This requires us to dismiss the idea that the majority of the people lived in houses of a poorer construction, which have since disappeared, leaving the ruins of the houses of the n.o.bles. There was no such cla.s.s division of the people as this would signify. These ruins were houses occupied by the people in common. With this understanding, a questioning of the ruins can not fail to give us some useful hints. We are struck with their ingenuity as builders. They made use of the best material at hand. In Arizona the dry climate permits of the use of adobe bricks, which were employed, though stone was also used. Further south the pouring tropical rains would soon bring down in ruins adobe structures and so stone alone is used.

In the Arizona pueblo we have a great fortress-built house, three and four stories high, and no mode of access to the lower story. This is in strict accord with Indian principles of defense, which consists in elevated positions. Sometimes this elevated position was a natural hill, as at Quemada, Tezcocingo, and Xochicalco. Where no hill was at hand they formed a terraced pyramidal foundation, as at Copan, Palenque, and Uxmal. In the highest forms of this architecture this elevation is faced with stone, or even composed throughout of stone, as in the case of the House of Nuns at Chichen-Itza. In the construction of houses progress seems to have taken place in two directions. The rooms increased in size. In some of the oldest pueblo structures in Arizona the rooms were more like a cl.u.s.ter of cells than any thing else.<9>

They grow larger towards the South. In the house at Teotihuacan M.

Charney found a room twenty-seven feet wide by forty-one feet long. Two of the rooms in the Governor's House at Uxmal are sixty feet long. But the buildings themselves diminish in size. In Mexico the majority of the houses were but one story high, and but very few more than two stories.

In Yucatan but few instances are recorded of houses two stories high.

We must remember that throughout the entire territory we are considering the tribes had no domestic animals, their agriculture was in a rude state, and they were practically dest.i.tute of metals.<10> They could have been no farther advanced on the road to civilization than were the various tribes of Europe during the Bronze Age. Remembering this, we can not fail to be impressed with the ingenuity, patient toil, and artistic taste they displayed in the construction and decoration of their edifices.

It may seem somewhat singular that we should treat of their architecture before we do of their system of government, but we were already acquainted with the ruins of the former. When we turn to the latter we find ourselves involved in very great difficulties. The description given of Mexican society by the majority of writers on these topics represent it as that of a powerful monarchy. The historian Prescott, in his charming work<11> draws a picture that would not suffer by comparison with the despotic magnificence of Oriental lands. At a later date Mr. Bancroft, supporting himself by an appeal to a formidable list of authorities, regilds the scene.<12> But protests against such views are not wanting. Robertson, in his history, though bowing to the weight of authority can not forbear expressing his conviction that there had been some exaggeration in the splendid description of their government and manners.<13> Wilson, more skeptical, and bolder, utterly repudiates the old accounts, and refuses to believe the Aztecs were any thing more than savages.<14>

With such divergent and conflicting views, we at once perceive the necessity of carefully scanning all the accounts given, and make them conform, if possible, to what is known of Indian inst.i.tutions and manners. The Mexicans are but one of several tribes that are the subjects of our research; but their inst.i.tutions are better known than the others, and, in a general way, whatever is true of them will be true of the rest. We have seen the efforts of the Spanish explorers to explain whatever they found new or strange in America by Spanish words, and the results of such procedure. We are at full liberty to reject their conclusions and start anew.

What the Spaniards found around the lakes of Mexico was a union or confederacy of three tribes. Very late investigations by Mr. Bandelier have established the presence of the usual subdivisions of the tribes.

So we have here a complete organization according to the terms of ancient society: that is, the gens, phratry, tribe, and confederacy of tribes. It is necessary that we spend some time with each of these subdivisions before we can understand the condition of society among the Mexicans, and, in all probability, the society among all of the civilized nations of Central America.

We will begin with the gens, or the lowest division of the tribe. We must understand its organization before we can understand that of a tribe, and we must master the tribal organization before attempting to learn the workings of the confederacy. To neglect this order, and commence at the top of the series, is to make the same mistake that the older writers did in their studies into this culture. A gens has certain rights, duties, and privileges which belong to the whole gens, and we will consider some of the more important in their proper place.

