the name of him to whom the said lots were assigned.
"4. No possessory rights to land were attached to any office or chieftaincy. As members of a kin, each chief had the use of a certain lot, which he could rent or farm to others, for his benefit.
"5. For the requirements of tribal business, and of the governmental features of the kinships (public hospitality included), certain tracts were set apart as official lands, out of which the official households were supplied and sustained; but these lands and their products were totally independent from the persons or families of the chiefs themselves.
"6. Conquest of any tribe by the Mexicans was not followed by an annexation of that tribe's territory, nor by an apportionment of its soil among the conquerors. Tribute was exacted, and, for the purpose of raising that tribute (in part), special tracts were set off; the crops of which were gathered for the storehouses of Mexico.
"7. Consequently, as our previous investigations (of the warlike institutions and customs of the ancient Mexicans) have disproved the generally received notion of a military despotism prevailing among them, so the results of his review of Tenure and distribution of lands tend to establish 'that the principle and institution of feudality did not exist in aboriginal Mexico.'"
Among the Peruvians their land system was probably much the same as among the ancient Mexicans. But according to Garcilapo de la Vega, they had carried their system with respect to lands a little farther. Their lands, he remarks, were "divided into three parts and applied to different uses. The first was for the Sun, his priests and ministers; the second was for the King, and for the support and maintenance of his governors and officers…. And the third was for the natives and sojourners of the provinces, which was divided equally according to the needs which each family required." [Footnote: Royal Commentaries of Peru, Lond. ed., 1688. Rycaut, trans., p. 154.]
While these several statements may not present the exact case in all respects in Peru, Mexico, or among the Northern Indian tribes, they sufficiently indicate the ownership of land by communities of persons, larger or smaller, with a system of tillage that points to large households. Neither the Peruvians, nor the Aztecs, nor any Indian tribe had attained to a knowledge of the ownership of land in severalty in fee simple at the period of their discovery. This knowledge belongs to the period of civilization. There is not the slightest probability that any Indian, whether Iroquois, Mexican, or Peruvian, owned a foot of land that he could call his own, with power to sell and convey the same in fee simple to whomsoever he pleased.
THE CUSTOM OF HAVING BUT ONE PREPARED MEAL EACH DAY—A DINNER—AND THEIR SEPARATION AT MEALS, THE MEN EATING FIRST AND THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN AFTERWARDS.
This was the usage among the Indian tribes in the Lower Status of barbarism. In the Middle Status there seems to have been more method and regularity of life, but no change in their customs with respect to food, so marked in character that we are forced to recognize a new plan of domestic life among them. The Iroquois had but one cooked meal each day. It was as much as their resources and organization for housekeeping could furnish, and was as much as they needed. It was prepared and served usually before the noon-day hour, ten or eleven o'clock, and may be called a dinner. At this time the principal cooking for the day was done. After its division at the kettle, among the members of the household, it was served warm to each person in earthen or wooden bowls. They had neither tables, nor chairs, nor plates, in our sense, nor any room in the nature of a kitchen or a dining room, but ate each by himself, sitting or standing, and where most convenient to the person. They also separated as to the time of eating, the men eating first and by themselves, and the women and children afterwards and by themselves. That which remained was reserved for any member of the household when hungry. Towards evening the women cooked hominy, the maize having been pounded into bits the size of a kernel of rice, which was boiled and put aside to be used cold as a lunch in the morning or evening, and for the entertainment of visitors. They had neither a formal breakfast nor a supper. Each person, when hungry, ate of whatever food the house contained. They were moderate eaters. This is a fair picture of Indian life in general in America, when discovered. After intercourse commenced with whites, the Iroquois gradually began to adopt our mode of life but very slowly. One of the difficulties was to change the old usage and accustom themselves to eat together. It came in by degrees, first with the breaking up of the old plan of living together in numbers in the old long-houses, and with the substitution of single houses for each family, which ended communism and living in the large household, and substituted the subsistence of a single family through individual effort. After many years came the use of the table and chairs among the more advanced families of the Iroquois tribes. There are still upon the Iroquois reservations in this State many log homes or cabins with but a single room on the ground floor and a loft above, with neither a table or chair in their scanty furniture. A portion of them still live very much in the old style, with perhaps two regular meals daily instead of one. That they have made this much of change in the course of two centuries must be accounted remarkable, for they have been compelled, so to speak, to jump one entire ethnical period, without the experience or training of so many intervening generations, and without the brain-growth such a change of the plan of domestic life implies, when reached through natural individual experience. There is a tradition still current among the Seneca-Iroquois, if the memory of so recent an occurrence may be called traditional, that when the proposition that man and wife should eat together, which was so contrary to immemorial usage, was first determined in the affirmative, it was formally agreed that man and wife should sit down together at the same dish and eat with the same ladle, the man eating first and then the woman, and so alternately until the meal was finished.
The testimony of such writers as have noticed the house-life of the Indian tribes is not uniform in respect to the number of meals a day. Thus Catlin remarks, "As I have before observed these men (the Mandans) generally eat but twice a day, and many times not more than once, and these meals are light and simple…. The North American Indians, taking them in the aggregate, even when they have an abundance to subsist on, eat less than any civilized population of equal numbers that I have ever traveled among." [Footnote: North American Indians, Philadelphia ed., 1857, i, 203.]
And Heckewelder, speaking of the Delawares and other tribes, says:
"They commonly make two meals every day, which they say is enough.
