UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS IN AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY Vol. 12, No. 7, pp. 249-282 February 10, 1917 anxa 88- B 20401 c.l BANDELIER’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDY OF ANCIENT MEXICAN SOCIAL ORGANIZATION ’ BY T. T. WATERMAN UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY Tie following publications dealing with archaeological and ethnological subjects issued under the direction of the Department of Anthropology are sent in exchange for the publi¬ cations of anthropological departments and museums, and for journals devoted to general anthropology or to archaeology and ethnology. They are for sale at the prices stated. Exchanges should be directed to The Exchange Department, University Library, Berkeley, California, U. S. A. All orders and remittances should be addressed to the University of California Press. European agent for the series in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Classical Phil¬ ology, Education, Modem Philology, Philosophy, and Semitic Philology, Otto Harrassowitz, Leipzig. For the series in Botany, Geology, Pathology, Physiology, Zoology and also Amer¬ ican Archaeology and Ethnology, R. Friedlaender & Sohn, Berlin. AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY.—A. L. Kroeber, Editor. Prices, Volume 1, $4.25; Volumes 2 to It, inclusive, $3.50 each; Volume 12 and following $5.00 each. Cited as Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Arch. Ethn. Price Vol. 1. 1. Life and Culture of the Hupa, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 1-88; plates 1-30. September, 1903............$1.25 2. Hupa Texts, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 89-368. March, 1904 ..._ 3.00 Index, pp. 369-378. VoL 2. 1. The Exploration of the Potter Creek Cave, by William J. Sinclair. Pp. 1-27; plates 1-14. April, 1904 ___ .40 2. The Languages of the Coast of California South of San Francisco, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 29-80, with a map. June, 1904........_.60 3. Types of Indian Culture in California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 81-103. June, 1904 ............ .25 4. Basket Designs of the Indians of Northwestern California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 105-164; plates 15-21. January, 1905 ___76 6. The Yokuts Language of South Central California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 165-377. January, 1907 .............. 2.26 Index, pp. 379-392. Vol. 3. The Morphology of the Hupa Language, by Pliny Earle Goddard. 344 pp. June, 1905 .......... 3.60 Vol. 4. 1. The Earliest Historical Relations between Mexico and Japan, from original documents preserved in Spain and Japan, by Zelia Nuttall. Pp. 1-47. April, 1906 ..........._... .50 2. Contribution to the Physical Anthropology of California, based on col¬ lections in the Department of Anthropology of the University of California, and in the U. S. National Museum, by Ales Hrdlicka. Pp. 49-64, with 5 tables; plates 1-10, and map. June, 1906 .. .75 8. The Shoshonsan Dialects of California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 65-166. February, 1907 ....._. 1.50 4. Indian Myths from South Central California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 167-250. May, 1907 .—...76 5. The Washo Language of East Central California and Nevada, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 251-318. September, 1907 ....... .75 6. The Religion of the Indians of California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 319- 356. September, 1907 ....... .._....... .60 Index, pp. 357-374. Vol. 5. 1. The Phonology of the Hupa Language; Part I, The Individual Sounds, by Pliny Eatle Goddard. Pp. 1-20, plates 1-8. March, 1907 —.35 2. Navaho Myths, Prayers and Songs, with Texts and Translations, by Washington Matthews,’ edited by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 21-63. September, 1907 ..._...———.- -75 3. Kato Texts, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 65-288, plate 9. December, 1909 ..;........ 2.50 4. The Material Culture of the Klamath Lake and Modoc Indians of Northeastern California and Southern Oregon, by S. A. Barrett. Pp. 239-292, plates 10-25. June, 1910......75 6. The Chimariko Indians and Language, by Roland B. Dixon. Pp. 293- 380. August, 1910 ....... 1.00 Index, pp. 381-384. Vol. 6. 1. The Ethno-Geography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians, by Sam¬ uel Alfred Barrett. Pp. 1-332, maps 1-2. February, 1908 ..'.... 3.26 2. The Geography and Dialects of the Miwok Indians, by Samuel Alfred Barrett. Pp. 333-368, map 3. 3. On the Evidence of the Occupation of Certain Regions by the Miwok Indians, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 369-380. Nos. 2 and 3 in one cover. February, 1908 ---------.—— - Index, pp. 381-400. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS IN AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY Vol. 12, No. 7, pp. 249-282 February 10, 1917 BANDELIER’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDY OF ANCIENT MEXICAN SOCIAL ORGANIZATION BY T. T. WATERMAN CONTENTS PAGE Introduction .•. 249 Clan organization in ancient Mexico ... 252 Governmental functions of the clan . 256 Honorary chiefs . 256 The clan council . 257 Executive officers of the clan . 258 The war-leader, or achcacauhtin . 259 The civil officials . 260 The tribe and tribal government . 261 The tribe and the phratry . 261 The tribal council . 262 The head war-chief ....:. 264 Duality of the office ..._. 267 The “Snake-Woman” . 267 The “Four Quarters,” or phratries .. 269 The “ Captains-general, ” or phratry-captains . 270 Other institutions in the phratry . 271 Points of difficulty . 272 Conclusion . 273 Alphabetical list of sources cited by Bandelier . 276 INTRODUCTION There are two widely different schools of doctrine concerning the political and social institutions which the Spaniards encountered among the highly civilized natives of the Mexican plateau. One school consists of two investigators, Lewis H. Morgan 1 and A. F. Bandelier . 2 1 Ancient Society, New York, 1877; League of the Iroquois, New York, 1904; “Montezuma’s Dinner,” in North American Review, April, 1876. 2 “On the Art of War and Mode of Warfare of the Ancient Mexicans,” Reports of the Peabody Museum. Harvard University, II, 95-161; “On the Dis- University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [VoL 12 250 These two writers consider that the famous Aztec “empire” was not an empire at all, but a loose confederacy of democratic Indian tribes. They have been supported in more recent literature by John Fiske, in his Discovery of America , 3 and by the sentiments, if not in the published writings, of most American ethnologists. The opposing school consists, broadly speaking, of the other scholars who have written on the subject. 3a In most of the literature which concerns the Aztecs the assumption is made throughout that they had monarchical institutions. The “supreme rulers” of the Aztec “empire” are rep¬ resented in some very recent works as independent monarclis, keeping the state and pomp of moguls. Bandelier’s papers mentioned above are by far the most serious contributions to the subject. He makes an effort to reconstruct a picture of the entire Aztec social order. It is the purpose of the present paper to review and criticize his results. It seems simplest to consider his findings with reference to one tribe, namely, the Mexicans, or inhabitants of Tenochtitlan. His own ref¬ erences to the original sources are given in the following pages in the form of footnotes. No new material is involved. A word might be said in the beginning about Bandelier’s method of composing his papers. We conclude, from remarks in his “Sources for the Aboriginal History of Spanish America ,” 4 that it was his habit first to write a paper out of his fund of general information on a subject, citing authorities only on special points, and when the idea suddenly occurred to him. Then he went through the paper again and worked up a most formidable set of footnotes, in which he often embodied the results of further research. In the case of the contri¬ butions at present referred to, lie wrote three papers on practically the same subject, each paper more elaborate than the one before. The result of all three is a sort of complex, full of statements anticipatory of other statements, and statements presupposing a knowledge which the reader lacks, a complex in which the first portion is unintelligible without the last, while the last presupposes a knowledge of the first. Worse than all. in connection with some essential points, the author allows himself to become involved in contradictions. Moreover, he nowhere gives a list of sources. He permits himself to employ such tribution and Tenure of Land and Customs with Respect to Inheritance of the Ancient Mexicans,” ibid., pp. 385-448; ‘‘On the Social Organization and Mode of Government of the Ancient Mexicans, ’ ’ ibid., pp. 557-669. These papers are cited as Art of War, Tenure of Land, and Mode of Government, repectively. 3 Cambridge, Mass., 1892. sa An honorable exception is Beuehat, Manuel d’archeologie americaine, Paris, 1912. 1 Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, xxvii, 1878. 1917] Waterman: Mexican Social Organization 251 Table Showing Bandelier’s Sources The dates indicate in each case the period when composition was begun. While the dates are in many cases conjectural, the general order is approximately correct. The sources which seem most important from the standpoint of ethnography are in¬ dicated by bold-face type. Date 1505 1519 1521 1524 1525 1527 1530 1531 1534 1540 1541 1546 1550 1551 1552 1554 1560 1569 1573 1576 1579 1582 1588 1589 1596 1598 1608 1609 1610 1613 1617 1635 1697 1742 1765 Author Martyr, Peter (Pietro Martire d’Anghiera) Cortes, Hernando Zuazo, Alonzo de Alvarado, Pedro de Oviedo y Valdez, Gonzalo Fernandez de Anonymous Conqueror, The Las Casas, Bartoleme de Merced a Hernan Cortes de tierras inmediatas de Mexico, etc. Cuarta relacion anonima de la jornada . . . a Nueva Galicia, etc. Lettre des auditeurs Salmeron, Maldonado, Ceynos et Queroga Salmeron (given names not ascertained) Bologna, Francisco de Concilios provinciales . . . de Mexico Tapia, Andres de Aeazitli, Francisco de Sandoval Motolinia (Toribio de Benevente) Sahagun, Bernardino de Codex Mendoza Codex Ramirez Codex Telleriano-Remensis Des ceremonies observes . . . lorsqu-ils falsa ient un tecle De l’ordre de succession observe par les Indiens Molina, Alonzo de Mendoza, Antonio de Gomara, Francisco Lopez de Relacion de las ceremonias y ritos, etc. Diaz del Castillo, Bernal Anunciacion, Domingo de la Lettre des chapelaiDS Frere Toribio et Frere Diego d ’Olarte Montufar, Alonzo de Zurita, Alonzo de Chavez, Gabriel de Mendieta, Geronimo de Camargo, Domingo Mufioz Palacio, Diego Garcia Duran, Diego Pomar, Juan Bautista Acosta, Jose de Salaman Torquemada, Juan de Herrera, Antonio de Tezozomoc, Fernando de Alvarado Garcia, Gregorio Ixtlilxochitl, Fernando de Alva Solorzano y Pereyra, Juan Eslava, Fernan Gonzalez de Remesa], Antonio de Real ejecutoria de S. M. sobre tierras de Axapusco Nieremberg, Joan Eusebius Vetancurt, Augustin Padilla, Matias de la Mota Clavigero, Francisco Severio Title De novo orbe Cartas Carta Relacion a Hernan Cortes Historia general y natural, etc. Relacion de algunas cosas, etc. Historia de las Indias Lettre ... an conseil des Indes Lettre, etc. Relacion, etc. Relacion de jornada, etc. Historia de los Indios Historia general Vocabulario Avis de Vice-Roi, etc. Historia general Historia verdadera Lettre, etc. Supplique a Charles V Breve . . . relacion (Rapport) Rapport sur . . . Meztitlan Historia ecclesiastica Historia . . . de Taxcallan San Salvador und Honduras, etc. Historia de las Indias Relacion de Texcoco Historia natural y moral . . . monarchia indiana Historia . . . de los hechos, etc. Cronica mexicana Origen de los Indios Historia Chichimeca . . . de Indiarum jure Coloquios espirituales Historia . . . de Chyapa Historia naturae Teatro mexicano Historia de Nueva-Galicia Storia antica del Messico 252 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 12 baffling expressions as “the learned friar,'’ or “the celebrated Francis¬ can ,” 5 in reference to a literature where the majority of the important writers are both friars and Franciscans. Still another feature of his work is this, that when he is in search of corroboration he appeals impartially to authors of the sixteenth, and of all subsequent centuries up to the end of the nineteenth, without outward preference or dis¬ tinction. In any attempt to examine his findings at all closely, it is therefore necessary to have at hand a list of his authorities . 