alienated nor sold; in fact, there is no trace of barter or sale of land previous to the conquest.[1] 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.[2] 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.[3] 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.[4] The council in turn selected an executive, the 'calpullec' or 'chinancallec,' who in war officiated as 'achcacauhtin' or 'teachcauhtin'
- ↑ Zurita (p. 52): "He who obtained them from the sovereign has not the right to dispose of them." Herrera (Dec. Ill, 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 ("Vues des Cordillères et monuments indigènes des peuples de l'Amérique," 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 lauds "could be sold." All such tracts, however, like the "pallali," have been.shown by us to be held in communal tenure of the soil, their enjoyment alone being given to individuals and their families.
- ↑ Zurita (i). 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."
- ↑ 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."
- ↑ Zurita (pp. 60, 01, 02). Ramirez de Fuenleal ("Letter," etc., Ternaux-Compans, p. 249).
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 chiefs 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 calipulli, 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 Eamirez de Fuenleal, letter dated Mexico, 3 Nov., 1532 ("Recueil de piĕces," 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. Ill, Lib. IV, cap. XV, p. 135) confirms, in a condensed form, the statements 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, jqj. 536 and 537). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. XIV). Bustamante ("Tezcoco," etc. . Parte IIIa, cap. V. p. 232).