If any one should feel hungry between meal-times, there is generally
something in the house ready for him."
[Footnote: Indian Nations, 193.] Adair contents himself with stating of the Chocta and Cherokee tribes that "they have no stated meal time."
[Footnote: History of the American Indian, Lond. ed., 1775, p. 17.]
There was doubtless some variation in different localities, and even in the same household; but as a general rule, from what is known of their mode of life, one prepared meal each day expresses very nearly all the people in this condition of society can do for the sustenance of mankind.
Although the sedentary Village Indians were one ethnical period in advance of the Northern Indians, there can be but little doubt that their mode of life in this respect was substantially the same. Among the Aztecs or ancient Mexicans a dinner was provided about midday, but we have no satisfactory account of a breakfast or a supper habitually and regularly prepared. Civilization, with its diversified industries, its multiplied products, and its monogamian family, affords a breakfast and supper in addition to a dinner. It is doubtful whether they are older than civilization; and even if they can be definitely traced backward into the older period of barbarism, there is little probability of their being found in the Middle period. Clavigero attempts to invest the Aztecs with a breakfast, but he was unable to find any evidence of a supper. "After a few hours of labor in the morning," he observes, "they took their breakfast, which was most commonly atolli, a gruel of maize, and their dinner after midday; but among all the historians we can find no mention of their supper." [Footnote: History of Mexico, ii, 262.]
The "gruel of maize" here mentioned as forming usually the Aztec breakfast suggests the "hominy of the Iroquois," which, like it, was not unlikely kept constantly prepared in every Mexican house as a lunch for the hungry. Two meals each day are mentioned by other Spanish authors, but as the Aztecs, as well as the tribes in Yucatan and Central America, were ignorant of the use of tables and chairs in eating their food, divided their food from the kettle, placing the dinner of each person usually in a separate bowl, and separated at their meals, the men eating first and by themselves, and the women and children afterwards, this similarity of usage renders it probable they were not far removed from the Iroquois in respect to the time and manner of taking their food. Montezuma's dinner, witnessed by Bernal-Diaz and others, and elaborately described by a number of authors, shows that the Aztecs had a smoking hot dinner each day, prepared regularly, and on a scale adequate to a large household; that the dinner of each person was placed in one bowl, and all these bowls to the number of several hundred were brought in and set down together upon the floor of one room, where they were taken up one by one by the male members of the household, and the contents eaten sitting down upon the floor or standing in the open court, as best suited them. The breakfast that preceded it, and the supper that follows, are not mentioned, from which we infer that there was neither a breakfast nor a supper for these inquisitive observers to see. Neither is the subsequent dinner of the women and children of the household mentioned, from which it may be inferred that as the men ate their dinner first in a particular hall by themselves, the women and children took their dinner later in another hall, not seen by the Spaniards.
In the accounts of Montezuma's dinner a cook-house or kitchen is mentioned, in which the dinner for the large household of the "Tecpan" or "official house," so fully explained above by Mr. Bandelier, was prepared. This kitchen, and the use of another room, where the bowls containing the dinner of each person separately were set down on the floor in a mass by themselves—an incipient dining-room—make their first appearance in the Middle Status of barbarism. But, as will be noticed, they are but rude realizations of the kitchen and dining-room of civilized man. The pueblo houses in Yucatan and Chiapas, now in ruins, are without chimneys, from which it may be inferred that no cooking was done within them. At Uxmal we recognize in the Governor's House, the Tecpan or official-house, and in the House of the Nuns, and other structures which formed the pueblo, the joint-tenement houses in which the body of the tribe resided. If the truth of the matter is ever ascertained, it will probably be found that the dinner for each household group, consisting of several families, was prepared in a common cook-house outside of the main structure, and that it was divided at the kettle to the individuals of each household.
The separation of the sexes at their meals has been sufficiently referred to among the Iroquois. Robertson states the usage as general. "They must approach their lords with reverence; they must regard them as more exalted beings, and are not permitted to eat in their presence." [Footnote: History of America, New York ed., 1856, 178.]
Catlin the same: "These women, however, although graceful and civil, and ever so beautiful, or ever so hungry, are not allowed to sit in the same group with the men while at their meals. So far as I have yet traveled in the Indian country, I have never seen an Indian woman eating with her husband. Men form the first group at the banquet, and women and children and dogs all come together at the next." [Footnote: North American Indians, i, 202.] And Adair "for the men feast by themselves and the women eat the remains." [Footnote: History of the American Indians, p. 140.]
Herrera remarks that "the woman of Yucatan are rather larger than the Spanish and generally have good faces … but they would formerly be drunk at their festivals, though they did eat apart." [Footnote: History of America, iv, 175.] And Sahagun, speaking of the ceremony of baptism among the Aztecs, observes that "to the women, who ate apart, they did not give cacao to drink." [Footnote: Historia General, lib. iv, 36]
With these general references to the universality of the practice on the part of the men of eating first, and leaving the women and children to come afterwards, according to the manners of barbarism, we leave the subject.