6 These authorities appear in chronological order in the appended tabulation. For fuller information the reader is referred to the alphabetical list at the end of the present paper, and to the usual works of reference . 7 Clan Organization in Ancient Mexico In attempting to review the results of Bandelier’s investigations of Mexican social organization, it seems best to begin with that element of society which the Indians would have considered the fundamental one. Mexico City was more than a city in our sense of the word. It was rather on the order of a city-state. The Mexicans are continually spoken of as a “tribe.” We may regard it as absolutely certain that this tribe, numbering a great many thousands of individuals, was really a conglomerate of smaller units. In fact, continual reference is made in the sources to smaller social groups which seem, in many ways, to be of really fundamental importance. Nearly all authors, for example , 8 represent the Aztec tribe at the beginning of its legend¬ ary history as starting off on its migration organized in kinship groups. These kins are worthy of careful attention. 5 Mode of Government, p. 687, note 276, for example. 6 He lias two papers which in part supply this need, but only in part. One is the paper on ‘‘Sources for the Aboriginal History of Spanish America,” mentioned above in note 4. The other is ‘‘Notes on the Bibliography of Yucatan and Central America,” Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, n. s., I, 82-118. 7 For example: Sabin, Dictionary of Works Relating to America from the Discovery to the Present Time, New York, 1868-1891. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, especially the first two volumes, Boston, 8 volumes, no date. Ticknor, History of Spanish Literature, Boston, 3 volumes, 1854, especially the fourth edition, Boston, 3 volumes, no date. Bancroft, Works, 39 volumes, San Francisco, 1883-1890. Lehmann, Progress in Mexican Research, Archiv fiir Anthropologie, vi, 1907; reprinted by the Due de Loubat, Paris, 1909. Icazbalceta, Bibliografia Mexicana del Siglo XVI, Mexico, 1866. Weber, Beitrage zur Charakteristik der alteren Gesehiclitsschreiber fiber Spanish-Amerika, in Beitrage zur Kulturgeschichte, edited by Lamprecht, xiv, Leipzig, 1911. 8 Acosta, Clavigero, Duran, Garcia, Herrera, Ixtlilxochitl, Mendieta, Sahagun, Torquemada, Vetancurt. 1917] Waterman: Mexican Social Organization 253 There is considerable variation in the terms employed by the Span¬ iards to describe these units. The commonest is the word barrio, which seems to mean in the Spanish of the period a city ward or precinct. These barrios are in some passages called parishes, quar¬ ters, or parcialidades. The native equivalent is given by Zurita 9 as calpulli. The question is, just exactly what is meant, in modern term¬ inology, by calpulli, and what was its function? Zurita helps us out by telling us that “a calpulli is what the Jews called a tribe .” 10 Ref¬ erence to the early books of the Bible will indicate that the Jewish tribe was believed to be a group descended from one ancestor. Tor- quemada also describes what are apparently these same groups, and says that they are based on the central idea of descent . * 11 First of all, then, the calpulli was an organization of kin, probably what modern ethnographers would speak of as a “clan.” Zurita in another place adds: “The word calpulli . . . signifies a barrio inhabited by a family, known as of very ancient origin, which for a long time owns a territory of well-defined boundaries, and all the members of which are of the same lineage .” 12 Here, then, is an additional trait of the calpulli —it is a land-holding organization. “The lands do not belong to each inhabitant of the village,” says Zurita, “but to the calpulli, which possesses them in common .” 13 “Very few people,” according to Fuenleal, “have lands of their own. The lands are held in common .” 14 This fact is rendered certain enough to be accepted as probably charac¬ teristic of Mexican society, by corroboration by a number of authors . 15 Gomara especially says that “many married people often live in one house, and brothers and sisters do not divide their lands.” Peter Martyr also mentions the existence of communal houses . 18 Each group of kin develops garden plots , 17 which are called collectively “soil of the calpulli ,” 18 Such lands could in no manner be sold, according to 9 Zurita, p. 50. For exact reference see the list of sources at the end of the present paper. 19 Zurita, p. 53. 11 Torquemada, p. 545. 12 Zurita, p. 50. 12 Zurita, p. 51. Fuenleal, p. 253. 15 Clavigero, Book 7, ch. 14; Duran, ch. 5; Gomara, p. 443; Herrera, pp. 135, 190; Martyr, p. 228; Oviedo, Book 32, ch. 51, pp. 536, 537; Torquemada, p. 545, Book 2, ch. 11, Book 3, chs. 13, 22. 16 Peter Martyr, decade 5, ch. 10. 17 Acosta, Book 7, ch. 9, p. 473; Clavigero, Book 2, ch. 17; Tezozomoc, ch. 3, p. 8; Torquemada, Book 3, ch. 33, p. 291, Book 2, ch. 15, p. 101. 19 Txtlilxochitl, ch. 35, p. 242; Zurita, p. 51. 254 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Yol. 12 the passage in Clavigero, 19 to which reference was made above (note 3 5). This statement on the part of Clavigero is corroborated by other authors. 20 No one but a member of a calpulli had the right to settle on any of its lands. 21 These passages bring out rather clearly, with regard to the calpulli , that there was involved, in addition to the idea of common descent, a second idea that we often find associated with the clan-organization of other and ruder tribes, namely, common own¬ ership of land. The calpulli appears in this connection quite clearly as analogous to the clan, as found, for example, among the Iroquois. The fact that the calpullis were really fundamental is brought out by statements such as this: ‘ 1 Each calpulli was sovereign within its own limits.” 22 “Each quarter had its own soil without any connection with the other. ’ ’ This means that Mexican society was really founded on the calpulli, and that the tribe was an organization made up of a number of these fundamental units. Some discrepancies exist in the references to ownership of lands. References are made in certain places to “public” or communal lands, and elsewhere to private holdings. The facts probably are that each calpulli , as a group, controlled certain lands, but these lands were assigned or allotted to small families for cultivation. 23 These lands could not be sold by the individual, or alienated in any way. This custom has an analogy in the agricultural institutions of the Iroquois, as described by Morgan. 24 The evidence for this arrangement among the Mexicans is found in Zurita, and confirmed by other authors. 25 The soil was certainly occupied by individual families, 20 their lots or holdings being known as tlalmilli. 27 The right of occupancy was con¬ nected with inheritance. 28 We have it on the authority of one author 29 that if a man neglected for two years to cultivate his patch it was 19 Clavigero, Book 7, ch. 14. 20 Herrera, decade 3, Book 4, ch. 15, p. 135; Torqnemada, Book 14, ch. 7, p. 545; Zurita, p. 52. 21 Zurita, p. 53. 22 Clavigero, Book 7, eh. 14; Zurita, pp. 51, 65. 23 Zurita, pp. 52, 56, 57, 60; De l’ordre de succession, pp. 223, 224. 24 “Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines,” U. S. Department of the Interior, Contributions to North American Ethnology, iv, 79; for North American tribes in general see Ancient Society by the same author, pp. 154-174. 25 Zurita, p. 55; Clavigero, Book 7, ch. 14; Herrera, p. 135; Torquemada, p. 545. 29 Zurita, pp. 52, 56, 57, 60; De l’ordre de succession, pp. 223, 224. 27 Molina. 28 Clavigero, Book 7, ch. 14; De l’ordre de succession, p. 224; Fuenleal, p. 253; Herrera, p. 138; Torquemada, p. 545. 29 Zurita, p. 56. 1917 ] Waterman: Mexican Social Organization 255 assigned or allotted to someone else. When a family disappeared, the land reverted to the group. 30 It seems most reasonable to suppose, then, that the calpullis, as groups, held tenure of the land, as did the Iroquois elans; and the individuals merely occupied portions of the soil without having proprietary rights. There were certain plots, the produce of which went with certain offices, but the evidence concerning these “official” lands is very uncertain, and they may probably be passed over for the present without materially affecting the picture of Mexican land tenure. The calpulli, whatever it may have been, certainly exhibits in this respect a very fundamental resemblance to what are known as clans in the ethnographical literature of today. The calpulli was involved in other activities than the ownership of land. Mexican “armies” are represented as consisting of bands of from two hundred to four hundred men. It is plausible to suppose that each band represented the fighting force of one calpulli. Each group, according to Duran, carried the emblem of their barrio. Here we see another likeness to the clan—the fact that the group made common cause in warfare. There are two additional features of the calpulli which make the resemblance to the typical clan more striking still. Each one had its own god, or calpulteotzin, 31 and its own central place of worship. 32 I think therefore that we are on firm ground in assuming with Ban- delier that Mexican society, at the time of the Conquest, was still organized on a primitive clan basis. We come now to the question of the number of these calpullis. Twenty “chiefs” of the Mexicans are mentioned in some of the sources. 33 This would suggest the existence of twenty separate units in the tribe. Herrera, speaking of the “parishes” ( calpullis ), says that there were “many.” 34 Torquemada 35 says that there were four general divisions, each with three or four calpullis, which would make a total of perhaps sixteen. Bernal Diaz again says that the central governing body was a ‘ ‘ senate ’ ’ of twenty. 36 On a priori grounds it seems likely that each clan would have a representative in such a senate. That would indicate that the precise number was probably so Zurita, p. 52. 31 Duran, p. 42. 32 Herrera, p. 188. 33 Duran, pp. 97, 98, 99. Tezozomoe also might be cited. 34 Herrera, p. 188. 35 Torquemada, p. 545. so Diaz, p. 95. 256 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Yol. 12 twenty. The number is given as twenty by Vetancurt. 37 If the fore¬ going passages really describe the facts, the fundamental point of Mexican organization is that the nation or tribe consisted of an ag¬ glomerate of twenty independent clans. However elaborate their government may have been, it was based directly on a clan organi¬ zation. Evidence for this idea, as may be seen by consulting the table of authors, is found in sources of the best character. In connection with certain governmental and deliberative functions, each of the calpullis or clans just described had a council bouse, or tecpan. Sometimes these were themselves called merely calpulli. They contained halls and a tower. 38 Governmental Functions of the Clan It remains now to discuss the officials, through whom the govern¬ ment was administered. It seems best, first of all, to clear the ground as far as we can of certain difficulties. One of the most troublesome of these is the occurrence of contradictory allusions to individuals, usually referred to as “chiefs,” in Aztec tecuhtli. Honorary Chiefs Consult: Art of War, pp. 117-120; Mode of Government, pp. 641-644. The orthography of this word tecuhtli shows considerable variety. The proper form seems to be the one given. The word tecle, used by Mendieta, 39 is apparently a variant of the same. It also occurs as tec, tecutzin, and teutley. 