We must understand by a gens a collection of persons who are considered to be all related to each other. An Indian could not, of his own will, transfer himself from one gens to another. He remained a member of the gens into which he was born. He might, by a formal act of adoption, become a member of another gens; or he might, in certain contingencies, lose his connection with a gens and become an outcast. There is no such thing as privileged cla.s.ses in a gens. All its members stand on an equal footing. The council of the gens is the supreme ruling power in the gens. Among some of the northern tribes, all the members in the gens, both male and female, had a voice in this council. In the Mexican gens, the council itself was more restricted. The old men, medicine men, and distinguished men met in council--but even here, on important occasions, the whole gens met in council.

Each gens would, of course, elect its own officers. They could remove them from office as well, whenever occasion required. The Mexican gentes elected two officers. One of these corresponded to the sachem among northern tribes. His residence was the official house of the gens. He had in charge the stores of the gens; and, in unimportant cases, he exercised the powers of a judge. The other officer was the war-chief. In times of war he commanded the forces of the gens. In times of peace he was, so to speak, the sheriff of the gens.

The next division of the tribe was the phratry--the word properly meaning a brotherhood. Referring to the outline below, we notice that the eight gentes were reunited into two phratries. Mr. Morgan tells us that the probable origin of phratries was from the subdivision of an original gens. Thus a tradition of the Seneca Indians affirms that the Bear and the Deer gentes were the original gentes of that tribe.<15> In process of time they split up into eight gentes, which would each have all the rights and duties of an original gens--but, for certain purposes, they were still organized into two divisions.

First Phratry, Bear or Wolf Gens.

Brotherhood. Beaver Turtle TRIBE.

Second Phratry, Deer or Snipe Gens.

Brotherhood. Heron Hawk

Each of these larger groups is called a phratry. All of the Iroquois tribes were organized into phratries, and the same was, doubtless, true of the majority of the tribes of North America. The researches of Mr.

Bandelier have quite conclusively established the fact, that the ancient Mexican tribe consisted of twenty gentes reunited as four phratries, which const.i.tuted the four quarters of the Pueblo of Mexico.

It is somewhat difficult to understand just what the rights and duties of a phratry were. This division does not exist in all tribes. But, as it was present among the Mexicans, we must learn what we can of its powers. Among the Iroquois the phratry was apparent chiefly in religious matters, and in social games. They did not elect any war-chief. The Mexican phratry was largely concerned with military matters. The forces of each phratry went out to war as separate divisions. They had their own costumes and banners. The four phratries chose each their war-chief, who commanded their forces in the field, and who, as commander, was the superior of the war-chiefs of the gentes.

In time of peace, they acted as the executors of tribal justice. They belonged to the highest grade of war-chiefs in Mexico--but there was nothing hereditary about their offices. They were strictly elective, and could be deposed for cause. They were in no case appointed by a higher authority. One of these chiefs was always elected to fill the office of "Chief of Men;"<16> and, in cases of emergency, they could take his place--but this would be only a temporary arrangement.

Ascending the scale, the next term of the series is the tribe. The Spanish writers took notice of a tribe, but failed to notice the gens and phratry. This is not to be considered a singular thing. The Iroquois were under the observation of our own people two hundred years before the discovery was made in reference to them. "The existence among them of clans, named after animals, was pointed out at an early day, but without suspecting that it was the unit of a social system upon which both the tribe and the confederacy rested."<17> But, being ignorant of this fact, it is not singular that they made serious mistakes in their description of the government.

We now know that the Mexican tribe was composed of an a.s.sociation of twenty gentes, that each of these gens was an independent unit, and that all of its members stood on an equal footing. This, at the outset, does away with the idea of a monarchy. Each gens would, of course, have an equal share in the government. This was effected by means of a council composed of delegates from each gens. There is no doubt whatever of the existence of this council among the Mexicans. "Every tribe in Mexico and Central America, beyond a reasonable doubt, had its council of chiefs.

It was the governing body of the tribe, and a constant phenomenon in all parts of aboriginal America."<18> The Spanish writers knew of the existence of this council, but mistook its function. They generally treat of it as an advisory board of ministers appointed by the "king."

Each of the Mexican gens was represented in this council by a "Speaking Chief," who, of course was elected by the gens he represented. All tribal matters were under the control of this council. Questions of peace and war, and the distribution of tribute, were decided by the council. They also had judicial duties to perform. Disputes between different gentes were adjusted by them. They also would have jurisdiction of all crimes committed by those unfortunate individuals who were not members of any gens, and of crimes committed on territory not belonging to any gens, such as the Teocalli, Market-place, and Tecpan.