[Relocated Footnote 1: Torquemada (Lib. II, cap. LXVIII, p. 194) "Estaba de ordinario, recogido en una grande Sala (el calpul)." (Lib. III, cap. XXVII, p. 305. Lib. IV, cap. XIX, p. 396) (que asi llaman las Salas grandes de Comunidad, o de Cabildo). We find, under the corrupted name of "galpon," the "calpulli" in Nicaragua among the Niquirans, which speak a dialect of the Mexican (Nahuatl) language. See E. G. Squier ("Nicaragua," Vol. II, p. 342). "The council-houses were called grepons, surrounded by broad corridors called galpons, beneath which the arms were kept, protected by a guard of young men". Mr. Squier evidently bases upon Oviedo ("Hist. general," Lib. XLII, cap. III, p. 52). "Esta casa de cabildo llaman galpon…." It is another evidence in favor of our statements, that the kinship formed the original unit of the tribe, and at the same time a hint that, as in New Mexico, originally, an entire kin inhabited a single large house. See Molina's Vocab. (p. 11).]
[Relocated Footnote 2: There is no evidence of any tribute or prestation due by the quarters to the tribe. The custom always remained, that the "calpulli" was sovereign within its limits. See Alonzo de Zunta ("Rapport sur les differentes classes de chefs de la Nouvelle-Espagne," pp. 51-65). Besides, Ixtlilxochitl says: ("Hist. des Chichim," cap. XXXV, p. 242), "Other fields were called Calpolalli or Altepetlalli." Now calpulalli (from "calpulli," quarter or kinship, and "tlalli," soil), means soil of the kin, and altepetalli ("altepetl," tribe), soil of the tribe. Clavigero even says that the lands called "altepetlalli," belonging to the communities "of the towns and villages, were divided into so many parts as there were quarters in the town, each quarter having its own, without the least connection with the other." (Lib. VII, cap. XIV.) This indicates plainly that the kinships held the soil, whereas the tribe occupied the territorial expanse. The domain, either as pertaining to a "lord," or to a "state", was unknown among the Indians in general. Even among the Peruvians, who were more advanced than the Mexicans in that respect, there was no domain of the tribe.]
[Relocated Footnote 3: See Torquemada (Lib. II, cap. XI, and Lib. III, cap. XXII). Duran (cap. V). The quotation is from Herrera (Dec. II, Lib. VII, cap. XIII, p. 190), and is confirmed by Torquemada (Lib. III, cap. XXIII, p. 291), and especially by Gomara ("Conquista de Mejico," p. 443. Vedia, I.) "Many married people ('muchos casados') live in one house, either on account of the brothers and relations being together, as they do not divide their grounds ('heredades'), or on account of the limited space of the pueblos; although the pueblos are large, and even the houses." Peter Martyr of Angleria ("De Novo Orbe," translated by Richard Eden and Michael Lok, London, 1612, Dec. V, cap. X, p. 228), says: "But the common houses themselves as high as a mannes Girdle, were also built of stone, by reason of the swelling of the lake through the flood, or washing float of the Ryvers falling into it. Upon those greate foundations, they builded the reste of the house, with Bricke dryed, or burned in the sunne, intermingled with Beames of Tymber, and the common houses have but one floore or planchin." We are forcibly reminded here of the houses of Itza on Lake Peten, which were found in 1695. ("Hist. de la Conq. de los Itzaex," Lib. VIII, cap. XII, p. 494.) "It was all filled with houses, some with stone walls more than one rod high, and higher up of wood, and the roofs of straw, and some only of wood and straw. There lived in them all the Inhabitants of the Island brutally together, one relationship occupying a single house." See also the highly valuable Introduction to the second Dialogue of Cervantes-Salazar ("Mexico in 1554") by my excellent friend Sr. Icazbalceta (pp. 73 and 74).]
[Relocated Footnote 4: This successive formation of new "calpulli" is nowhere explicitly stated, but it is implied by the passage of Duran which we have already quoted (Cap. V, p. 42). It also results from their military organization as described in the "Art of War" (p. 115). With the increase of population, the original kinships necessarily disaggregated further, as we have seen it to have occurred among the Quiche (see "Popul-Vuh," quoted in our note 7), forming smaller groups of consanguinei. After the successful war against the Tecpanecas, of which we shall speak hereafter, we find at least twenty chiefs, representing as many kins (Duran, cap. XI, p. 97), besides three more, adopted then from those of Culhuscan (Id., pp. 98 and 99). This indicates an increase.]
[Relocated Footnote 5: Torquemada (Lib. III, cap. XXIV, p. 295): "I confess it to be truth that this city of Mexico is divided into four principal quarters, each one of which contains others, smaller ones, included, and all, in common as well as in particular, have their commanders and leaders…." Zurita ("Rapport," p. 58-64). That the smaller subdivisions were those who held the soil, and not the four original groups, must be inferred from the fact that the ground was attached to the calpulli. Says Zurita (p. 51), "They (the lands) do not belong to each inhabitant of the village, but to the calpulli, which possesses them in common." On the other hand, Torquemada states (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545), "That in each pueblo, according to the number of people, there should be (were) clusters ('parcialidades') of diverse people and families…. These clusters were distributed by calpules, which are quarters ('barrios'), and it happened that one of the aforesaid clusters sometimes contained three, four, and more calpules, according to the population of the place ('pueblo') or tribe." The same author further affirms: "These quarters and streets were all assorted and leveled with so much accuracy that those of one quarter or street could not take a palm of land from those of another, and the same was with the streets, their lots running (being scattered) all over the pueblo." Consequently there were no communal lands allotted to the four great quarters of Mexico as such, but each one of the kinships (calpules) held its part of the original aggregate. Compare Gomara (Vedia, Vol. I, "Conq. de Mejico," p. 434: "Among tributaries it is a custom, etc., etc." Also p. 440). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. XIV): "Each quarter has its own tract, without the least connection with the others."]