40 The stem means in Aztec simply “grand¬ father. ’ ’ The various senses in which this term is used by the Spanish chroniclers leave us in some uncertainty as to the functions of the tecuhtli. According to Bandelier, it seems simplest to suppose that the tecuhtli was, after all, not a governmental official. He insists (though his own allusions to the dignity in question are inconsistent) that the tecuhtlis were members, we might say, of an order of merit, which was awarded especially for valor. It did not necessarily en¬ title the holder to office, or to authority of any sort. We must note, however, that the chamber where the principal governing body met was called the “place of tecuhtlis according to Bandelier’s etymol¬ ogy. 41 While the situation with regard to the tecuhtli is by no means 37 Cited in vague terms by Bandelier, Mode of Government, p. 592. 33 Duran, p. 215; Herrera, p. 190; Tezozomoc, p. 58; Zurita, p. 62. 3 » Mendieta, Book 2, clis. 38, 39. •to Zurita, p. 47. 4i Mode of Government, p. 406, note 46. 1917] Waterman : Mexican Social Organization 257 clear, a dozen passages may be cited which give Bandelier’s conclusion some authority. 42 Offices were filled mostly by these “chiefs,” or tecuhtli, 4 3 perhaps as offices in this country after the Civil War were filled largely by veterans. In Indian society especially successful warriors would of course be the most likely aspirants for official posi¬ tions. The position or dignity was held for life, but it was not hered¬ itary. 44 It involved, among other things, great outlay for feasts on the part of the candidate. 45 This certainly fits in with what we know of primitive society elsewhere in America—for example, on the North¬ west coast, where rank and influence are connected with outlay for entertainment. 46 It seems probable, on the w T hole, that in discussing the governmental offices of the Aztecs, these “civil chiefs,” or tecuhtli, are to be ruled out. A man with the title of tecuhtli might fill almost any office; and consequently the accounts of the privileges and duties which various members of this order had, involve us in all sorts of difficulties. It seems quite likely that the rank of tecuhtli was an honor, not an office. In my opinion, Bandelier does not establish this fact clearly, but at least it is a plausible theory. The Clan Council Consult: Tenure of Land, p. 425 and notes; Mode of Government, p. 633, espe¬ cially, note 152, which occupies two pages. Bandelier states that the government of the clan, or calpulli, was in the hands of a elan council. This council, he says, was composed of important men who got their office by election. For none of these statements has he any proof. There is one passage in Sahagun 47 which would seem perhaps to imply the existence of something like a clan council. A council of the kin met to decide quarrels over land, 48 but it had no final authority. Altogether, evidence for the existence of a clan council, as a definite governing institution, is of a most vague and unsatisfactory sort. The best indication that something of the sort existed is a statement by Zurita 49 that the ‘ ‘ chief, ’ ’ whoever such 42 Clavigero, pp. 471, 472; Gomara, p. 436; Herrera, p. 135; Mendieta, pp. 156, 161; Torquemada, pp. 361, 366; Zurita, pp. 47, 48. 42 Gomara, Mendieta, Torquemada, as cited above; also Camargo, p. 176. 44 Zurita, p. 49. 45 Des ceremonies observees, p. 233; Gomara, p. 436; Mendieta, p. 156; Zurita, p. 28. 46 See, for example, Boas in Beport of U. S. National Museum for 1895, "The Social Organization and Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians.” 47 Sahagun, p. 185. 48 Zurita, pp. 56, 62. 4 *> Zurita, pp. 55, 56, 60, 61, 62. 258 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 12 an officer may have been, did nothing without consulting the other old men of the calpulli. The council seems to have been a general assem¬ bly, for we are told that on occasions of importance the clan met as a whole. 50 In other words, what we have in Mexico is approximately what we find in the history of our own ancient ancestors, namely, that all matters, executive or judicial, pertaining to the group were settled in an undifferentiated folk-moot. If a more definitely organized gov¬ erning body existed, there seems to be very little evidence of it in the sources. Executive Officers of the Clan Consult: Art of War, pp. 101, 119 and following; Tenure of Land, p. 425 and following; Mode of Government, pp. 591, 636 and following, 647 and fol¬ lowing. The most satisfying statement made by Morgan concerning Iro¬ quois government is one to the effect that there was a primary specialization of offices into civil offices on the one hand and military offices on the other. This statement gives promise of reducing the whole governmental establishment to a definite system. Moreover, the specialization into leaders for war and leaders for peace seems to be logically a very early step in the evolution of government. In spite of this, Bandelier, in speaking of Mexican government, closes by as¬ signing the civil and military leadership in the elan to one person. 51 I am inclined to think that a case might be made out for a division of the clan offices into military and civil categories. Fuenleal, for ex¬ ample, says that there are two officers, “called principales or chiefs,” in “each of the quarters which we today call parishes.” 52 He is borne out in this statement by Torquemada and Zurita, 53 the former saying that each barrio or parcialidad (meaning almost certainly the clan, or calpulli) has two officers, a gatherer of stores and “a regidor, or tecuhtli.” The Simancas manuscript also speaks of alcaldes and regulars of the villages, 54 saying that, an Aztec official called achca- caulitis was the alcalde, or judge, while the Aztec achcacauhtin was the alguazil, or sheriff. It is important, it seems to me, to recognize this differentiation in the offices of the clan. so Zurita, p. 62; Fuenleal, p. 249. si Tenure of Land, p. 425. 52 Fuenleal, p. 249. 53 Torquemada, p. 544; Zurita, p. 225. si De 1 ’ordre de succession, p. 225. 1917] Waterman : Mexican Social Organization '259 The War-Leader, or Achcacauhtin One at least of the clan officers we can identify quite readily. His existence is very frequently mentioned. He enjoys, however, a wide variety of titles in the Spanish works. Some of the most important are shown in the following list. All of these titles seem to apply to one official. Titles Applied to the “Clan War-Leader’’ by Different Authors Title applied Author Pariente mayorss Zurita Chief abbot Mendieta Alguacil mayoi'56 Torquemada Leader in the fight Tezozomoc Captain of the people Molina Priest Mendieta Principal and master-at-arms Tezozomoc Chief of the quarter Tezozomoc Master of the youth Teacher Tezozomoc Captain of the guard Torquemada Prince Clavigero Old man Fuenleal Valiant man Sahagiin Officer to whom the youths were entrusted Clavigero Captain Tezozomoc Regidor Torquemada It is obvious at once that to get any clear idea of the function of an officer who is called at once a captain of the guard and an abbot, involves some difficulty. The dignitary in question was evidently an official who had no counterpart in societies with which the Spaniards were familiar. His native title was achcacauhtin , 57 which means simply “elder brother.” One of his duties was to lead the clan in battle 58 and to instruct the young men of the clan in warlike exercises. 59 These achcacauhtins got their office by election, 90 though the details of this election are quite uncertain. 61 Perhaps this rather uncertain 55 Zurita says he was like the “pariente mayor’’ in the mountains of Biscay'. I would not attempt to say what the term means. 56 The exact implication of this word also is somewhat uncertain. 57 De 1’ordre de succession, etc., p. 225; Molina, p. 113; Sahagiin, p. 305; Torquemada, p. 355; Tezozomoc, pp. 24, 25; Zurita, p. 60. 58 Authority almost entirely wanting. See Art of War, p. 119 and following. 50 Tezozomoc, chs. 17, 38, 57. so Molina, p. 113. 6 i It is referred to in general terms in De 1’ordre de succession, p. 225; Herrera, p. 125; Zurita, p. 60. 260 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Etlm. [Yol. 12 evidence will at least enable ns to conclude that there was a clan official called the “elder brother,” who had duties in a general way of military sort, which he may have combined with ceremonial functions. The Civil Officials Consult: Tenure of Land, p. 425 and following; Mode of Government, pp. 637, 639 and following. Mention is made in the sources of three different functions besides the one just mentioned: that of calpullec, or head of the clan; that of tlatoani, or “speaker,” a sort of delegate who represented the interests of the clan in the larger assemblies; and that of ‘ ‘ steward, ’ ’ or super¬ visor of stores. Bandolier insists that the calpullec and the “speaker” were different officers. 62 Fuenleal, however, lumps them simply as “other officers called viejos.” 63 Zurita, moreover, says that the calpullec spoke for members of the calpulli “before the governors.” 64 This particular passage would seem to suggest that the calpullec and the speaker "were the same individual. While it is perhaps impossible to get a clear impression from the sources, it would certainly make the whole scheme of government appear more symmetrical to suppose that there was one clan official who looked out for all clan business that was not specifically military. Whether the Aztecs cared for symmetry in their government is, naturally, another question. Ban¬ dolier thinks that at least the calpullec and the “steward” may have been the same official. With the word calpullec is associated the supervision and distri¬ bution of lands. 65 In this connection the calpullec kept records in the ancient picture-writing. 66 He seems to have supervised the stores of grain belonging to the kin or clan, for he is spoken of as “providing” food for the religious festivals. 67 One man coidd hardly have done so out of his private stores, so the statement probably implies that he had charge of public supplies. It is very likely that these supplies were in part in the nature of tribute from conquered groups. The office, whatever it implied, was held for life or good behavior, 68 and 62 Mode of Government, p. 639. 63 P. 249. 64 Pp. 60, 61, 62. os Zurita, pp. 61, 62. 66 Clavigero, Book 7, eh. 14; Mendieta, p. 135; Sahagun, p. 304; Torquemada, p. 546. or Herrera, p. 134; Zurita, pp. 51-66. 68 Herrera, p. 125; Zurita, pp. 60, 61. 1917 ] Waterman : Mexican Social Organisation 261 was vested in a man by election. According to Zurita, 39 when a calpullec died they elected the most respected old man, who was often a son or other near relative of the former functionary. There was undoubtedly an office known as that of tlatoani, or “speaker.” Each of these “speakers” was elected by his own calpulli , 70 and while the tenure ordinarily was permanent, he could be removed, according to Zurita, 71 by the proper measures. The ex¬ istence of “speakers” is referred to by several other authors. 72 Ac¬ cording to Bandelier, the tribal council consisted of the speakers from each clan, a total of twenty in all. 73 If these three offices were sep¬ arate, there was certainly not much balance in the Aztec arrangement, since one military leader is offset by three civil officers. In any case, it is obvious that the clan was well provided with officials, and the clan itself constituted an important and highly functional element of the Aztec social order. The Tribe and Tribal Government The Tribe and the Phratry It is rather hard to present the facts in regard to the relation of the clans to Mexican society as a whole, for the reason that these clans entered into combinations of two different sorts. Twenty clans to¬ gether made up the tribe, which was, from certain points of view, the next largest unit above the clan. The clans seem to have been directly active in tribal government. On the other hand, for certain ceremonial and military purposes, these clans are grouped into phratries, of which there were four in all. The term “phratry” does not occur in the sources, but it is the term which would probably be applied by modern ethnographers. 