'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.
"In the course of time, as the population further increased, segmentation occurred within the four original 'quarters,' new 'calpulli' being formed.[1] For governmental purposes this segmentation produced a new result by leaving, more particularly in military affairs, the first four clusters as great subdivisions.[2] 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.[3] A further consequence of this disaggrega-
- ↑ This successive formation of new "calpulli" is nowhere explicitly stated, but it is implied by the passage of Durán 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 Qquiché (see "Popol-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 (Durfin, cap. XI, p. 97), besides three more, adopted then from those of Culhuacan (Id., pp. 98 and 99). This indicates an increase.
- ↑ "Art of War, etc.," pp. 115 and 120.
- ↑ 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 iu 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, aud 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 Méjico," 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."