[Relocated Footnote 6: Compare Duran (Cap XI, p. 87). Acosta (Lib. VII, cap, XXXI, p. 470). It appears as if the "teepan" had not been constructed previous to the middle of the 14th century, the meetings of the tribe being previously called together by priests, and probably in the open space around the main house of worship. The fact of the priests calling the public meetings is proved by Duran (Cap. IV, p. 42). Acosta (Lib. VII, cap. VII, p. 468). Veytia (Lib. II, cap. XVIII, pp. 156,159. Cap. XXI, p. 186). Acosta first mentions "unos palacios, aunque harto pobres." (Lib. VII, cap. 8, p. 470), on the occasion of the election of the first regular "tlacatecuhtli:" Acamapichtli—Torquemada says (Lib. XII, cap. XXII, p. 290) that they lived in miserable huts of reeds and straw, erected around the open space where the altar or place of worship of Huitzilopochtli was built. The public building was certainly their latest kind of construction.]
[Relocated Footnote 7: "Patronomial Estates" are mentioned frequently, but the point is, where are they to be found? Neither the "teepan-tlalli" nor the "tlatoca-tlalli," still less the "calpulalli," show any trace of individual ownership. "Eredad" (heirloom) is called indiscriminately "milli" and "cuemitl" (Molina, Parte Ia, p. 57). The latter is also rendered as "tierra labrada, o camellon" (Molina, Parte IIa, p. 26). It thus reminds us of the "chinamitl" or garden-bed (as the name "camellon" also implies), and reduces it to the proportion of an ordinary cultivated lot among the others contained within the area of the calpulli. It is also called "tlalli," but that is the general name for soil or ground. "Tierras o eredades de particulares, juntas an alguna vega," is called "tlalmilli". This decomposes into "tlalli" soil and "milli." But "vega" signifies a fertile tract or field, and thus we have again the conception of communal lands, divided into lots improved by particular families, as the idea of communal tenure necessarily implies.]
[Relocated Footnote 8: Zurita ("Rapport," etc., etc., p. 50): "The chiefs of the second class are yet called calpullec in the singular and chinancallec in the plural." (This is evidently incorrect, since the words 'calpulli' and 'chinancalli' can easily be distinguished from each other.) "'Chinancalli', however after Molina means 'cercado de seto' (Parte IIa, p. 21), or an inclosed area, and if we connect it with the old original 'chinamitl' we are forcibly carried back to the early times, when the Mexicans but dwelt on a few flakes of more or less solid ground. This is an additional evidence in favor of the views we have taken of the growth of landed tenure among the Mexican tribe. We must never forget that the term is 'Nahuatl,' and as such recognized by all the other tribes, outside of the Mexicans proper. The interpretation as 'family' in the Quiche tongue of Guatemala, which we have already mentioned, turns up here as of further importance; that is: chiefs of an old race or family, from the word calpulli or chinancalli, which is the same, and signifies a quarter (barrio), inhabited by a family known, or of old origin, which possesses since long time a territory whose limits are known, and whose members are of the same lineage."
"The calpullis, families or quarters, are very common in each province. Among the lands which were given to the chefs of the second class there were also calpullis. These lands are the property of the people in general ('de la masse du peuple') from the time the Indians reached this land. Each family or tribe received a portion of the soil for perpetual enjoyment. They also had the name of calpulli, and until now this property has been respected. They do not belong to each inhabitant of the village in particular, but to the calpulli, which possesses them in common." Don Ramirez de Fuenleal, letter dated Mexico, 3 Nov., 1532 ("Recueil de pieces," etc, Ternaux-Compans, p. 253): "There are very few people in the villages which have lands of their own … the lands are held in common and cultivated in common." Herrera (Dec. III, Lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 135) confirms, in a condensed form, the statement of Zurita, "and they are not private lands of each one, but held in common." Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545.) Veytia (Lib. III, cap. VI, p. 196). "Finally, there were other tracts of lands in each tribe, called calpulalli, which is land of the calpules (barrios), which also were worked in common." Oviedo (Lib. XXXII, cap. LI, pp. 536 and 537). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. XIV). Bustamante ("Tezcoco," etc., Parte IIIa, cap. V. p. 232).]
[Relocated Footnote 9: Zurita (p. 52): "He who obtained them from the sovereign has not the right to dispose of them." Herrera (Dec. III, Lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 135): "He who possessed them could not alienate them, although he enjoyed their use for his lifetime." Torquemada (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545): "Disputes about lands are frequently mentioned, but they refer to the enjoyment and possession, and not the transfer of the land." Baron Humboldt ("Unes des Cordilleres et monuments indigenes des peuples de l'Amerique", Vol. I, Tab. V) reproduces a Mexican painting representing a litigation about land. But this painting was made subsequent to the Conquest, as the fact that the parties contending are Indians and Spaniards sufficiently asserts. Occasional mention is made that certain lands "could be sold." All such tracts, however, like the "pallali", have been shown by us to be held in communal tenure of the soil, there enjoyment alone being given to individuals and their families.]