74 In the literature the units we have described as phratries are called “major quarters.” For certain purposes, then, the clans were considered as a group of twenty (the tribe). For other purposes they were grouped into four large brotherhoods (the phratries). The usual notion is that the phratries were originally clans 89 Loc. cit. to Zurita, p. 60. 71 Op. cit., p. 61. 72 Bernal Diaz, p. 32; Molina, vol. 1, p. 108, vol. 2, p. 14; Pimentel, p. 174; Sahagun, p. 314; Torquemada, pp. 355, 626; Zurita, p. 43. 72 See below, MS p. 28. 74 It is used already by Morgan, “Houses and House-Life of the American Aborigines,’’ U. S. Department of the Interior, Contributions to North American Ethnology, IV, 14-15; Ancient Society, p. 157. 262 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Yol. 12 which divided, by segmentation, each into four or five, thus making the twenty elans as they were at the time of the Conquest. Even if this is their actual history, for purposes of presentation it is simpler to discuss first the tribe and its various officers, and proceed to the phratries later. The Tribal Council Consult: Art of War, pp. 101, 119 and following; Tenure of Land, p. 425 and eially note 16; Art of War, pp. 127-129 with notes, 160. The Mexicans, as a tribe, are usually considered to have been ruled by a despot. The principal contribution of Morgan and Bandelier to the subject lies in their critical examination of this idea. The supreme authority, according to Bandelier, was vested, not in any despot, but in a “council” or “senate” of important men, one from each of the independent clans. These men, as far as their function in the council was concerned, were called tlatoani, or “speakers.” This council, in Bandelier’s opinion, is the most important thing in the Aztec govern¬ mental system. It is characteristic of the sources that they say rather more about the condition of the Mexicans in the traditional period before the founding of the city than about the actual social order which was in existence at the time of the Conquest. Even statements concerning the Mexicans and their political arrangements while in the semi- mythical migration period are interesting. Although without historical value, such statements probably reflect later conditions, contempor¬ aneous with the life of the authors. Conditions late in chronological order were probably read back into the semi-mythical period. Hence, when authors, in describing the period of wandering, refer to govern¬ ment by a council, it shows at least, that the idea of a governing council was well known. The various statements concerning the number of councilors who, in the prehistoric period, made up this governing body are not in accord. Perhaps the best way of presenting the data is to put various references in the form of a tabulation. In passing, it Number op Members op the Supreme Council in the Traditional Period, According to Different Sources Number of members in Author Pnge the supreme council Clavigero 190 20 Duran 47 10 (6 chiefs, 4 priests) Duran 7 Garcia Book 5, ch. 3 20 Mendieta, 148 10 Tezozonibc 7 Torquemada 94, 289, 290, 291 20 1917] Waterman: Mexican Social Organization 263 must be observed that a large number of authors mention no council at all in connection with this period, but picture the tribe as under the government of one chief, or king. Whatever the facts about this traditional period may be, at the time of the Conquest there was almost certainly a council with im¬ portant powers. The thousands of persons making up the tribe could not have congregated in one immense public gathering for the suc¬ cessful transaction of business. The idea that the authority of this council was supreme rests on a number of passages. They show that the “king,” or chief, did not govern the tribe entirely on his own responsibility. 75 Admitting, for the sake of argument, that this council existed, its make-up is by no means clear. Sahagun, describing a council which met for the election of a war-chief, mentions that it was composed of “old men, officers, and medicine-men.” 76 Torquemada, in one of the passages cited just above (note 75), mentions the fact that old women were also included. 77 This seems to mean, in other words, that any¬ one who considered himself of sufficient importance to have an opinion worth delivering might appear at the council and make himself heard. It is entirely possible that all actual formal decisions were an¬ nounced by duly recognized officials. From what we know of Indian government elsewhere, it seems probable that these officials announced the popular verdict, instead of deciding each point on their own authority. The number of such duly recognized officials is variously given. Bernal Diaz mentions twenty “grand lords,” a passage which sounds as though it might be a reference to a supreme council. 78 Duran, however, refers to “grand lords, twelve in number.” 79 Ixtlil- xochitl, as if bent on confusing the matter still more thoroughly, mentions fourteen “great lords.” 80 Tezozomoc mentions first twelve, and then raises the number to fifteen. 81 In view of the fact that twenty clans are more consistently mentioned than any other number, while there is at least some evidence for councilors to the number of twenty, 75 Acosta, pp. 411, 477; De 1 ’ordre de succession, p. 228; Diaz, pp. 191, 194; Duran, pp. 103, 108, 117, 1133; Fragmento 1, pp. 124, 125; Fragmento 2, p. 147; Gomara, p..442; Herrera, p. 76; Mendieta, p. 129; Tezozomoc, pp. 11, 12, 13, 172; Torquemada, pp. 352, 537. 70 Sahagun, p. 318. 77 Torquemada, p. 537. 7 « Bernal Diaz, ch. 95; eh. 97, p. 99. 78 Duran, p. 215. so Ixtlilxochitl (a), p. 236. si Tezozomoc, p. 57. 264 University of Californio Publications in Am, Arch, and Ethn. [ Vo'l. 12 it is perhaps safest to put two and two together and regard the council as made up of twenty clan representatives. At any rate, this is Bandolier’s conclusion. When we come to the question of how often the council met, the evidence is not quite so conflicting. The appropriate citations of authority may also be presented in the form of a table. Meetings of the Tribal Council Author Clavigero Ixtlilxochitl Gomara Mendieta Torquemada Zurita Page Periodic meetings 482 Once every Mexican “month” (20 days) 267, 268, 269 Every twenty days 442 Once a month (every 30 days?) 135 Every ten or twelve days 355 Every ten days (“later every twelve days”) 101 Every twelve days Meetings, however, could apparently he called in an emergency. 82 Bernal Diaz mentions daily meetings during Cortes’ first stay in Mexico. 83 I should say that we are entitled to conclude, on the basis of this evidence, that a council existed in ancient Mexico which had extremely wide powers. There is even a strong presumption that, it constituted a higher authority than any other body or any individual. The Head War-Chief Consult: Art of War, pp. 123, 129; Mode of Government, pp. 588, 592, 645, 659, 666 , 667, 668, 670; Tenure of Land, pp. 391, 397, 407. As for the executive officers of the tribe, we can recognize at least two. There was certainly in the Mexican tribe an important leader whom we may call the Head War-Chief. The other official we will refer to in a moment. The existence of this head war-chief does not need to be discussed. All the literature on the Aztecs, even the oldest accounts, abounds in mention of various men who held the office. The last three of the list are actual historical characters and had official dealings with Cortes and the Spaniards. Question arises only with regard to the precise nature of their office. There is considerable evidence noted above, on page 263, that the council was above all other agencies of government. The war-chief in addition could not de- 82 Codex Ramirez, pp. 52, 62, 66, 67, 80; Fragmento 1, pp. 124, 127; Fragmento 2, pp. 137, 147. 88 Diaz, p. 95. 1917 ] Waterman: Mexican Social Organization 265 clare war, which was the prerogative of the council. 84 Since that is the case, the head war-chief obviously was not a ruler, nor a despot, nor a monarch, in the European sense of the word. Another most important fact in connection with the possible question of supremacy between the council and the war-chief is the fact that the war-chief¬ tainship was an elective office. The fact that the war-chief was elected is common knowledge, and it is mentioned or referred to in practi¬ cally all the literature. 85 The significance of this fact is often passed by. It certainly makes a sharp distinction between the Aztec leaders and the European monarchs of the same period. No real monarch can be elected, it seems to me, the example of the kings of Poland and the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire to the contrary notwith¬ standing. The kings of Poland were, as a matter of fact, kings only in name; and the same might be said with regard to the German emperors. The head war-chief had the title in Aztec of tlacntecuhtli, translated ‘ ‘ chief of men. ’ ’ He was also known as ‘ ‘ speaker ’ ’ ( tlatoani, degenerated sometimes to tetuan). 86 His principal office was to lead warriors to battle. 87 It may not be out of place to insist with Bandelier that the head war-chief was not a king. The fact of election is amply supported. 88 One authority says that he was elected by the tribal council. 89 Sahagun, however, who gives much the fullest information on such points, says that the war-chief was elected by a “junta” of speakers, clan chiefs, old leaders, and priests, not by ballot, but unanimously. 90 Of the two, the latter state¬ ment seems much the more reasonable. It is supported by the Codex Mendoza, 91 and by a statement in Duran. 02 A similar statement is also made concerning the “kings” of Tezcoco, a city which was a close neighbor and ally of Mexico. 93 Duran, in particular, emphasizes the 84 Duran, p. 204; Tezozomoc, pp. 55, 56. The Codex Mendoza, pi. 67, is cited by Bandelier. The commentary on this plate (Kingsborough, vol. 6, p. 74) offers, however, nothing very conclusive. 85 Cf. note 93. 80 Fuenleal, p. 247; the “speaker” is described by Bandelier as one of the civil officials in the case of the clan. 87 Acosta, p. 431; Mendieta, p. 132. 88 For example, Acosta, p. 431; Clavigero, p. 463; Codex Mendoza, pi. 2; Codex Bamirez, p. 58; De 1’ordre de succession, p. 228; Duran, pp. 103, 498; Mendieta, pp. 148, 153, 154; Sahagun, pp. 136-139, 318; Tezozomoc, pp. 142, 143; Torquemada, p. 358; Zurita, p. 14. 89 De 1’ordre de succession, p. 228. 90 Sahagun, p. 318. 91 Codex Mendoza, pi. 2. 92 Duran, p. 53, describing the election of “Hummingbird,” in the year 1396 (traditional chronology). 98 Duran, p. 496; Ixtlilxochitl (a), ehs. 76, 88; Mendieta, p. 153; Pomar; Sahagun, p. 318, Book 8, eh. 30; Tezozomoc, chs. 101, 102; Torquemada, pp. 357, 358, 359. 266 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Etlm. [Yol. 12 importance of election, and the non-operation of the principle of heredity, in Indian government. 04 He is borne out by Vetancurt, Torquemada, and Zurita. 95 Bandelier has some evidence, therefore, for his statement that the Mexican leaders were not kings. If the head war-chief was elected, the question at once arises: Who were eligible for the office? The fact is that the choice was limited to one group, which consisted of a whole family or lineage. This is stated by a large number of good authorities. 90 Duran, according to Bandelier, 97 states emphatically that a son did not follow his father in office, unless duly elected to it. Pomar says concerning the Tezcu- cans that they elected, as war-chief, any one of an entire kin. 98 The best evidence of all in this connection is the actual list of war-chiefs, in which men are not by any means regularly followed in office by their sons. The sons of such officials, moreover, were brought up as private citizens, not as heirs-apparent to an office. They became singers or followed other professions. 99 To put the facts briefly, the office of head war-chief was actually elective, but at the same time it was hereditary within a group. The nature of this group is not clear. It may even have been some certain one of the clans. Bandelier makes much of the point that the last head war-chief, Montezuma, was deprived of his office by the Mexicans. There is little question about -the facts. 