94 HOUSES AND HOUSE-LIFE OF THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES. 
“Therefore the chiefs and their families, although they could not, from 
the nature of their duties, till the land themselves, still could remain entitled 
to their share of ‘tlalmilpa’ as members of the calpulli. Such tracts were 
cultivated by others for their use. They were called by the specific name 
of ‘pillali’ (lands of the chiefs or of the children, from ‘ piltontli,’ boy, or 
‘piltzintli,’ child), and those who cultivated them carried the appellation of 
‘ tlalmaitl’ 
“The ‘tlalmilpa,’ whether held by chiefs or by ordinary members of 
hands of the soil.’ 
the kin (‘macehuales’), were, therefore, the only tracts of land possessed for 
use by individuals in ancient Mexico. They were so far distinguished from 
the ‘tecpantlalli’ and ‘tlatocatlalli’ in their mode of tenure as, whereas the 
latter two were dependent from a certain office, the incumbent of which 
changed at each election, the ‘tlalmilli’ was assigned to a certain family, 
and its possession, therefore, connected with customs of inheritance. 
“Being thus led to investigate the customs of Inheritance of the 
ancient Mexicans, we have to premise here, that the personal effects of a 
deceased can be but slightly considered. The rule was, in general, that 
whatever a man held descended to his offspring.” Among most of the 
was called upon to improve them, and if he failed to do so they were given to another the following 
year.” Bustamante (Tezcoco, ete., Parte Ila, p. 190, cap I): “The fact that any holder of a ‘tlal- 
milli’ might rent out his share, if he himself was occupied in a line precluding him from actual work 
on it, results from the lands of the ‘calpulli’ being represented alternately treated as communal and 
again as private lands. Besides, it is said of the traders who, from the nature of their occupation, were 
mostly absent, that they were also members and participants of a ‘calpulli’ (Zurita, p. 223. Sahagun, 
Lib. VIII, cap III, p. 349): ‘‘ Now, as every Mexican belonged to a kinship, which held lands after the 
plan exposed above, it follows that such as were not able to work themselves, on account of their per- 
forming other duties subservient to the interests of the community, still preserved their tracts by having 
others to work them for their benefit. It was not the right of tenancy which authorizes the improve- 
ment, but the fact of improvement for a certain purpose and benefit, which secured the possession or 
tenancy.” 
‘From ‘tlalli” soil, and ‘‘maitl’ hand. Hands of the soil. Molina (Parte Ila, p. 124) has: 
‘“tlalmaitl”—“ labrador, 0 gatian.” This name is given in distinction of the ‘‘macehuales” or people 
working the soil in general. The tlalmaites are identical with the ‘‘ mayeques.” (See Zurita, p. 224): 
“‘tlalmaites or mayeques, which signifies tillers of the soil of others.” * * * He distinguishes them 
plainly from the “teccallec,” which are the “teepanpouhque” or ‘‘teepantlaca” formerly mentioned 
as attending to a class of official lands (p. 221, Zurita). Herrera (Dee. III, Lib. IV, cap. XVII, p. 138): 
“These mayeques could not go from one tract to another, neither leave those which they cultivated, and 
they paid a rent to its masters according as they agreed upon (‘en lo que se concertaban’) in what they 
raised. They paid tribute to nobody else but the master of the land.” This tends to show that there 
existed not an established obligation, a serfdom, but a voluntary contract, that the “tlalmaites’ were 
not serfs, but simply renters. 
2Motolinia (Tratado II, cap. V, p. 120): “‘But they left their houses and lands to their chil- 
dren . . .” Gomara (p. 434): ‘Es costumbre de pecheros que el hijo mayor herede al padre en toda 
la hacienda raiz y mueble, y que tenga y mantenga todos los hermanos y sobrinos, con tal que hagan 
