| 
> 
pr 
MorGAN) OWNERSHIP OF LANDS AMONG ANCIENT MEXICANS. 87 
‘calpulli’ being sovereign within its limits, and assigning to its individual 
members for their use the minor tracts into which the soil was pareelled in 
consequence of their mode of cultivation. I, therefore, the terms ‘altepet- 
lalli’ and ‘calpulalli’ are occasionally regarded as identical, it is because the 
former indicates the occupancy, the latter. the distribution of the soil. We 
thus recognize in the calpulli, or kindred group, the unit of tenure of what- 
ever soil the Mexicans deemed worthy of definite possession. Further on 
we shall investigate how far individuals, as members of this communal unit, 
participated in the aggregate tenure. 
“Tn the course of time, as the population further increased, segmentation 
occurred within the four original ‘ quarters,’ new ‘calpulli’ being formed." For 
governmental purposes this segmentation produced a new result by leaving, 
more particularly in military affairs, the first four clusters as great subdivis- 
ions? But these, as soon as they had disaggregated, ceased to be any longer 
units of territorial possession, their original areas being held thereafter by 
the ‘minor quarters’ (as Herrera, for instance, calls them), who exercised, 
each one within its limits, the same sovereignty which the original ‘calpulli’ 
formerly held over the whole.’ A further consequence of this disaggrega- 
This successive formation of new ‘‘calpulli” is nowhere explicitly stated, but it is implied by 
the passage of Duran which we have already quoted (Cap. V, p. 42). It also results from their military 
organization as described in the “Art of War” (p. 115). With the increase of population, the original 
kinships necessarily disaggregated further, as we have seen it to have occurred among the Qquiché (see 
“ Popol-Vuh,” quoted in our note 7), forming smaller groups of consanguinei. After the successful war 
against the Tecpanecas, of which we shall speak hereafter, we find at least twenty chiefs, representing 
as many kins (Duran, cap. XI, p. 97), besides three more, adopted then from those of Culhuacan (id., 
pp- 98 and 99). This indicates an increase. 
2 Art of War, ete.,” pp. 115 and 120. 
3 Torquemada (Lib, HI, eap. XXIV, p. 295): ‘I confess it to be truth that this city of Mexico is 
divided into four principal quarters, each one of which contains others, smaller ones, included, and all, 
in common as well as in particular, have their commanders and leaders... .” Zurita (“ Rapport,” 
p. 58-64). That the smaller subdivisions were those who held the soil, and not the four original groups, 
must be inferred from the fact that the ground was attached to the calpulli. Says Zurita (p. 51), “ They 
(the lands) do not belong to each inhabitant of the village, but to the calpulli, which possesses them in 
common.” On the other hand, Torquemada states (Lib. XIV, cap. VII, p. 545), “That in each pueblo, 
according to the number of people, there should be (were) clusters (‘parcialidades’) of diverse people 
and families... . These clusters were distributed by calpules, which are quarters (‘barrios’), and 
of the aforesaid clusters sometimes contained three, four, and more calpules, 
*) or tribe.” The same author further affirms: ‘‘ These 
quarters and streets were all assorted and leveled with so much accuracy that those of one quarter 
or street could not take a paim of land from those of another, and the same was with the streets, their 
lots running (being scattered) all over the pueblo.” Consequently there were no communal lands 
allotted to the four great quarters of Mexico as such, but each one of the kinships (calpules) held its 
part of the original aggregate. Compare Gomara (Vedia, Vol. I, ‘‘Conq. de Méjico,” p. 434: ‘Among 
tributaries it is a custom, etc., etc.” Also p. 440). Clavigero (Lib. VII, cap. XIV): “Each quarter has 
its own tract, without the least connection with the others.” 
it happened that one 
according to the population of the place (‘pueblo 