The council must have regular stated times of meeting; they could be called together at any time. At the time of Cortez's visits they met daily. This council was, of course, supreme in all questions coming before it; but every eighty days there was a council extraordinary. This included the members of the council proper, the war-chiefs of the four phratries, the war-chiefs of the gentes, and the leading medicine men.

Any important cause could be reserved for this meeting, or, if agreed upon, a reconsideration of a cause could be had. We must understand that the tribal council could not interfere in any matter referring solely to a gens; that would be settled by the gens itself.

The important points to be noticed are, that it was an elective body, representing independent groups, and that it had supreme authority.

But the tribes needed officers to execute the decrees of the council.

Speaking of the Northern tribes, Mr. Morgan says, "In some Indian tribes, one of the sachems was recognized as its head chief; and so superior in rank to his a.s.sociates. A need existed, to some extent for an official head of the tribe, to represent it when the council was not in session. But the duties and powers of the office were slight.

Although the council was superior in authority, it was rarely in session, and questions might arise demanding the provisional action of some one authorized to represent the tribe, subject to the ratification of his acts by the council."<19>

This need was still more urgent among the Mexicans; accordingly we find they elected two officials for this purpose. It seems this habit of electing two chief executives was quite a common one among the tribes of Mexico and Central America. We have already noticed that the Mexican gentes elected two such officers for their purpose. We are further told that the Iroquois appointed two head war-chiefs to command the forces of the confederacy.<20>

One of the chiefs so elected by the Mexicans bore the somewhat singular t.i.tle of "Snake-woman." He was properly the head-chief of the Mexicans.

He was chairman of the council and announced its decrees. He was responsible to the council for the tribute received, as far as it was applied to tribal requirements, and for a faithful distribution of the remainder among the gentes. When the forces of the confederacy went out to war, he commanded the tribal forces of Mexico; but on other occasions this duty was fulfilled by his colleague, who was the real war-chief of the Mexicans. His t.i.tle was "Chief-of-men." This is the official who appears in history as the "King of Mexico," sometimes, even, as "Emperor of Anahuac." The fact is, he was one of two equal chiefs; he held an elective office, and was subordinate to the council.

When the confederacy was formed, the command of its forces was given to the war-chief of the Mexicans; thus he was something more than a tribal officer. His residence was the official house of the tribe. "He was to be present day and night at this abode, which was the center wherein converged the threads of information brought by traders, gatherers of tribute, scouts and spies, as well as all messages sent to, or received from, neighboring friendly or hostile tribes. Every such message came directly to the 'Chief-of-men,' whose duty it was, before acting, to present its import to the 'Snake-woman,' and, through him, call together the council." He might be present at the council, but his presence was not required, nor did his vote weigh any more than any other member of the council, only, of course, from the position he occupied, his opinion would be much respected. He provided for the execution of the council's conclusions. In case of warp he would call out the forces of the confederacy for a.s.sistance. As the procurement of substance by means of tribute was one of the great objects of the confederacy, the gathering of it was placed under the control of the war-chief, who was therefore the official head of the tribute-gatherers.

We have thus very imperfectly and hastily sketched the governmental organization of the Mexican tribe. It is something very different from an empire. It was a democratic organization. There was not an officer in it but what held his office by election. This, to some, may seem improbable, because the Spaniards have described a different state of things. We have already mentioned one reason why they should do so--that was their ignorance of Indian inst.i.tutions. We must also consider the natural bias of their minds. The rule of Charles the V was any thing but liberal. It was a part of their education to believe that a monarchical form of government was just the thing; they were accordingly prepared to see monarchical inst.i.tutions, whether they existed or not.

Then there was the perfectly natural disposition to exaggerate their achievements. To spread in Europe the report that they had subverted a powerfully organized monarchy, having an emperor, a full line of n.o.bles, orders of chivalry, and a standing army, certainly sounded much better than the plain statement that they had succeeded in disjointing a loosely connected confederacy, captured and put to death the head war chief of the princ.i.p.al tribe, and destroyed the communal buildings of their pueblo.

We must not forget that, from an Indian point of view, the confederacy was composed of rich and powerful tribes. This is especially true of the Mexicans. The position they held, from a defensive standpoint, was one of the strongest ever held by Indians. They received a large amount of tribute from subject tribes, along with the hearty hatred of the same.