100 The circumstances, however, were alto¬ gether unusual. The Spaniards were in the city, and Montezuma was in their power and was prevented from discharging his office. Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that they chose another leader. The fact does not prove the existence of machinery for the “recall” of an unpopular war leader. Herrera says that among the Quiche there was a “king,” but that the heads of families had a right to put him to death for misdemeanor. 101 The existence of such a custom in connection with a “king” would indicate that the Spaniards did not mean to be taken literally in their application of the word to Indian 94 Duran, pp. 103 and 490 especially. 93 Vetancurt, quoted in Kingsborough, viii, 124: Torquemada, pp. 358, 359; Zurita, pp. 18, 19. 96 Acosta, pp. 439, 440; Clavigero, p. 463; Codex Ramirez, p. 58; Duran, pp. 103, 498, 499; Sahagun, p. 318; Torquemada, p. 358; Zurita, pp. 12, 14. 97 Duran, p. 103, cited just above. 9 s The passage is not cited by Bandelier, and it is contradicted by Torque¬ mada, pp. 357, 358, 359. 99 Sahagun, Book 5, cli. 3; Tezozomoc, p. 143. 199 Bernal Diaz, p. 132; Cortes, pp. 41, 42; Codex Ramirez, p. 89; Fragmento 2, p. 143; Herrera, pp. 264, 267; Las Casas, p. 49; Sahagun, pp. 28, 29; Torque¬ mada, pp. 494, 497; Vetancurt, pp. 125, 130, 131. 101 Herrera, p. 386. 1917] Waterman: Mexican Social Organisation 267 affairs. The existence of the right to kill a king certainly involves a logical contradiction. Duality of the Office Another interesting point about the office of war-chief, which makes clear the fact that it is not comparable to a monarchical institution, is that the office was dual. Alongside of the “chief of men” there was another official with practically equal powers. The second official held the extraordinary title of “Snake-Woman.” The custom of having two chief officials seems to be quite typical of the plateau tribes, and perhaps of Middle-American societies in general. For example, there were two head chiefs in Tlaseala. 102 . The same might be said of Xochimilco, 103 of Chaleo, 104 of the Totonacs, 105 and of the tribes of Guatemala. 100 At Matlatzinco, according to Zurita, 107 there were three chiefs who held office by turns. It is stated by one historian that this duality or plurality in leadership was common to every Mexican tribe. 108 It was the custom among the Iroquois, as is well known, to appoint an assistant or helper for each important official. The “Snake-Woman” Consult: Art of War, p. 124; Social Organisation, pp. 660-667. We know relatively little about the “ Snake-Woman, ” or coadjutor to the head war-chief, except that the office existed. No plausible explanation has ever been offered for the extraordinary title. I think the first point to be emphasized is that the snake-woman was apparently equal to the “king,” or head war-chief, in rank. This is stated by a number of good authorities. 100 (See Social Organization, p. 665, note 221.) He is referred to as “coadjutor to the king,” or “second king.” 110 Moreover, certain insignia were common to these two offi- 102 Anonymous Conqueror, p. 388; Bernal Diaz, p.. 60; Cortes, pp. 18, 46; Gomara, p. 332; Motolinia, pp. 229, 230; Oviedo, p. 372; Tezozomoc, pp. 150, 152; Torquemada, p. 347 (mentions four, not two). 102 Duran, p. 104; Tezozomoc, p. 25. 104 Bernal Diaz, pp. 154, 155; Duran, p. 134; Tezozomoc, pp. 33, 36. 105 Duran, pp. 181, 206. ice Bernal Diaz, p. 220 (see also the Popul Vuh, Paris, edited by Brasseur de Bourbourg, 1861, p. 339). 107 Zurita, p. 389. 108 Herrera, p. 141; confirmed by Tezozomoc. 109 Acosta, p. 494; Codex Ramirez, p. 66; Duran, pp. 215, 255; Fragmento 1; Tezozomoc, pp. 53, 58, 66; Torquemada, p. 352; Vetaneurt, p. 369. 110 By the Codex Ramirez, Duran, and Tezozomoc, especially. 268 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 12 eials, and were worn by no others. Among them was the copilli, 111 the so-called royal crown (a curious head-ornament of metal, rising over the forehead), and a certain style of dress. 112 Both the chief of men and the snake-woman had commemorative carvings, 113 and the same burial rites. 114 The snake-woman did not, however, have pre¬ cisely the same functions. We are quite uncertain, as a matter of fact, just what his functions were. The Spaniards applied to the office various terms, which may perhaps be presented in tabular form. Titles Applied to the “Snake Woman’’ by the Spaniards Title given Author Page Coadjutor to the king Codex Ramirez * Coadjutor to the king Duran * Coadjutor to the king Tezozomoc 48 Viceroy Torquemada 352 Viceroy Vetaneurt 369 Supreme judge Clavigero 481 Supreme judge Codex Mendoza pi. 69 Supreme judge Torquemada 352 Supreme judge Vetaneurt 369 Mayordomo Bernal Diaz 87 Captain-General Cortes 89, 90 Captain-General Gomara 392 Captain-General Tezozomoc 48 Principal councilor and lieutenant Herrera 53 Principal councilor and lieutenant Tezozomoc 57 Captain Torquemada 567 General and auditor Tezozomoc 32 Presidente Tezozomoc 48 Governor of Mexico Relaeion de Jornada 315,47 * See Mode of Government, note 210. It is very hard to form a clear impression of an officer whose function corresponded at once to that of captain-general and that of supreme judge. It is very probable that the snake-woman, whatever else his functions, was particularly in charge of the gathering and housing of tribute. 115 During the siege of the city by the Spaniards, Montezuma commanded the confederate tribes who were fighting the Spaniards, while the snake-woman led the local Mexican forces. 116 111 Duran, p. 214. 112 Clavigero, Book 7, ch. 22; Codex Telleriano-Remensis; Duran, p. 215; Tezozomoc, pp. 57, 115, 129. ns Duran, pp. 250, 251; Tezozomoc, p. 65. 114 Acosta, p. 496 ; Codex Ramirez, p. 381; Duran, p. 381. ns Duran, pp. 172, 173; Tezozomoc, pp. 45, 64, 65, 104, 110, 111, 119. n° Cortes, p. 89. 1917 ] Waterman : Mexican Social Organization 269 The last snake-woman to hold the office was appointed governor of the City of Mexico under the Spaniards by Cortes. 117 It would be logically the most satisfying course to assume that there was a division of function between the two highest officers, as there was possibly in the case of the clan officers. For example, it would be a scheme easy to understand if the head war-chief had exercised primarily military leadership, while the snake-woman was essentially a civil officer, with the administration of tribute gathering and other public matters in his hands. The evidence, however, does not so indicate. At any rate, the existence of an officer who shared the prerogatives and the author¬ ity of the head war-chief adds tremendously to the probability that the latter official was not a “royal” person. A question of some theoretical interest is this: Did the bilateral segmentation of Aztec officialdom into civil and military functionaries extend to the high officers of the tribe ? The answer is that it did not. There is no reference to any civil officer corresponding to the head war-chief. The reason, when we reflect a moment, is not far to seek. The tribe, namely, had no civil business. It owned no land, collected no internal taxes, made no expenditures, never interfered in the affairs of the clans. In other words, the only business in which the tribe engaged as a unit was war. There was no need for any tribal officer except the war leader. The snake-woman is certainly not a civil officer, but a military one, and is to be recognized as the understudy of the war-chief. Everything in and about his office, even his personal ornaments, points to his partnership in the war-cliief’s duties. In other Avords, a point to be always emphasized is the purely military purpose and intent of all the Mexican efforts towards the organization of a government. The ‘ ‘ Four Quarters, ’ ’ or Phratries The fact that the ancient City of Mexico was divided into four districts is well known, and it is accepted, I believe, quite generally. 118 These “major quarters” were divided into a number of independent clans, probably twenty in all (see above, p. 255). The fact that the “major quarter” is a group of clans is indicated quite clearly. 119 The question as to what function the “major quarter” had, as a unit of 117 Bernal Diaz, pp. 198, 199; Cortes, p. 110; Herrera, pp. 122, 123; Ixtlil- xoehitl (6), pp. 265, 266, 269. 718 Acosta, p. 467; Clavigero, p. 494; Duran, p. 42; Gomara, p. 434; Herrera, p. 61; Vetaneurt, p. 124. 119 See especially Duran, Torqueinada, Vetaneurt, as cited above. 270 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Etlin. [YoJ. 12 the social order, still remains. We know that it was very important in military affairs. 120 Moreover, it had certain religious functions. Each such “quarter,” for example, had its own god and place for worship. 121 A group of clans for ceremonial and military purposes deserves, it seems to me, to he called a “phratry. ” Moreover, the word calpulli, which implies kinship, is applied also to these four quarters, 122 indicating that these were based on notions of common descent. That these “four quarters,” or “major quarters,” of the Spanish historians were very important institutions is shown by the fact that they persisted in the City of Mexico for a very long time after the Conquest. They were perpetuated in the four city wards of San Pablo, San Juan, Santa Maria la Redonda, and San Sebastian, which were simply the old quarters, known to the Indians as Teopan, Aztacalco, Moyotlan, and Cuepopan. 123 It was at one time intended to concentrate the Indian population in the old pueblo of Tlaltelolco, which was known as the “ward” of Santiago. The most interesting thing about these “major quarters’ is the fact of the ex¬ istence of a great war leader for each one, an official who is most commonly referred to as the “captain-general” (though the use of this term is not restricted to the one official in question). It remains to discuss the functions and rank of these officers. The “Captains-General,” or Phratry-Commanders Consult: Art of War, p. 121; Mode of Government, pp. 688-690. The existence of these four conspicuous officials is referred to, though their titles are given somewhat differently by a number of authors. 124 There is little question about their identity. Bandelier states, on fairly good authority, that they were elected, 125 and, he thinks, by the population of each of the “four quarters.” Each one had a special title or official name. In other words, as in the case of the Iroquois, a certain name went with the occupancy of the office. These four names, given differently by different authors, help to iden- 120 Clavigero, p. 494; Tezozomoc, p. 161; Torquemada, loc. cit.; also see below, under “Captain-General.” 121 Duran, p. 42. 122 For example, Tezozomoc, p. 184. 123 Duran, p. 42; Tezozomoc, p. 98; Vetancurt, p. 42. Acosta, p. 441; Clavigero, Book 7, eh. 21; Codex Ramirez, pp. 57, 58; Duran, pp. 102, 103; Herrera, p. 75; Sahagun, pp. 318, 319; Tezozomoc, pp. 24, 161. 125 Acosta, Codex Ramirez, Duran, Herrera, Sahagun, as cited just above, note 124. 1917] Waterman: Mexican Social Organization 271 tify the officials, when mentioned in different places in our sources. They are, as given by Bandelier, Tlacateccatl, or ‘ ‘ cutter of men ’ ’; Tlacochcaccttl, or “man of the storehouse of weapons”; Ezhuahuacatl, or “he who sheds blood”; and perhaps Quauhnochtli, or “eagle and cactus chief.” Three passages prove to Bandelier’s satisfaction that the four were immediate assistants to the head war-chief. 120 If this is true, their main function was undoubtedly warlike. A variety of titles are applied to them, however. Among other things, they are referred to as 1 ‘ judges. ’’ 127 ‘ ‘ Alcalde ’ ’ is another Spanish term which to many Spanish authors seemed applicable to the official in question. 