a 
MORGAN.) CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING MEXICAN OWNERSHIP. O77 
brother to brother, and from uncle to nephew.’ This might, eventually, 
have tended to perpetuate the office in the family, and with it also the pos- 
session of certain lands, attached to that officer’s functions and duties. But 
it is quite certain too that this stage of development had not yet been 
reached by any of the tribes of Mexico at the time of its conquest by the 
Spaniards. The principal idea had not yet been developed, namely, that of 
the domain, which, in eastern countries at least, gradually segregated into 
individually hereditary tenures and éwnerships. 
“Out of the scanty remains thus left of certain features of aboriginal 
life in ancient Mexico, as well as out of the conflicting statements about 
that country’s early history, we have now attempted to reconstruct the con- 
ceptions of the Mexican aborigines about tenure of lands, as well as their 
manner of distribution thereof. Our inquiries seem to justify the following 
conclusions : 
“1. The notion of abstract ownership of the soil, either by a nation 
or state, or by the head of its government, or by individuals, was unknown 
to the ancient Mexicans. | 
‘2. Definite possessory right was vested in the kinships composing the 
tribe; but the idea of sale, barter, or conveyance or alienation of such by 
the kin had not been conceived. 
“3. Individuals, whatever might be their position or office, without any 
exception, held but the right to use certain defined lots for their sustenance, 
which right, although hereditary in the male line, was nevertheless limited 
to the conditions of residence within the area held by the kin, and of culti- 
vation either by or in the name of him to whom the said lots were assigned. 
‘4. No possessory rights to land were attached to any office or chief- 
taincy. As members of a kin, each chief had the use of a certain lot, which 
he could rent or farm to others, for his benefit. 
“5. For the requirements of tribal business, and of the governmental 
features of the kinships (public hospitality included), certain tracts were 
set apart as official lands, out of which the official households were supplied 
and sustained; but these lands and their products were totally independent 
from the persons or families of the chiefs themselves. 
1This fact is too amply proven to need special references. We reserve it for final discussion in 
our proposed paper on the chiefs of the Mexicans, and the duties, powers and functions of their office. 
7 