From the time Cortez landed on the sh.o.r.e he had heard accounts of the wealth, power, and cruelty of the Mexicans. When he arrived before Mexico the "Chief-of-men," Montezuma, as representative of tribal hospitality, went forth to meet him, extending "unusual courtesies to unusual, mysterious, and therefore dreaded, guests." We may well imagine that he was decked out in all the finery his office could raise, and that he put on as much style and "court etiquette" as their knowledge and manner of life would stand.

The Spaniards immediately concluded that he was king, and so he was given undue prominence. They subsequently learned of the council, and recognized the fact that it was really the supreme power. They learned of the office of "Snake-woman," and acknowledged that his power was equal to that of the "Chief-of-men." They even had some ideas of phratries and gentes. But, having once made up their minds that this was a monarchy, and Montezuma the monarch, they were loath to change their views, or, rather, they tried to explain all on this supposition, and the result is the confused and contradictory accounts given of these officials and divisions of the people. But every thing tending to add glory to the "Empire of Montezuma" was caught up and dilated upon. And so have come down to us the commonly accepted ideas of the government of the ancient Mexicans.

That these views are altogether erroneous is no longer doubted by some of the very best American scholars. The organization set forth in this chapter is one not only in accord with the results obtained by the latest research in the field of ancient society, but a careful reading of the accounts of the Spanish writers leads to the same conclusions.<21> In view of these now admitted facts, it seems to us useless to longer speak of the government of the Mexicans as that of an empire.

We have as yet said nothing of the league or confederacy of the three tribes of Mexico, Tezcuco, and Tlacopan; nor is it necessary to dwell at any great length on this confederacy now. They were perfectly independent of each other as regards tribal affairs; and for the purpose of government, were organized in exactly the same way as were the Mexicans. The stories told of the glories, the riches, and power of the kings of Tezcuco, if any thing, outrank those of Mexico. We may dismiss them as utterly unreliable. Tribal organization resting on phratries and gentes, and the consequent government by the council of the tribe was all the Spaniards found. These three tribes, speaking dialects of the same stock language, inhabiting contiguous territory, formed a league for offensive and defensive purposes. The commander-in-chief of the forces raised for this purpose was the "Chief-of-men" of the Mexicans.

We have confined our researches to the Mexicans. Mr. Bandelier, speaking of the tribes of Mexico, remarks: "There is no need of proving the fact that the several tribes of the valley had identical customs, and that their inst.i.tutions had reached about the same degree of development."

Or if such proofs were needed, Mr. Bancroft has furnished them. So that this state of society being proven among the Mexicans, it may be considered as established among the Nahua tribes. Neither is there any necessity of showing that substantially the same state of government existed among the Mayas of Yucatan. This is shown by their architecture, by their early traditions, and by many statements in the writings of the early historians. These can only be understood and explained by supposing the same social organization existed among them as among the Mexicans.

But this does not relegate these civilized nations to savagism. On the other hand, it is exactly the form of government we would expect to find among them. They were not further along than the Middle Status of barbarism. They were slowly advancing on the road that leads to civilization, and their form of government was one exactly suited to their needs, and one in keeping with their state of architecture. When we gaze at the ruins of their material structures, we must consider that before us are not the only ruins wrought by the Spaniards; the native inst.i.tutions were doomed as well. Traces of this early state of society are, however, still recoverable, and we must study them well to learn their secret.

We have yet before us a large field to investigate; that is, the advance made in the arts of living among these people. This is one of the princ.i.p.al objects of our present research. We are here slightly departing from the prehistoric field, and entering the domain of history. But the departure is justifiable, as it serves to light up an extensive field, that is, the manner of life among the civilized nations just before the coming of the Spaniards. And first we will examine their customs in regard to property. We have in a former chapter reverted to the influence of commerce and trade in advancing culture. The desire for wealth and property which is such a controlling power to-day was one of the most efficient agents in advancing man from savagism to civilization. The idea of property, which scarcely had an existence during that period of savagism, had grown stronger with every advance in culture. "Beginning in feebleness, it has ended in becoming the master pa.s.sion of the human mind."

The property of savages is limited to a few articles of personal use; consequently, their ideas as to its value, and the principles of inheritance, are feeble. They can scarcely be said to have any idea as to property in lands, though the tribe may lay claim to certain hunting-grounds as their own. As soon as the organization of gens arose, we can see that it would affect their ideas of property. The gens, we must remember, was the unit of their social organization.

They had common rights, duties, and privileges, as well as common supplies; and hence the idea arose that the property of the members of a gens belonged to the gens. At the death of an individual, his personal property would be divided among the remaining members of the gens.

