For aught that appears the people were an unorganized rabble. An emperor, with lords and nobles, judges, captains, and municipal functionaries appear, a multitude of officers of all grades, but with no organized society behind them to whom they were responsible. How these men came into their offices, and the tenure by which they were held, is left a mystery. Montezuma appointed them, they would have us believe, because it so easily disposes of the difficulty. But they have mentioned two facts which may enable future investigators to solve the problem of Montezuma's election. It appears that the Aztecs occupied their pueblo in four divisions, precisely as the Tlascalans occupied theirs, each in a distinct quarter, called the four quarters of Mexico. It seems highly probable that these divisions were four Aztec phratries. These again are represented by Tezozomoc and Herrera as falling into subdivisions. It is equally probable that these subdivisions were so many gentes. Each of these subdivisions, as will be shown, held lands in common. When a people organized in gentes, phratries, and tribes gather in a town or city, they settle locally by gentes and tribes, a necessary consequence of their social organization. The Grecian and Roman gentes and tribes settled in their cities in this manner. For example, the three Roman tribes were organized in gentes and curiæ (ten gentes in a curiæ, and ten curiæ in a tribe), the curia being the analogue of the phratry; and they settled locally at Rome by gentes, by curiæ, and by tribes. The Ramnes occupied the Palatine Hill, the Tities were mostly on the Quirinal, and the Luceres mostly on the Esquiline. If the Aztecs were organized in gentes and phratries, having but one tribe, they would of necessity be found in as many quarters as they had phratries, with each gens of the same phratry in the main locally by itself. The fact that the Aztec office of warchief passed from brother to brother or from uncle to nephew is confirmed by two elections under the eyes of the Spaniards. Montezuma was succeeded by his brother Cuitlahua, and the latter was succeeded by his nephew Guatemozin. The same thing is known to have occurred in a number of previous successions. It may therefore be suggested as a probable explanation of the mode of election that the office was hereditary

in a gens by the members of which the choice was made. Their nomination was then submitted for acceptance or re-. jection to the four Aztec phratries, and also to the Tezcucans and Tlacopans, who were directly interested in the selection of the confederate commander. When each had considered and confirmed the nomination, they appointed a person to express their concurrence, whence the six electors. Their function was to compare the votes of their constituents, and if they agreed to announce the result. This is submitted as a conjecture upon the fragments of evidence remaining, but it is seen to harmonize with Indian usages, and with the theory of the office of an elective Indian chief. It may also be mentioned that Montezuma was deposed for cowardice while a prisoner in the hands of Cortes, and his brother Cuitlahua put in his place. Herrera's account makes this a plain and necessary inference;* thus showing that the power which elected and deposed from office was constantly present. It also implies an organized society, and expresses the vitality of the social system.

Recurring to the Iroquois organization, it may be remarked that the gens was founded upon kin, the phratry upon the kinship of the gentes, the tribe upon dialect, and the confederacy upon stock language. It resulted in a gentile society, fundamentally different from political society, resting upon territory and upon property. It will be noticed further, that the institutions of the Iroquois were essentially democratical, fact that will ultimately be found true of every tribe and confederacy of the American aborigines.

Other confederacies existed beside the Iroquois; among which may be mentioned the Creek Confederacy of six tribes, the Powhattan Confederacy, of which but little is known, the Otawa Confederacy of three tribes, the Dakota League of the Seven Council Fires, the Confederacy of the Seven Moqui Pueblos in New Mexico, and the Aztec Confederacy of three tribes. Traces of the same organization are found in parts of New and Old Mexico, Central and South America.

It remains to show the prevalence of the gentile organization in America by a reference to the tribes where its exist* History of America, Lond. ed., 1725, Stevens Trans., l. c. i.i. €6.