[Relocated Footnote 10: Zurita (p. 60): "The calpulli have a chief taken necessarily from among the tribe; he must be one of the principal inhabitants, an able man who can assist and defend the people. The election takes place among them…. The office of this chief is not hereditary; when any one dies, they elect in his place the most respected old man…. If the deceased has left a son who is able the choice falls upon him, and a relative of the former incumbent is always preferred." (Id., pp. 50 and 222). Simancas M. S. S. ("De l'ordre de succession," etc., "Recucil," p. 225): As to the mode of regulating the jurisdiction and election of the alcaldes and regidors of the villages, "they nominated men of note who had the title of achcatanlitin…. There were no other elections of officers…." ('Art of War,' etc. pp. 119 and 120).]
[Relocated Footnote 11: Zurita (pp. 61 and 62): "This chief has charge of the lands of the calpulli. It is his duty to defend their possession. He keeps paintings showing the tracts, the names of their holders, the situation, the limits, the number of men tilling them, the wealth of private individuals, the designations of each as are vacant, of others that belong to the Spaniards, the date of donation, to whom and by whom they were given. These paintings he constantly renews, according to the changes occurring, and in this they are very skillful." It is singular that Motolinia, in his "Epistola proemial" ("Col. de Doc."; Icazbalceta, Vol. I, p. 5), among the five "books of paintings" which he says the Mexicans had, makes no mention of the above. Neither does he notice it in his letter dated Cholala, 27 Aug., 1554 ("Recueil de pieces," etc., Teruaux-Compans).]
[Relocated Footnote 12: Each family, represented by its male head, obtained a certain tract or lot for cultivation and use, Zurita (p. 55). "The party (member of the calpulli, because no member of another one had the right to settle within the area of it—see Id., p. 53), who has no lands applies to the chief of the calpulli, who, upon the advice of the other old men, assigns to him such as corresponds to his ability and wants. These lands go to his heirs…." (id., p. 56). "The proprietor who did not cultivate during two years, either through his own fault or through negligence, without just cause … he was called upon to improve them, and if he failed to do so they were given to another the following year." Bustamante (Tezcoco, etc., Parte IIIa, p. 190, cap I): "The fact that any holder of a 'tlalmilli' might rent out his share, if he himself was occupied in a line precluding him from actual work on it, results from the lands of the 'calpulli' being represented alternately treated as communal and again as private lands. Besides, it is said of the traders who, from the nature of their occupation, were mostly absent, that they were also members and participants of a 'calpulli'" (Zurita, p. 223. Sahagun, Lib. VIII, cap. III, p. 349). Now, as every Mexican belonged to a kinship, which held lands after the plan exposed above, it follows that such as were not able to work themselves, on account of their performing other duties subservient to the interests of the community still preserved their tracts by having others to work them for their benefit. It was not the right of tenancy which authorizes the improvement, but the fact of improvement for a certain purpose and benefit, which secured the possession or tenancy.]
[Relocated Footnote 13: From "tlalli" soil, and "maitl" hand. Hands of the soil. Molma (Parte IIa, p. 124) has: "tlalmaitl"—"labrador, y ganyan." This name is given in distinction of the "macehuales" or people working the soil in general. The tlalmaites are identical with the "mayeques." (See Zurita, p. 224): "tlalmaites or mayeques, which signifies tillers of the soil of others…." He distinguishes them plainly from the 'teccallec,' which are the 'tecpanpouhque' or "tecpantlaca" formerly mentioned as attending to a class official lands (p. 221, Zurita). Herrera (Dec. III, Lib. IV, cap. XVII, p. 138): "These mayeques could not go from one tract to another, neither leave those which they cultivated, and raised. They paid tribute to nobody else but the master of the land." This tends to show that there existed not an established obligation, a serfdom, but a voluntary contract, that the "tlalmaites" were not serfs, but simply renters.]
[Relocated Footnote 14: Motolinia (Tratado II, cap. V, p. 120): "But they left their houses and lands to their children" … Gomara (p. 434): "Es costumbre de pecheros que el hijo mayor herede al padre en toda la hacienda raiz y mueble, y que tenga y mantenga todos los hermanos y sobrinos, con tal que haganellos lo que el les mandare." Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. XIII): "In Mexico, and nearly the entire realm, the royal family excepted as already told, the sons succeeded to the father's rights; and if there were no sons, then the brothers, and the brothers' sons inherited." Bustamante ("Tezcoco," etc., p. 219): In all these cases, Bustamante only speaks of chiefs; but the quotations from Motolinia and Gomara directly apply to the people in general.]
[Relocated Footnote 15: Mr. L. H. Morgan has investigated the custom of inheritance, not only among the northern Indians, but also among the pueblo Indians of New Mexico. He establishes the fact, that the "kinship" or "gens," which we may justly consider as the unit of organization in American aboriginal society, participated in the property of the deceased. He proves it among the Iroquois ("Ancient Society," Part II, cap. II, pp. 75 and 76). Wyandottes, Id., cap. VII, p. 153. Missouri-tribes, p. 155. Winnebagoes, p 157. Mandans, p 158. Minnitarees, p. 159. Creeks, p. 161. Choctas, p. 162. Chickasas, p. 163. Ojibwas, p. 167; also Potowattomies and Crees, Miamis, p. 168. Shawnees, p. 169. Sauks, Foxes and Menominies, p. 170. Delawares, p. 172. Munsees and Mohegans, p. 173. Finally, the pueblo Indians of New Mexico are shown to have, if not the identical at least a similar mode of inheritance. It would be easy to secure further evidence, from South America also.]