128 Taking everything into consideration, we are evidently dealing with a somewhat undifferentiated office, in which military leadership was the most important factor. As regards their dress, these four men were allowed to tie the hair with red leather, a thing which was otherwise permitted only to the head war-chief and the snake-woman. Another point of extreme importance is this, that (according to fairly good authority) the head war-chief was invariably elected from among these four. 120 We have already considered the idea that the chief of men had to be elected from one lineage. If this second principle was also in operation, the four phratry-captains must obviously have belonged, in each case, to the same lineage. Otherwise they would not have been eligible for election to the office. Of the authors just mentioned (note 139), Duran is very explicit. Mention ought to be made of the fact that some of the sources speak not of four officers, whom we may assume to be captains-general, but of two. 1 ' 30 It seems plausible, however, that four was the actual number, corresponding to the four quarters. Other Institutions in the Phratry The tribe seems to have had a public house, where the head war- chief and other important men lived, and where a great deal of official business went forward. This was called the tribal tecpctn (consult Mode of Government, pp. 648, 655). Bandelier makes much of the point that the so-called “palace” of Montezuma was merely the official 126 Codex Ramirez, pp. 57, 58; Duran, p. 103; Sahagun, p. 318. 127 Clavigero, p. 481; Torquemada, p. 352; Vetancurt, p. 370. 128 Codex Mendoza, pi. 59. 129 Acosta, pp. 431, 441; Codex Mendoza, pi. 11; Codex Ramirez, p. 58; Duran, p. 103; Tezozomoc, ch. 15 (confirms vaguely); Torquemada, pp. 172, 186. 130 Gomara, p. 442; Sahagun, p. 311; Zurita, p. 95. 272 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Vol. 12 tribal administration building. Similar buildings may have existed in each major quarter. Two other institutions connected with the quarter might hold our attention for a moment. One was a place called by Bandelier the “sehoolhouse,” where youths were trained, “under the supervision of the clan leaders,” for war. The other was an armory, a “house of darts,” which seems to have been immediately under the supervision of the phratry-captain. Statements concerning the “sehoolhouses” may be found in various authors. 131 It is noteworthy that the elan official did the teaching, but the sehoolhouse was an establishment belonging to the “major quarter,” or phratry. The existence of four houses of darts, one for each major quarter, or phratry, is mentioned by one author. 132 Others are not so explicit. 133 They seem to have existed, however, and to have been found in the neighborhood of the temples, 134 probably because the temples and other public buildings were grouped together. The “darts” spoken of were undoubtedly the javelins hurled by means of the characteristic Mexican weapon, the atlatl. or spear-thrower. 135 Torquemada speaks of a special house, at the Main Temple, reserved for javelins, and nothing else. 136 Alto¬ gether it can be seen that phratries had a rather definite and active function in the Mexican social order. Points op Difficulty A great many points are brought up by Bandelier concerning which we have no satisfactory information. We know, for example, that Mexico and two allied pueblos, Tezcoco and Tlacopan, exacted a relatively heavy tribute from many surrounding places. The collec¬ tion and forwarding of this tribute imply the existence of an ex¬ tensive business organization. There are many references to the calpixca, or “stewards,” who were engaged in this work, but there is very little to show us the precise nature of their appointment and Gomara, p. 438; Mendieta, p. 124; Sahagun, p. 268; Tezozomoc, pp. 121, 134; Torquemada, p. 185. 132 Tezozomoc, p. 184. 133 Bernal Diaz, vol. 2, p. 87, says “two”; Gomara, p. 345, and Herrera, p. 197, say “several”; Motolinia, p. 188, says “many.” i3i Acosta, Book 6, oh. 28; Anonymous Conqueror, p. 394; Gomara, vol. 2, p. 349; Tezozomoc, p. 121; Torquemada, p. 146. 135 Mrs. Zelia Nuttall, in Peabody Museum (Harvard University), Anthropo¬ logical Papers, vol. 1. 136 Torquemada, p. 146. 1917] Waterman: Mexican Social Organization 273 procedure. Bandelier devotes considerable space to these calpixca, but after all achieves nothing very definite. (See Mode of Government, especially pp. 638, 697.) We know that the tribute was collected, that it was forwarded to the confederate towns, and that it was divided up among the allies, Mexico and Tezcoco taking each two-fifths, and Tlacopan receiving one-fifth. We have a suspicion that this tribute was finally parcelled out to the clans and not to individuals. The exact facts in connection with the gathering of tribute are a most promising field for investigation. Another extremely interesting ques¬ tion, which is closely allied to the one just mentioned, is the question of trade routes and avenues of commerce. There is reason to believe that there was a lively commerce in highly specialized products be¬ tween various localities on the Plateau. The actual tracing of the important trails and other arteries of commerce ought to be practi¬ cable, and it is certainly most necessary. We ought to have a list of the names applied to the clans, or calpullis. The whole matter of totemism ought also to be thoroughly explored. Analogy with the Iroquois, together with the attire worn by Mexican warriors, would suggest that these clans might quite pos¬ sibly have exhibited certain totemistic phenomena. Nothing has ever been done with the question whether or not the Mexican clans were exogamous. All these points could probably be worked out on the basis of the source material. A totally different point which ought to be investigated is the question of the nature and workings of the Confederacy, to the exist¬ ence of which allusion has just been made. Mexico seems to have enjoyed the right of furnishing a leader for each confederate enter¬ prise, this leader being normally her own head war-chief. This fact tends to make an additional distinction between this official of the Mexicans and the ordinary war-chief of ordinary Indian tribes. The Confederacy was really superimposed on the already existing local organization of each tribe, and its workings ought to prove most interesting. Conclusion The following tabulation indicates the composition of Mexican society as viewed by Bandelier. Under the headings are listed the institutions and functions characterizing (in his opinion) each division of the social order. 274 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Etlm. [Vol. 12 Clan Phratry Tribe War-party War-party War-party War-leader (Elder Brother) War-leader (Phratry captain) War-leader (“King”) Religous observances Religious observances Religious observances Official buildings Official buildings Official buildings Council —. Council Temple . Steward . . Calpullec . . Speaker . . Lands . .— Iii summing up Bandelier’s findings, several points are to be borne in mind. It is perfectly obvious, in the first place, that arguments cannot be based on the descriptive terminology used by the Spanish authors of the sixteenth century, not even when these authors were eye-witnesses of what they describe. When Spanish authors define the same Indian official as being at once a bailiff and a general, or a captain of the guard and an abbot, we are obviously helpless to make up our minds what the official really was. There are several possible explanations for the uncertainties in the Spanish accounts, all of which probably apply in some measure. The offices the Spaniards were describing were not exactly analogous to anything in the Old World. Probably, also, these Indian offices were somewhat undifferentiated. An “official” who is mentioned as holding office was probably in the main merely an important man. One day he might be leading a party to war, and the next day taking an important role in a religious cere¬ mony, or exerting influence in a way which made him look to the Spaniards like a judge. Of the various reasons for confusion and uncertainty, this lack of specialization in functions seems to be prob¬ ably the most important. What applies to the less important officials, applies with greater force to the most important dignitary of all, the head war-chief. Whether he is to be called a king or not depends on the meaning which this term carries. The office was, however, elective, and for that and other reasons, “king” is probably not the term to use. The conclusion to which the evidence obviously points is that the Aztec war-chief was probably well started on the road to becoming a king, but had not yet arrived. A most significant point is that the leadership was shared. This is true also of the government of tribes in the United States, where there was often a board of four or more “chiefs” who directed affairs. It would be possible fully to understand the government of 1917] Waterman : Mexican Social Organization 275 ancient Mexico only by making a comparative study of government among tribes in the eastern United States (especially the Iroquois), on the Plains and, above all, among the Pueblos of the Southwest, where we are almost certain to find conditions that may be compared with those in Tenochtitlan. In a more general way still, there were fundamental differences between Indian and Spanish society which the Spaniards never seem to have understood. The ownership of land, to mention the most im¬ portant kind of property, was vested not in individuals but in the clan. This fact the Spaniards were slow to grasp. The Spaniards also viewed the whole of Mexican tribal society as a unit subdivided into four quarters, and each quarter further subdivided, for adminis¬ trative purposes, into clans, or calpullis. The facts probably are that the Indians regarded the clans as the essential thing, while the four quarters, or phratries, and in still larger measure the tribe, were merely loose aggregates of clans held together primarily for the pur¬ poses of war, and, after that, of ritual. The fundamental point which Bandelier makes, that Spanish society was essentially feudal, while Indian society was essentially democratic, is, it seems to me, a good one. The question, therefore, whether Mexican society was monarchical or democratic seems to me to be largely an artificial one. Mexico, for example, is regularly described in works concerning the Aztecs as a monarchy; Tlascala as a republic. Kepublic (res publica ) is a word which could not, as used by the early writers, have had its modern sense; moreover, it was actually applied to both cities alike. 137 There is not the slightest critical reason for drawing any distinction between the mode of government of the two. The distinction is an accidental one. Mexico was certainly as much of a republic as Tlascala was. A great deal of the talk about Mexico being a monarchy, especially the highly colored talk, could probably be traced back to Ixtlilxochitl. He seems to have been moved by a desire to glorify his maternal an¬ cestors, who were war-chiefs of Tezcoeo, and to establish royal rank for the family. He uses a feudal terminology, even in speaking of the most ancient periods, when the peoples he describes were, according to his own words, naked hunters. 138 Many problems are suggested by Bandelier for which the necessary data are so far lacking. The actual details of Mexican organization 137 Torquemada, p. 361. 138 Ixtlilxochitl (a), pp. 30, 66. 