ence has been ascertained. The Wyandotes are composed of eight gentes in two phratries, the Creeks of twenty-two gentes, the Cherokees of eight, the Choctas of eight in two phratries, and the Chickasas of twelve in two phratries; the Delawares are composed of three gentes, the Munsees of three, the Mohegans of eleven in three phratries, the Abenakis of ten, the Ojibwas of twenty-three, the Potawattamies of fifteen, the Miamis of ten, the Shawnees of thirteen, the Sauks and Foxes of fourteen, the Blood Blackfeet of five, and the Piegan Blackfeet of eight; the Punkas are composed of eight gentes, the Omahas of twelve, the Iowas of eight, the Otoes and Missouris of eight, the Winnebagoes of eight, and the Mandans of seven; the Minnatares of seven, and the Crows of thirteen. The Pawnees are supposed to have six, and the Comanches six; but the fact has been but partially ascertained. On the Northwest Coast the Thlinkeets are composed of ten gentes in two phratries, and the Moqui Pueblo Indians of New Mexico of nine gentes. Mr. E. B. Tylor has traced the same organization among the Arawaks of British Guiana, and the Guaranees of Brazil.* Herrera speaks of the division of the Peruvian tribes into clans; † and mentions the fact of descent in the female line among the tribes of the Maranon. He also presents certain facts which establish the existence of gentes among the Mayas of Yucatan, the most advanced Village Indians in North America.§ The "lineage," and the "kindred" so frequently mentioned in his pages as a feature of the social condition of widely separated tribes in North and South America, require the organization into gentes for their explanation. From the evidence adduced it is rendered highly probable that this organization was anciently universal in the Indian family.

A single question remains: whether the Aztecs were organized in gentes and phratries. In the first place we find three Indian tribes united in a confederacy, which gives the two upper members of the organic series. They presuppose the first and second, the gens and the phratry. In the second place we find the Aztecs in four local divisions, answering to as many phratries, and these again in subdivisions, answering + Ib. 377.

*Early History of Mankind, p. 287. † Hist. of America, IV. 231.

§ Ib. 171.

to as many gentes. In the third place there was an Aztec council of chiefs. This presupposes as many gentes at least as there were members of this council; since no way is known of explaining the existence of an Indian chief or sachem except through a gens. And lastly, the Aztec, Tezcucan, and Tlacopan tribes, speaking dialects of the Nahuatlac language, are not distinguishable from the other tribes of American aborigines. Far from differing, they were precisely like all other tribes in the external manifestations of their organization, which was simply that of chiefs and people.

2. The Ownership of Lands in Common.

Among the Iroquois the public domain was owned by the tribe in common. A person who cultivated land had a possessory right to its use as long as he chose to occupy it; and upon his death it passed like his personal property to his gentile heirs. This in general was the land tenure of the Northern tribes. The Aztecs, who were one ethnical period in advance of the latter, had carried their land system one degree further. Their lands were divided into three principal parts, one of which was set off for the support of the government, one for the support of religion, and the remainder was reserved for the support of the people, in their social subdivisions. Clavigero remarks that "the lands which were called Altepetlalli, that is, those of the communities of cities and villages, were divided into as many parts as there were districts in a city, and every district possessed its own part entirely distinct from and independent of every other. These lands could not be alienated by any means whatever";* and he adds in a footnote that the royal laws grant to every Indian village or settlement the territory which surrounds them "to the extent of six hundred Castilian cubits." The 66 communities of villages," each situated by itself, and owning their lands in common, suggest the gens. The Spanish grants were to the community in common, and were probably founded upon this ancient land-tenure of the aborigines. While the Iroquois held by tribes, the Aztecs held by gentes. The land-tenure of the Peruvians was analogous. Garci

* History of Mexico, Phila. ed., 1817, Cullen's Trans., II. 141.

lasso de la Vega, quoting from Blas Valera, remarks that the lands 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.*

...

While these several statements may not present the exact case either in Mexico or Peru, they sufficiently indicate the ownership of land by communities of persons, probably gentes, with a system of tillage which points to large households. Neither the Aztecs nor any American Indian tribe had attained to a knowledge of the individual ownership of land in fee simple. The knowledge belongs to the period of civilization. There is not the slightest probability that any Aztec owned a foot of land which he could call his own, with power to sell and convey in fee to whomsoever he pleased.

3. The Law of Hospitality.

Among the Iroquois, if a man entered an Indian house in any village, 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, courtesy required that he should taste the food and thank the giver. This would be repeated at every house he entered, and at whatever hour of the day. As a custom it was upheld by a rigorous public sentiment. Lewis and Clarke refer to the same practice among all the tribes of the Missouri. "It is the custom," they remark, "of all the nations of the Missouri to offer every white man food and refreshment when he first enters their tents." This was simply applying to

* Royal Commentaries of Peru, Lond. ed., 1688, Rycaut. Trans., p. 154. Herrera remarks concerning their tillage and common stores as follows: "The Spaniards drawing near to Caxamalca began to have a view of the Inca's 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 out of common stores, and none should touch the standing corn." - History of America, IV. 249.

...

Travels, Longman's ed., 1814, p. 649.