[Relocated Footnote 16: Letter of Motolinia and Diego d'Olarte, to Don Luis de Velasco, Cholula, 27 Aug., 1554 ("Recueil," etc., etc., p. 407): "The daughters did not inherit; it was the principal, wife's son" … "Besides, nearly every author designates but a son, or sons, as the heirs. There is no mention made of daughters at all. In Tlaxcallan, it is also expressly mentioned that the daughters did not inherit" (Torquemada, Lib. XI, cap. XXII, p. 348). In general, the position of woman in ancient Mexico was a very inferior one, and but little above that which it occupies among Indians in general. (Compare the description of Gomara, p. 440, Vedia I, with those of Sahagun. Lib. X, cap. I, p. 1; cap. XIII, pp. 30, 31, 32, and 33. The fact is generally conceded). H. H. Bancroft "Native Races," Vol. II, cap. VI, p. 224, etc.]
CHAPTER V.
HOUSES OF INDIAN TRIBES NORTH OF NEW MEXICO.
The growth of the idea of house architecture in general is a subject more comprehensive than the scope of this volume. But there is one phase of this growth, illustrating as it does the condition of society and of the family in savagery and in barbarism, to which attention will be invited. It is found in the domestic architecture of the American aborigines, considered as a whole, and as parts of one system. As a system it stands related to the institutions, usages, and customs presented in the previous chapters. There is not only abundant evidence in the collective architecture of the Indian tribes of the gradual development of this great faculty or aptitude of the human mind among them, through three ethnical periods, but the structures themselves, or a knowledge of them, remain for comparison with each other. A comparison will show that they belong to a common indigenous system of architecture. There is a common principle running through all this architecture, from the hut of the savage to the commodious joint-tenement house of the Village Indians of Mexico and Central America, which will contribute to its elucidation.
The indigenous architecture of the Village Indians has given to them, more than aught else, their position in the estimation of mankind. The facts of their social condition in other respects, which, unfortunately, are obscure, have been much less instrumental in fixing their status than existing architectural remains. The Indian edifices in Mexico and Central America of the period of the Conquest may well excite surprise and even admiration; from their palatial extent, from the material used in their construction, and from the character of their ornamentation, they are highly creditable to their skill in architecture. But a false interpretation has, from the first, been put upon this architecture, as I think can be shown, and inferences with respect to the social condition and the degree of advancement of these tribes have been constantly drawn from it both fallacious and deceptive, when the plain truth would have been more creditable to the aborigines. It will be my object to give an interpretation of this architecture in harmony with the usages and customs of the Indian tribes. The houses of the different tribes, in ground-plan and mechanism, will be considered and compared, in order to show wherein they represent one system.
A common principle, as before stated, runs through all this architecture, from the "long-house" of the Iroquois to the "pueblo houses" of New Mexico, and to the so-called "palace" at Palenqne, and the "House of the Nuns" at Uxmal. It is the principle of adaptation to communism in living, restricted in the first instance to household groups, and extended finally to all the inhabitants of a village or encampment by the law of hospitality. Hunger and destitution were not known at one end of an Indian village while abundance prevailed at the other. Joint-tenement houses, each occupied by one large household, as among the Iroquois, or by several household groups, as in Yucatan, were the natural and inevitable result of their usages and customs. Communism in living and the law of hospitality, it seems probable, accompanied all the phases of Indian life in savagery and in barbarism. These and other facts of their social condition embodied themselves in their architecture, and will contribute to its elucidation.
The house architecture of the Northern tribes is of little importance, in itself considered; but, as an outcome of their social condition and for comparison with that of the Southern Village Indians, it is highly important. An attempt will be made to show, firstly, that the known communism in living of the former tribes entered into and determined the character of their houses, which are communal; and, secondly, that wherever the structures of the latter class are obviously communal, the practice of communism in living at the period of discovery may be inferred from the structures themselves, although many of them are now in ruins, and the people who constructed them have disappeared. Some evidence, however, of the communism of the Village Indians has been presented.
COMMUNAL HOUSES OF TRIBES IN SAVAGERY.
Mr. Stephen Powers, in his recent and instructive work on the "California Tribes," enumerates seven varieties of the lodge constructed by these tribes, adapted to the different climates of the State. One form was adapted to the raw and foggy climate of the California coast, constructed of redwood poles over an excavated pit, another to the snow-belt of the Coast Range and of the Sierras; another to the high ranges of the Sierras; another to the warm coast valleys; another, limited to a small area, constructed of interlaced willow poles, the interstices being open; another to the woodless plains of the Sacramento and the San Joaquin, dome-shaped and covered with earth; and another to the hot and nearly rainless region of the Kern and Tulare valleys, made of tule. Four of these varieties are given below, the illustrations being taken from his work. [Footnote: Powell's Geographical Survey, &c., of the Rocky Mountain Region, Contributions to American Ethnology, vol. iii, Powers' Tribes of California, p. 436.]
"In making a wigwam, they excavated about two feet, banked up the earth enough to keep out the water, and threw the remainder on the roof dome-shaped. With the Lolsel the bride often remains in the father's house, and her husband comes to live with her, whereupon half the purchase money is returned. Thus there will be two or three families in one lodge. They are very clannish, especially the mountain tribes, and family influence is all potent." [Footnote: ib., p. 221.]