276 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Etlin. [Vol. 12 might still be recovered, in large measure, through a study of the manuscript material, more and more of which is becoming available. This involves, however, an exhaustive knowledge of its contents. Bandelier’s work, it seems to me, is a good beginning, and offers the proper foundation for a final study of Mexican society. Bandelier’s positive contributions to the subject may be summed This involves, however, an exhaustive knowledge of their contents, up as follows. He cites evidence which proves conclusively that the social organization of Tenochtitlan was based on clans, that these clans were grouped in four phratries, and that the actions of the tribe as a whole were governed primarily by a council. The “kings” he shows clearly to be the executive agents, in a very real sense, of this council, and responsible through them to the people. He brings forward a good deal of evidence in support of his dictum that Mexican society was fundamentally democratic. The remainder of the points made in his paper are unsatisfactory in the present state of the evidence. The question of the importance of “honorary chiefs” and the question of the existence of separate clan councils as governmental institutions are still entirely open. The function of the “elder brother,” or war leader in the clan, and his relation to other elan officials, must remain quite problematical. Ban¬ dolier cannot be said to have achieved anything conclusive in regard to the whole matter of clan officials. The relation of Bandelier’s work to Morgan’s is very close. Morgan arrived at certain conclusions, without having a very wide knowledge of the evidence in the sources. He quotes only nine sixteenth-century authors. Bandelier backs up Morgan’s conclusions by a rather wide study of the sources, as the following bibliography will show. He may be regarded as finally confirming the most important of Morgan’s conclusions. Alphabetical List of the Sources Cited by Bandelier Showing the dates of composition It is difficult to say definitely when each of these works was com¬ posed. The dates which are given in the appended list often indicate merely the approximate period. It must be remembered that this list includes only the original works cited by Bandelier, and not the modern works to which he makes reference. It is not in any sense a bibliography of the subject. 1917] Waterman: Mexican Social Organisation Acazitli, Francisco de Sandoval Belaeion de la jornada . . . del pueblo de Tlalmanalco, etc. (Written in 1641.) Mexico (in Icazbalceta, Coleccion de documentos para la liistoria de Mexico, 2 vols., 1858—1866, vol. 2), 1866. Acosta, JosId de SalamAn Historia natural y moral de las Indias. (Composed about 1588.) Seville, 1608. Alvarado, Pedro de Belaeion a Hernando Cortes. (Written in 1524.) Madrid, edited by Yedia (in Historiadores primitives de Indias, 2 vols., included as vols. 22 and 26 of the Biblioteca de autores Espa- fioles, 71 vols., various editors, 1849-1880, vol. 22), 1868. Anonymous Conqueror Belaeion de algunas cosas de Nueva Espana y de la Gran Ciudad de Temestitan de Mexico. (Composed “soon after the Conquest.”) Mexico (in Icazbalceta, Coleccion de Documentos para la Historia de Mexico, 2 vols.), 1858-1860. Anunciaci6n, Domingo de la Lettre. (Written in Chaleo, September 20, 1554.) Paris (in Ternaux-Compans, Voyages, 20 vols., 1837-1841, vol. 16 [i.e., Series 2, vol. 6]), 1840. Biblioteca Mexicana The work cited by Bandelier under this very misleading title is an edition of the Cronica Mexicana of Fernando de Alvarado Tezozomoc. This edition was annotated by Orozco y Berra and contains also the Codex Ramirez and two “ fragmentos, ” very frequently referred to by our author. The volume, including the Cronica Mexicana and its companion pieces, seems to constitute number 69 in a series the general title of which is as given, Biblioteca Mexicana. This title does not, however, appear in the usual works of reference. Bologna, Francisco de Lettre au Reverend Padre Clement de Monelia. (Written before 1534.) Paris (in Ternaux-Compans, Voyages, 20 vols., 1837-1841, vol. 10), 1840. Camargo, Domingo Munoz Histoire de la republique de Taxcallan. (Written 1576-1585.) Paris, edited by Ternaux-Compans (in Nouvelles Annales des Voy¬ ages, 160 vols., various editors, 1819, vols. 98 and 99), 1843. Chavez, Gabriel de Rapport sur la Province de Meztitlan. (Written October 1, 1569.) Paris (in Ternaux-Compans, Voyages, 20 vols., 1837-1841, vol. 16 [i.e., Series 2, vol. 6]), 1840. Clj^vigero, Francisco Severio Storia antica de Messico. (Composed about 1765.) Cesena, 1780. Codex Mendoza. London (in Kingsborough, Mexican Antiquities, 9 vols.), 1831. (Note.—The original painting is in vol. 1, pp. 1-73, the original Spanish commentary in vol. 5, pp. 39-113, and an English translation of the Spanish commentary in vol. 6, pp. 3-87.) 278 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, ancl Ethn. [Vol. 12 Codex Manures (so-called). In Tezozomoc, Croniea Mexicana . . . anotada por . . . M. Orozco y Berra, y preeidida del Codice Ramirez, manuscrito in- titulado: Relacion del origen de los Indios que habitan esta Nueva Espana segun sus historias, y de un examen de ambas obras, al cual va anexo un estudio de cronologia Mexicana por el mismo . . . Orozco y Berra. Mexico (in Biblioteca Mexicana. Coleccion de obras y documentos relativos a la liistoria . . . de Mexico, No. 69), 1878. Codex Telleriano-Bemensis. London (in Kingsborough, Mexican Antiquities, 9 vols.), 1831. (Note.—The original picture-writing is reproduced in vol. 1, pp. 73- 166, the Spanish commentary in vol. 5, pp. 129-158, and an English translation of the Spanish commentary in vol. 6, pp. 95-153.) Concilios Provinciates, Primero y Segundo, celebrados por la muy noble y muy leal ciudad de Mexico, etc., etc. Mexico, 1769. Conquista de Mejico. See Gornara. Cortes, Hernando Cartas. (Written at different times from 1519 to 1526.) Madrid, edited by Yedia (in Historiadores primitives de Indias, 2 vols., issued as vols. 22 and 26 of the Biblioteca de autores Espa- noles, 71 vols., 1849-1880), 1877. Cuarta relacion anonima de la jornada que hizo Nuno de Guzman a la Nueva Galicia. (Written about 1530.) Mexico (in Icazbalceta, Coleccion de documentos para la historia de Mexico, 2 vols., 1858-1866, vol. 2, pp. 260-485), 1866. Des ceremonies observes autrefois par les Indiens lorsqui-ils faissaient un tecle (anonymous). Paris (in Ternaux-Compans, Voyages, 20 vols., 1837-1841, vol. 10, pp. 233-241), 1840. De I’ordre de succession observe par les Iudieris relativement d leurs terres et de lews territoires communaux (anonymous). Paris (in Ternaux-Compans, Voyages, 20 vols., 1837-1841, vol. 10), 1840. Diaz del Castillo, Bernal Verdadera historia de los sucesos de la conquista de la Nueva Espana. (Com¬ posed in 1552, some authorities say 1568.) Madrid, edited by Vedia (in Historiadores primitivos de Indias, 2 vols., issued as vols. 21 and 26 of the Biblioteca de autores Espa- noles, 71 vols., various editors, 1849-1880, vol. 26), 1862. London, edited by Maudslay (in Works issued by the Hakluyt Society, Series 2, vols. 23, 24, 25), 1908. DurLn, Diego Historia de las Indias de Nueva Espana. (Composed in 1579-1581.) Mexico (edited by Ramirez), 1867. (First volume only. The re¬ mainder was confiscated by the newly installed Republican govern¬ ment on the fall of Maximilian. The text of this edition is said to have been tampered with.) Eslava, Fernan Gonzales de Coloquios espirituales y sacramentales, y poesias sagradas. (Written before 1610.) Mexico (edited by Icazbalceta), 1877. (Only 200 copies printed.) Fragmento 1. See Noticias relativas al reinado de Motecuzuma Ilhuicamina. 1917] Waterman : Mexican Social Organization 279 Fragmento 2. See Noticias relativas a la conquista desde la llegada de Cortes a Tetzcuca, etc. Fuenleal, Sebastian Eami'rez de Carta (addressed November 3, 1552, to the Emperor Charles Y). Paris (in Ternaux-Compans, Voyages, 20 vols., 1837-1841, vol. 10), 1840. GarcIa, Gregorio Origen de los Indios del Nuevo Mundo y Indias Occidentales. (Date of composition not ascertained.) Madrid, edited by Barcia (in Historiadores primitivos de las Indias occidentales, 3 vols., 1727-1740), 1729. G6mara, Francisco Lopez de Historia general de las Indias. (Note.—The second part of this work goes under the title “Conquista de Mejico, ” and is so cited by Bandolier.) (Composed about 1550.) Madrid, edited by Vedia (in Historiadores primitivos de Indias, 2 vols., issued as vols. 22 and 26 of the Biblioteca de autores Espaholes, 71 vols., various editors, 1849-1880), 1877. Herrera, Antonio de Historia general de los hechos de los Castellanos en las islas y tierra firme del mar oceano. (Composed between 1596 and 1600.) Madrid, edited by Barcia (in Historiadores primitivos de las Indias occidentales, 3 vols., 1727-1740), 1749. IXTLILXOCH1TL, HERNANDO DE ALVA (a) Historia Chichimeca. (Composed 1608-1616.) Paris (in Ternaux-Compans, Voyages, 20 vols., 1837—1841, vols. 12 and 13 [i.e., Series 2, vols. 2 and 3]), 1840. (b) Relaciones historicas. (Composed 1608-1616.) Paris (in Ternaux-Compans, Voyages, 20 vols., 1837-1841, vol. 8), 1838. (Note.—Only the thirteenth Relaeion is printed here, under the name Cruautes horribles des conquerants de Mexico. This curious name was invented by Bustainente, in his edition of Sahagun [Mexico, 1829], The Ternaux-Compans reprint is the one cited by Bandelier.) Las Casas, Bartolom£ de (a) Brevissima relaeion de la destruyeion de las Indias. (Composed 1541- 1542.) Venetia, 1643. (b) Historia de las Indias. (Composed 1527-1562.) Madrid (in Coleccion de documentos ineditos para la historia de Espafia, 112 vols., various editors, published by the Royal Academy of History, 1842-1895, vols. 62-66), 1875-1876. (Note.—The so-called Historia Apologetica of Las Casas is printed in vol. 66, beginning with p. 237 of this set. Chapter 211 of the Historia is also printed in full in vol. 8 of Kingsborougli’s Mexican Antiquities [9 vols., London, 1831, vol. 8 (first part), pp. 248-254], This latter excerpt is referred to by Bandelier.) Lettre des auditeurs Salmeron, Maldonado, Ceynos et Queroga d I’Imperatrice de Mexico. (Written in Mexico, March 30, 1531.) Paris (in Ternaux-Compans, Voyages, 20 vols., 1837-1841, vol. 16 [i.e., Series 2, vol. 6]), 1840. 280 University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [VoL 12 Lettre des chapelains Frere Toribio et Frere Diego d’Olarte a Don Luis de Velasco. (Written August 27, 1554.) Paris (in Ternaux-Compans, Voyages, vol. 10), 1840. Martyr, Peter (Pietro Martire d’Anghiera) De novo orbe. (Written 1505-1530.) London (translated by Eden and Lok), 1612. Mendieta, Ger6nimo de Historia ecclesiastica Indiana. (Composed 1573-1596.) Mexico (in leazbalceta, Coleccion de documentos para la historia de Mexico, 2 vols.), 1858-1860. Mendoza, Antonio de Avis du Viee-Roi . . . sur les prestations personelles et les tamemes. (Written in 1550.) Paris (in Ternaux-Compans, Voyages, 20 vols., 1837-1841, vol. 10), 1838. Merced a Hernan Cortes de tierras inmediatas a Mexico, y solares en la ciudad (Written July 23, 1529.) Mexico (in Teazbalceta, Coleccion de documentos para la historia de Mexico, 2 vols.), 1858-1860. Molina, Alonzo de Vocabulario en lengua Mexicana y Castellana. (Composed about 1550.) Mexico, 1571. Montufar, Alonzo de Supplique a Charles V en faveur des Maceuales. (Written in Mexico, November 30, 1554.) Paris (Appendix to the “Cruautes Horribles” of Ixtlilxochitl, in Ternaux-Compans, Voyages, 20 vols., 1837-1841, vol. 8), 1838. Motolinia (Toribio de Benevente) Historia de los Indios de Nueva Espana. (Composed in 1541.) Mexico (in leazbalceta, Coleccion de documentos para la historia de Mexico, 2 vols.), 1858-1860. Nieremberg, Joan (sic) Eusebius Historia naturae, maxime peregrinae, libri XVI distincta. (Probably written shortly before 1635.) Antverpiae, 1635. Noticias relativas a la conquista desde la llegada de Cortes a Tetzcuco hasta la toma del templo mayor de Mexico (“Fragmento 2”). Mexico (in Fernando de Alvarado Tezozomoe, Cronica Mexicana, annotated by Manuel Orozco y Berra, edited by Jose M. Vigil, pp. 134, 135), 1878. Noticias relativas al reinado de Motecuzuma Ilhuicamina (‘‘Fragmento 1”). Mexico (in Fernando de Alvarado Tezozomoc, Cronica Mexicana, annotated by Manuel Orozco y Berra, edited by Jose M. Vigil, pp. 124-134), 1878. Olarte, Diego d’. See under Lettre des Chapelains Frere Toribio et Frere Diego d ’Olarte. Ortega, F. The work cited by Bandelier is an appendix to a three-volume edition of Echeverria y Veyt.ia, Historia antigua de Mejieo, of which Ortega was the editor. It was published in Mexico in 1836. 