"Practically," says Mr. Morgan, "they were appropriated by the nearest of kin; but the principle was general that the property should remain in the gens."<22> That this is a true statement there is not the shadow of a doubt. This was the general rule of inheritance among the Indian tribes of North America. As time pa.s.sed on, and the tribes learned to cultivate the land, some idea of real property would arise--but not of personal ownership.

This is quite an important topic; because, when we read of lords with great estates, we are puzzled to know how to reconcile such statements with what we now know of the nature of Mexican tribal organization. Mr.

Bandelier has lately gone over the entire subject. He finds that the territory on which the Mexicans originally settled was a marshy expanse of land which the surrounding tribes did not value enough to claim.

This territory was divided among the four gentes of the tribe. As we have already seen, each of these four gentes subsequently split up into other independent gentes until there were twenty in all. Each of these gens held and possessed a portion of the original soil. This division of the soil must have been made by tacit consent. The tribe claimed no ownership of these tracts, still less did the head-chief. Furthermore, the only right the gentes claimed in them was a possessory one. "They had no idea of sale or barter, or conveyance, or alienation." As the members of a gens stood on equal footing, this tract would be still further divided for individual use. This division would be made by the council of the gens. But we must notice the individual acquired no other right to this tract of land than a right to cultivate it--which right, if he failed to improve, he lost. He could, however, have some one else to till it for him. The son could inherit a father's right to a tract.

We have seen that the Mexicans had a great volume of tribal business to transact, which required the presence of an official household at the tecpan. Then the proper exercise of tribal hospitality required a large store of provisions. To meet this demand, certain tracts of the territory of each gens were set aside to be worked by communal labor.

Then, besides the various officers of the gens, and the tribe, who, by reason of their public duties, had no time to till the tracts to which, as members of a gens, they would be ent.i.tled, had the same tilled for them by communal labor. This was not an act of va.s.salage, but a payment for public duties.

This is a very brief statement of their customs as regards holding of lands. It gives us an insight into the workings of ancient society. It shows us what a strong feature of this society was the gens, and we see how necessary it is to understand the nature of a gens before attempting to understand ancient society. We see that, among the civilized nations of Mexico and Central America, they had not yet risen to the conception of ownership in the soil. No chief, or other officer, held large estates. The possessory right in the soil was vested in the gens composing the tribe, and they in turn granted to individuals certain definite lots for the purpose of culture. A chief had no more right in this direction than a common warrior. We can easily see how the Spaniards made their mistake. They found a community of persons holding land in common, which the individuals could not alienate. They noticed one person among them whom the others acknowledged as chief. They immediately jumped to the conclusion that this chief was a great "lord,"

that the land was a "feudal estate," and that the persons who held it were "va.s.sals" to the aforesaid "lord."<23>

We must now consider the subject of laws, and the methods of enforcing justice amongst the civilized nations. The laws of the Mexicans, like those of most barbarous people, are apt to strike us as being very severe; but good reasons, according to their way of thinking, exist for such severity. The gens is the unit of social organization; which fact must be constantly borne in mind in considering their laws. In civilized society, the State a.s.sumes protection of person and property; but, in a tribal state of society, this protection is afforded by the gens. Hence, "to wrong a person was to wrong his gens; and to support a person was to stand behind him with the entire array of his gentile kindred."

The punishment for theft varied according to the value of the article stolen. If it were small and could be returned, that settled the matter.

In cases of greater value it was different. In some cases the thief became bondsman for the original owner. In still others, he suffered death. This was the case where he stole articles set aside for religion--such as gold and silver, or captives taken in war; or, if the theft were committed in the market-place. Murder and homicide were always punished with death. According to their teaching, there was a great gulf between the two s.e.xes. Hence, for a person of one s.e.x to a.s.sume the dress of the other s.e.x was an insult to the whole gens--the penalty was death. Drunkenness was an offense severely punished--though aged persons could indulge their appet.i.te, and, during times of festivities, others could. Chiefs and other officials were publicly degraded for this crime. Common warriors had their heads shaved in punishment.

These various penalties necessarily suppose judicial officers to determine the offense and decree the punishment. Having established, on a satisfactory basis, the Mexican empire, the historians did not scruple to fit it out with the necessary working machinery of such an organization. Accordingly we are presented with a judiciary as nicely proportioned as in the most favored nations of to-day. But when, under the more searching light of modern scholarship, this empire is seen to be something quite different, we find the whole judicial machinery to be a much more simple affair.