Elsewhere he remarks upon this form of house as follows: "On the great woodless plains of the Sacramento and San Joaquin, the savages naturally had recourse to earth for a material. The round, domed-shaped, earth-covered lodge is considered the characteristic one of California; and probably two-thirds of its immense aboriginal population lived in dwellings of this description. The doorway is sometimes directly on top, sometimes on the ground, at one side. I have never been able to ascertain whether the amount of rain-fall of any given locality had any influence in determining the place of the door." [Footnote: ib., p. 437.]
This mode of entrance reappears in the more artistic house of the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico, where the rooms are entered by means of a trap-door in the roof, the descent being made by a ladder. The "immense aboriginal population" of California, claimed by Mr. Powers, is too strong a statement.
"This wigwam is in the shape of the capital letter L, made up of slats leaning up to a ridge-pole and heavily thatched. All along the middle of it the different families or generations have their fires, while they sleep next the walls, lying on the ground, underneath rabbit-skins and other less elegant robes, and amid a filthy cluster of baskets, dogs, and all the wretched trumpery dear to the aboriginal heart. There are three narrow holes for dens, one at either end and one at the elbow." This is Mr. Powers' fifth variety of the lodge. [Footnote: Powers' Tribes of Cal., p. 284.]
"In the very highest region of Sierra, where the snow falls to such an enormous depth that the fire would be blotted out and the whole open side snowed up, the dwelling retains substantially the same form and materials, but the fire is taken into the middle of it, and one side of it (generally the east one) slopes down more nearly horizontal than the other, and terminates in a curved way about three feet high and twice as long." Half a dozen such houses make an Indian village, with the addition of a "dome-shaped assembly or dance house" in the middle space. "One or more acorn-granaries of wicker-work stand around each lodge, much like hogsheads in shape and size, either on the ground or mounted on posts as high as one's head, full of acorns and capped with thatch." [Footnote: Powers' Tribes of Cal., p. 284.]
In Southern California, where the climate is both dry and hot, the natives constructed a wigwam entirely different from those found in other parts of the State. "In the Yokut nation," Mr. Powers remarks, "there appears to be more political solidarity, more capacity in the petty tribes of being grouped into large and coherent masses than is common in the State. This is particularly true of those living on the plains, who display in their encampments a military precision and regularity which are remarkable. Every village consists of a single row of wigwams, conical or wedge-shaped, generally made of tule, and just enough hollowed out within so that the inmates may sleep with the head higher than the feet, all in perfect alignment, and with a continuous awning of brushwood stretching along in front. In one end-wigwam lives the village captain; on the other the shaman of si-se'-ro. In the mountains there is some approach to this martial array, but it is universal on the plains." [Footnote: Powers' Tribes of Cal., p. 370.]
As a rule these houses were occupied by more families than one, as is shown by the same author. In the northern part of the State "the Tatu wigwams do not differ essentially from those of the vicinal tribes. They are constructed of stout willow wicker-work, dome-shaped, and thatched with grass. Sometimes they are very large and oblong, with sleeping-room for thirty or forty persons." [Footnote: ib., p. 139.]
The Yo-kai'-a inhabit a section of the north-west part of the State. "Their style of lodge is the same which prevails generally along Russian River, a huge frame-work of willow poles covered with thatch, and resembling a large flattish haystack. Though still preserving the same style and materials, since they have adopted from the Americans the use of boards they have learned to construct all around the wall of the wigwam a series of little state rooms, if I may so call them, which are snugly boarded up and furnished with bunks inside. This enables every family in these immense patriarchal lodges to disrobe and retire with some regard to decency, which could not be done in the one common room of the old style wigwam." [Footnote: ib., p. 163.]
Again: "The Se-nel, together with three other petty tribes, mere villages, occupy that broad expanse of Russian River Valley on one side of which now stands the American village of Senel. Among them we find unmistakably developed that patriarchal system which appears to prevail all along Russian River. They construct immense dome-shaped or oblong lodges of willow poles an inch or two in diameter, woven in square lattice-work, securely lashed and thatched. In each one of these live several families, sometimes twenty or thirty persons, including all who are blood relations. Each wigwam, therefore, is a pueblo, a law unto itself; and yet these lodges are grouped in villages, some of which formerly contained hundreds of inhabitants." [Footnote: ib., p. 168.]
I cannot find that Mr. Powers mentions the practice of communism in these households, but the fact seems probable. Their usages in the matter of hospitality are much the same as in the other tribes. Their principal food was salmon, acorn-flour bread, game, kamas, and berries. They were, without pottery, cooked in ground ovens, and also in water-tight baskets by means of heated stones.
A brief reference may be made to the skin lodge of the Kutchin or
Louchoux of the Yukon and Peel Rivers.
[Illustration: Fig. 5.—Kutchin Lodge.]
This simple structure, the ground plan and elevation of which were taken from the Smithsonian Report, is thus described by Mr. Strachan Jones: [Footnote: Report for 1866, p. 321.] "Deer-skins are dressed with the hair on, and sewed together, forming two large rolls, which are stretched over a frame of bent poles. The lodge is nearly elliptical, about twelve or thirteen feet in diameter and six feet high, very similar to a tea-cup turned over. The door is about four feet high, and is simply a deer-skin fastened above and hanging down. The hole to allow the smoke to escape is about four feet in diameter. Snow is heaped up outside the edges of the lodge and pine brush spread on the ground inside, the snow having been previously shoveled off with snow-shoes. The fire is made in the middle of the lodge, and one or more families, as the case may be, live on each side of the fire, every one having his or her particular place." [Footnote: ib., p. 322.] He further remarks that "they have no pottery," and that they boil water "by means of stones heated red hot and thrown into the kettle." [Footnote: ib., p. 321.]