1917] Waterman : Mexican Social Organization 281 Oviedo y Valdes, Gonzalo Fernandez de Historia general y natural de las Indias. (Composed 1525-1550.) Madrid, Real Academia de Historia (four folio volumes), 1851. Padilla, Agustin Davila Historia de la fundacion y discurso de la provineia de Santiago de Mexico (date of composition not ascertained). Bruselas, 1625. Padilla, MatIas de la Mota Historia de la conquista de la provineia de la Nueva-Galicia. (Written in 1742.) Mexico (published by the Geographical and Statistical Society), 1870. Palacio, Diego GarcIa de San Salvador und Honduras im Jahre 1576. (Written about 1576.) Berlin (translated by Frantzius), 1873. Pimentel Nezahuacoyotl, Hernando Memoria dirigido al rey, etc. (Date uncertain. This is an unpublished manuscript, quoted by Orozco y Berra on p. 243 of his Geografia de las lenguas.) Pomar, Juan Bautista Relacion de Texcoco. (Written in 1582.) Mexico (in Icazbalceta, Nueva coleccion de documentos para la historia de Mexico, 5 vols., 1886-1892), 1891. Subsequent to Bandelier. Beal ejecutoria de S. M. sobre tierras y reservas de Pechos y Paga perteneciente a los caciques de Axapusco de la jurisdiccion de Otumba. (Issued in 1617.) Mexico (in Icazbalceta, Coleccion de documentos para la historia de Mexico, 2 vols., 1858-1866, vol. 2), 1866. Belacion de jornada que hizo Don Fernando de Sandoval Acazitli, etc. (See Acazitli.) Belacion de las ceremonias y ritos, poblacion y gobierno de los Indios de la provineia de Mechuacan hecha al Ill’mo Dr. D. Antonio de Mendoza, Virey y Gober- nador de Nueva Espaiia. (Written between 1534 and 1551.) Madrid (in Coleccion de documentos ineditos para la historia de Espaiia, 112 vols., edited by Navarrete and others, 1842-1895, vol. 53), 1842. Remesal, Antonio de Historia de la provineia de San Vicente de Chyapa y Guatemala del orden de Santo Domingo. (Written 1613-1619.) Madrid, 1619. Sahagijn, Bernardino de Historia general de las cosas de Nueva Espaiia. (Composed 1546-1569.) London (in Kingsborough, Mexican Antiquities, 9 vols.), 1831. Salmeron. (See also under Lettre cles auditeurs Salmeron, Maldonado, etc.) Salmeron (given names not known). . . . lettre . . . au conseil des Indes. (Written in Mexico City, August 13, 1531.) Paris (in Ternaux-Compans, Voyages, 20 vols., 1837-1841, vol. 16 [i.e., Series 2, vol. 6]), 1840. University of California Publications in Am. Arch, and Ethn. [Yol. 12 Soi,6rzano y Pereyra, Juan Dispntatio de Indiarum jure sive de juxta Indiarum occidentalium inquisitione, aequisitione ac retentione. (Written 1609-1629.) Madrid, 1629. Tapia, Andres de Relacion hecha por el Seiior Andres de Tapia sobre la conquista de Mexico. (Date of composition not ascertained.) Mexico (in Icazbalceta, Coleceion de documentos para la liistoria de Mexico, 2 vols., 1858-1866, vol. 2), 1866. Tezozomoc, Fernando de Alvarado Cronica Mexicana. (Composed in 1598.) London (in Kingsborough, Mexican Antiquities, 9 vols., vol. 9), 1831. Toribio de Benevente. See Motolinia. Toribio et Diego d’Olarte. See Lettre des Toribio, etc. Torquemada, Juan de la (-Ilia) parte de los veinte y un libros rituales y monarchia Indiana eon el origen y guerra de los Indios occidentales, de sus poblag.ones, descubri- miento, conquista, conversion y otras cosas maravillosas de la misma tierra. (Composed 1589-1609.) Madrid, 1723. Vetancurt, Augustin de Teatro Mexicano, descripcion breve de los sucesos exemplares, historieos, jioliticos . . . del nuevo mundo occidental de las Indias. (Note.—The Cronica de la Provincia del Santa Evangelico de Mexico, mentioned by Bandelier, is the Fourth Part of this “Teatro.”) (Composition com¬ pleted in 1697.) Mexico, 1870. Zuazo, Alonzo de Carta al Padre Fray Luis de Figueroa. (Dated Santiago de Cuba, November 14, 1521.) Mexico (in Icazbalceta, Coleceion de documentos para la historia de Mexico, 2 vols., 1858-1866, vol. 1), 1858. Zurita, Alonzo de Breve y sumaria relacion de los senores y maneras y diferencias que habla de ellas en la Nueva Espaiia y en otras provincias sus comarcanas, etc. (Composed about 1560.) Paris (in Ternaux-Compans, Voyages, 20 vols., 1837—1841, vol. 10), 1840. (Note.—The relation appears under the title “ Eapport sur les differentes classes de chefs de Nouvelle-Espagne ”) UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS-(CONTINUED) Vol. 7. 1. The Emeryville Shellmound, by Max Uhle. Pp. 1-106, platea 1-12, with 38 text figures. June, 1907 ........_. 1.2B 2. Recent Investigations bearing upon the Question of the Occurrence of Neocene Man in the Auriferous Gravels of California, by William J. Sinclair. Pp. 107-130, plates 13-14. February, 1908 .. .35 3. Pomo Indian Basketry, by S. A. Barrett. Pp. 133-306, plates 15-30, 231 text figures. December, 1908 .. 1.76 4. Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region, by N. C. Nelson. Pp. 309-356, plates 32-34. December, 1909 .60 5. The Ellis Landing Shellmound, by N. O. Nelson. Pp. 357-426, plates 36-60. April, 1910 ......75 Index, pp. 427-443. Vol. 8. 1. A Mission Record of the California Indians, from a Manuscript in the Bancroft Library, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 1-27. May, 1908 ...25 2. The Ethnography of the Cahuilla Indians, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 29- 68, plates 1-16. July, 1908 .....75 3. The Religion of the Luisefio and Dieguefio Indians of Southern Cali¬ fornia, by Constance Goddard Dubois. Pp. 69-186, plates 16-19. June, 1908 .;.;.... 1.25 4. The Culture of the Luisefio Indians, by Philip Stedman Sparkman. Pp. 187-234, plate 20. August, 1908 ...._.. .60 6. Notes on Shoshonean Dialects of Southern California, by A. L. Kroe¬ ber. Pp. 235-269. September, 1909....SB 6. The Religious Practices of the Dieguefio Indians, by T. T. Waterman. Pp. 271-358, plates 21-28. March, 1910 ......80 Index, pp. 359-369. VoL 9. 1. Tana Texts, by Edward Sapir, together with Tana Myths collected by Roland B. Dixon. Pp. 1-235. February, 1910... 2.50 2. The Chumash and Costanoan Languages, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 237- 271, November, 1910.......35 3. The Languages of the CoaBt of California North of San Francisco, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 273-435, and map. April, 1911 .. 1.50 Index, pp. 437-439. Vol. 10. 1. Phonetic Constituents of the Native Languages of California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 1-12. May, 1911.....10 2. The Phonetic Elements of the Northern Paiute Language, by T. T. Waterman. Pp. 13-44, plates 1-5. November, 1911 .45 3. Phonetic Elements of the Mohave Language, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 45-96, plates 6-20. November, 1911 ......... .65 4. The Ethnology of the Salinan Indians, by J. Alden Mason. Pp. 97- 240, plates 21-37. December, 1912 .......... 1.75 5. Papago Verb Stems, by Juan Dolores. Pp. 241-263. August, 1913.25 6. Notes on the Chilula Indians of Northwestern California, by Pliny Earl Goddard. Pp. 265-288, plates 38-41. April, 1914.30 7. Chilula Texts, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 289-379. November, Index, pp. 381-385. Vol. 11. 1. Elements of the Kato Language, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 1-176, plates 1-45. October, 1912 ..1...... 2,00 2. Phonetic Elements of the Dieguefio Language, by A. L. Kroeber and J. P. Harrington. Pp. 177-188. April, 1914 .10 3. Sarsi Texts, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 189-277. February, 1915.... 1.00 4. Serian, Tequistlatecan, and Hokan, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 279-290. February, 1915 .... ......10 5. Dichotomous Social Organization in South Central California, by Ed¬ ward Winslow Gifford. Pp. 291-296. February, 1916 ....05 6. The Delineation of the Day Signs in the Aztec Manuscripts, by T. T. Waterman. Pp. 297-398. March, 1916 ._... e .,.:... 1.00 7. The Mutsun Dialect of Costanoan Based on the Vocabulary of De la Cuesta, by J. Alden Mason. Pp. 399-472. March, 1916 ..70 Index, pp. 473-479. Vol. 12. 1. Composition of California Shellmourds, by Edward Winslow Gifford. Pp. 1-29. February, 1916 ....:.30 2. California Place Names of Indian Origin, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 31-69. June, 1916 ..1...... .40 3. Arapaho Dialects, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 71-138. June, 1916 .. .70 4. Miwolr Moieties, by Edward Winslow Gifford. Pp. 139-194. June, 1916 ........ r .....55 5. On Plotting the Inflections of the Voice, by Cornelius B. Bradley. Pp. 195-218, plates 1-5. October, 1916 .....:..25 6. Tiibatulabal and Kawaiisu Kinship Terms, by Edward Winslow Gif- 7. Bandelier’s Contribution to the Study of Ancient Mexican Social Organization, by T. T. Waterman. Pp. 249-282. February, 1917.35 UNIVERSITY. OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS - (CONTI NUED) Volumes now completed: Volume 1. 1903-1904. S78 pages and 30 plates _ $4.25 Volume 2. 1904-1907. 393 pages and 21 plates __ 3.60 Volume 3. 1905. The Morphology of the Hupa Language. 344 pages_ 3.50 Volume 4. 1906-1907. 374 pages, with 6 tables, 10 plates, and map .. 3.50 Volume 5. 1907-1910. 384 pages, with 25 plates . 8.50 Volume 6. 1908. 400 pages, with 3 maps _______3.60 Volume 7. 1907-1910. 443 pages and 50 plates .. 3.50 Volume 8. 1908-1910. 369 pages and 28 plates . 3.50 Volume 9. 1910-1911. 439 pages ...... 3.50 Volume 10. 1911-1914. 385 pages and 41 plates . 3.50 Volume 11. 1911-1916. 479 pages and 45 plates . 3.50 Note.—-The University of California Publications are offered in exchange for the publi¬ cations of learned societies and institutions, universities and libraries. Complete lists of all the publications of the University will be sent upon request. For sample copies, lists of publications or other information, address the Manager of the University Press, Berkeley, California, U. S. A. All matter sent in exchange should be addressed to The Exchange Department, University Library, Berkeley, California, U. S. A. AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES.—E. B. Babcock, J. W. Gilmore, and C. B. Lipman, Editors. Price per volume, $3.50. Volumes I and II in progress. ASTRONOMY.—W. W. Campbell, Editor. (Lick Observatory, Mt. Hamilton, Cal.) Publications of the Lick Observatory.—Volumes I-XII completed. BOTANY.—W. A. Setchell, Editor. Price per volume $3.50. Volumes I (pp. 418), II (pp. 360), III (pp. 400), and IV (pp. 397) completed. Volumes V, VI, and VII in progress. CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY.—Edward B. Clapp, William A. Merrill, Herbert C. Nutting, Editors. Price per volume $2.00. Volume I (pp. 270) completed. Volume EL in progress. EDUCATION.—Edited by the Department of Education. Price per volume $2.50. ENGINEERING.—Edited under the direction of the Engineering Departments. This series will contain contributions from the Colleges of Mechanics, Mining, and Civil Engi¬ neering. Volume I in progress. GEOGRAPHY.—Ruliff S. Hoiway, Editor. Volume I in progress. GEOLOGY.—Bulletin of the Department of Geology. Andrew C. Lawson and John O. Merriam, Editors. Price per volume for volumes I-VII, $3.50; for volumes VIII and following, $5. Volumes I (pp. 435), II (pp. 457), III (pp. 482), IV (pp. 462), V (pp. 458), VI (pp. 454), VII (pp. 504), and VIII (pp. 583) and IX (pp. 545) com¬ pleted. Volume X in progress. MODERN PHILOLOGY.—Volumes I (pp. 400), II (pp. 373), III (pp, 510), and IV (pp. 498) completed. PATHOLOGY.—Frederick P. Gay, Editor. Price per volume, $2.50. Volume I (pp. 347) completed. Volume II in progress. PHILOSOPHY.—C. H. Rieber, Editor. Volume I (pp. 262) completed. Volume II in progress. Price per volume $2.00. PHYSIOLOGY.—S. S. Maxwell, Editor. Price per volume $2.00. Volumes I (pp. 217), n (pp. 215), III (pp. 197), and IV (pp. 228) completed. Volume V in progress. PSYCHOLOGY.—George M. Stratton, Editor. Volumes I and II in progress. ZOOLOGY.—W. E. Ritter and C. A. Kofoid, Editors. Price per volume for volumes I-X, $3.50: for volume XI and following, $5.00. Volumes I (pp. 317), II (pp. 382), HI (pp. 383), IV (pp. 400), V (pp. 440), VI (pp. 478), VII (pp. 446), VIII (pp. 357), IX (pp. 365), X (pp. 417), XI (pp. 538) and XII (pp. 558) completed. Volumes XIII to XVII inclusive in progress. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CHRONICLE.—An official record of University life, issued quarterly, edited by a committee of the Faculty. Price, $1.00 per year. Cur¬ rent volume No. XIX. Address all orders or requests for information concerning the above publications to The University of California Press, Berkeley, California.