The principal fact to be noticed is that the lodge is comparted into stalls open on the central space, in the midst of which is the fire-pit, evidently for the accommodation of more families than one. This arrangement of the interior will reappear in numerous other cases. The Kutchin must be classed as savages, although near the close of that condition.
The tribes of the valley of the Columbia lived more or less in villages, but, like the tribes of California, were without horticulture and without pottery. But they found an abundant subsistence in the shell-fish of the coast, and in the myriads of fish in the Columbia and its tributaries. They also subsisted upon kamash and other bread roots of the prairies, which they cooked in ground ovens, and upon berries and game. They were expert boatmen and fishermen, manufactured water-tight baskets, implements of wood, stone, and bone, and used the bow and arrow. As another quite remarkable fact, they used plank in their houses, made by splitting logs with stone and elk-horn chisels. Like the Kutchin, they were in the Upper Status of savagery.
When Lewis and Clarke visited the Columbia River district (1805-1806) they found the Indian tribes living in houses of the plainest communal type, and some of them approaching in ground dimensions and in the number of their occupants the pueblo houses in New Mexico. They speak of a house of the Chopunish (Nez Perces) as follows: "This village of Tumachemootool is in fact only a single house one hundred and fifty feet long, built after the Chopunish fashion, with sticks, straw and dried grass. It contains twenty-four fires, about double that number of families, and might perhaps muster a hundred fighting men." [Footnote: Travels, etc., l. c., p. 548.]
This would give five hundred people in a single house. The number of fires probably indicates the number of groups practicing communism in living among themselves, though for aught we know it may have been general in the entire household.
[Illustration: Fig. 6—Ground plan of Ncerchokioo.]
Another great house, Ncerchokioo, is thus described: "This large building is two hundred and twenty-six feet in front, entirely above ground, and may be considered a single house, because the whole is under one roof, otherwise it would seem more like a range of buildings, as it is divided into seven distinct apartments, each thirty feet square, by means of broad boards set up on end from the floor to the roof. The apartments are separated from each other by a passage or alley four feet wide, extending through the whole depth of the house, and the only entrance is from the alley through a small hole about twenty inches wide and not more than three feet high. The roof is formed of rafters and round poles laid on horizontally. The whole is covered with a double roof of bark of white cedar." [Footnote: Lewis and Clarke's Travels, p. 503.]
The apartments, as in the previous case of the fires, may be supposed to indicate the number of groups into which the great household was subdivided for the practice of communism.
Elsewhere, speaking of the houses of the Clahclellahs, they remark: "These houses are uncommonly large; one of them measured one hundred and sixty by forty feet, and the frames are constructed in the usual manner…. Most of the houses are built of boards and covered with bark, though some of the more inferior kind are constructed wholly of cedar bark, kept smooth and flat by small splinters fixed crosswise through the bark, at the distance of twelve or fourteen inches apart." [Footnote: ib., p. 515.]
The houses of the coast tribes (Clatsops and Chinooks) are also described. "The houses in this neighborhood are all large wooden buildings, ranging in length from twenty to sixty feet, and from fourteen to twenty in width. They are constructed in the following manner: two posts of split timber or more, agreeable to the number of partitions, are sunk in the ground, above which they rise to the height of fourteen or eighteen feet. They are hollowed at the top, so as to receive the end of a round beam or pole (ridge-pole) stretching from one to the other, and forming the upper point of the roof for the whole extent of the building. On each side of this range is placed another, which forms the eaves of the house, and is about five feet high; and as the building is often sunk to the depth of four or five feet, the eaves come very near the surface of the earth. Smaller pieces of timber are now extended by pairs, in the form of rafters, from the lower to the upper beams, where they are attached at both ends with cords of cedar bark. On these rafters two or three ranges of small poles are placed horizontally, and secured in the same way with strings of cedar bark. The sides are now made, with a range of white boards, sunk a small distance into the ground, with upper ends projecting above the poles at the eaves…. The gable end and partitions are formed in the same way…. The roof is than covered with a double range of thin boards, except an aperture of two or three feet in the center, for the smoke to pass through. The entrance is by a small hole, cut out of the boards, and just large enough to admit the body. The very largest houses only are divided by partitions, for though three or four families reside in the same room, there is quite space enough for all of them. In the center of each room is a space six or eight feet square, sunk to the depth of twelve inches below the rest of the floor, and inclosed by four pieces of square timber. Here they make the fire, for which purpose pine bark is generally preferred. Around the fireplace mats are placed, and serve as seats during the day, and very frequently as beds at night. There is, however, a more permanent bed made by fixing, in two or sometimes three sides of the room, posts reaching from the roof to the ground, and at the distance of four feet from the wall. From these posts to the wall itself, one or two ranges of boards are placed so as to form shelves, in which they either sleep or there stow away their various articles of merchandise." [Footnote: Lewis and Clarke's Travels, p. 431.]
These explorers found the houses of the Indian tribes throughout the Columbia Valley occupied by several families, the smallest of them containing from twenty to forty persons, and the largest five hundred. The presence of large households is fully shown as the rule in their house-life. The practice of communism by the household, as stated by these authors, has already (supra, p. 71) been presented. This tendency to aggregation in groups, for subsistence and for mutual protection, reveals the weakness of the single family in the presence of the hardships of life. Communism in living was very plainly a necessity of their condition.