¹ Rosenblat, Angel, La población indígena de América, desde 1492 hasta la actualidad (Buenos Aires: Institución Cultural Española, 1945)Google Scholar. See also Steward, Julian H., “The Native Population of South America,” HSAI (see note 4), V, 655–668.Google Scholar

² Simpson, Eyler N. , The Ejido, Mexico’s Way Out (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1937), pp. 2–5.Google Scholar

³ Peet, Stephen D., Prehistoric America (Chicago: American Antiquarian Office, 1890), pp. 4–5;Google Scholar Davis, Emily C., Ancient Americans: The Archeological Story of Two Continents (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1931), pp. 245 Google Scholar ff. Excellent treatments of agriculture in America are found in Wissler, Clark, The Relation of Nature to Man in Aboriginal America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1926)Google Scholar and in Sauer, Carl, “American Agricultural Origins,” in Essays in Anthropology Presented to A. L. Kroeber (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1936), pp. 279–297.Google Scholar

⁴ Bennett, Wendell C., “The Andean Highlands, An Introduction,” Handbook of South American Indians, II, 20 ff., 40.Google Scholar In the preparation of this paper the writer is greatly indebted to the monumental symposium of materials regarding the Indian in the Americas south of present-day Guatemala (or the southernmost reaches of Maya-Quiché culture) to the volumes of the Handbook, hereinafter referred to as HSAI. Steward, Julian H. (editor), Handbook of South American Indians (6 vols.; Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Prepared in cooperation with the United States State Department as a project of the Inter-departmental Committee on Cultural and Scientific Cooperation; Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1946–1950). Unless otherwise stated, general remarks concerning the tenure of agricultural-pastoral lands among Latin America’s indigenous populations are taken from pertinent chapters of the Handbook.

⁵ Wissler, , op. cit., figure 51, p. 206 Google Scholar. No map delineating culture areas in primitive America can be exact; the data upon which such a map may be based are usually not sufficient. Wissler’s map is a generalization which best suits the nature of this paper. Concerning the difficulties involved in culture-mapping see Kroeber, A. L., Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1939), p. 5.Google Scholar

⁶ Wissler, , op. cit., p. 207.Google Scholar

⁷ Sauer, Carl O. , “Cultivated Plants of South and Central America,” HSAl, VI, 489–495, 507–508.Google Scholar

⁸ See Root, William C., “A Cross-cultural Survey of South American Indian Tribes: Metallurgy,” HSAl, V, 205–225 Google Scholar. Root states that the use of metal in South America was almost entirely confined to the western edge, or the Andean region, of the continent.

⁹ Rowe, J. H., “Inca Culture at the time of the Spanish Conquest,” HSAl, II, 211 Google Scholar, mentions the use of bronze as a tip for the elaborate Inca foot-plow, but metal tips were not found beyond the Andean Highlands in South America. This foot-plow, or refined digging-stick, of the Inca—the taklya—was a pole about six feet in length, with a footrest near the point, and a curved handle on the upper end.

¹⁰ See Wissler, Clark, The American Indian (New York: Peter Smith, 1950), p. 21 Google Scholar; also, Loven, Sven, Origins of the Tainan Culture, West Indies (Goteborg, 1935), pp. 350–351.Google Scholar

¹¹ For representative areas of digging-stick survival see: Kelly, Isabel and Palerm, Angel, The Tajin Totonac: Fart 1, History, Subsistence, Shelter and Technology (Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of Social Anthropology, No. 13; Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1952), p. 107 Google Scholar; Mishkin, Bernard, “The Contemporary Quechua,” HSAI, II, 415 Google Scholar; Oberg, Kalervo, Indian Tribes of Northern Mato Grosso, Brazil (Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of Social Anthropology, No. 15; Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1953), pp. 106–107.Google Scholar

¹² See Wissler, , American Indian, pp. 21–22 Google Scholar; Lowie, R. H., “Tropical Forests, Introduction,” HSAI, III, 6 Google Scholar; Bennett, W. C., “Andean Highlands, Introduction,” ibid., II, 21.Google Scholar

¹³ Vaillant, George C., The Aztecs of Mexico (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1950), p. 9.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Sauer, , “Agricultural Origins,” Essays in Anthropology, pp. 294–296 Google Scholar, lists as factors limiting agriculture in aboriginal America: 1) lands requiring drainage and irrigation, which only the highest cultures were able to conquer to any degree; 2) areas of low rainfall, without a well-defined rainy period; 3) areas with rains during the cool season, and lack of rains during the warm season; 4) areas of heavy soils which could not be adequately worked with the crude agricultural implements of the aboriginal farmer; and, 5) areas of brushland or grassland which were too great a challenge to the primitive tools and methods of land-clearing of the early American. See also Diffie, Bailey W., Latin-American Civilization: Colonial Period (Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole Sons, 1945), pp. 83–92.Google Scholar

¹⁵ For the classification of systems of agriculture used here, see Smith, T. Lynn, The Sociology of Rural Life (3rd. ed.; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1953), pp. 280–283.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid., 333–334; Smith, T. Lynn , Brazil: People and Institutions (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1946), p. 104.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Métraux, A. , “Ethnography of the Chaco,” HSA1, I, 251 Google Scholar. For a presentation’of the principles of “fire agriculture” see Smith, , Brazil, pp. 37–48.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The term “marginal” is here used in accordance with the terminology of the HSAI. Generally speaking, “marginal” tribes were hunters, gatherers, and fishermen, some of whom were incipient agriculturists. “Tropical forest” cultures were elevated above mere “marginal” existence, and were predominantly agricultural. “Sub-Andean” and “Circum-Caribbean” peoples were of cultures which, in both material and non-material aspects, were superior to those of the “tropical forest,” and, in this regard, had taken great steps upward in agricultural technology. The “Andean Highland” peoples of South America, and the advanced cultures of “Meso-America” achieved the greatest degree of perfection in agricultural technology of all the peoples of the New World.

¹⁹ Métraux, , “Caingang,” HSAI, I, 452.Google Scholar

²⁰ Beals, Ralph L., The Aboriginal Culture of the Cahita Indians (Ibero-Americana, No. 19; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1943), p. 11.Google Scholar

²¹ The word milpa is of Aztec derivation but was used by many non-Aztec Meso-American peoples. It refers not only to cornfields, but also to any patch of ground which is cultivated, and which is “slashed and burned” in forested country. See Morley, Sylvanus G. , The Ancient Maya (Stanford University:Stanford University Press, 1946), p. 142.Google Scholar

²² Rowe, , “Inca Culture,” HSAI, II, 211–212, 216 Google Scholar; Tschopik, H., “Aymara,” HSAI, II, 514–515 Google Scholar

²³ Bennett, Wendell C., “A Cross-Cultural Survey of South American Indian Tribes: Habitations,” HSAI, V, 12 Google Scholar, notes that nomadic camping grounds were highly informal clusters of habitations.

²⁴ Ibid., pp. 12–19; Vaillant, op. cit., p. 87.

²⁵ Bennett, , “Habitations,” HSAI, V, 18 Google Scholar, notes that among the pre-conquest Inca there existed both “nuclear” or true agricultural villages, and “the dispersed or open community,” or a rudimentary form of the scattered farmstead settlement pattern. This latter pattern of settlement was common, too, he notes, among the highland peoples of Ecuador and Colombia, including the Chibcha. See also Wiley, Gordon R. , Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Viru Valley, Peru (Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 155; Washington: Government Printing Office, 1953), pp. 344–389.Google Scholar

²⁶ Rowe, , “Inca Culture,” HSAI, II, 211.Google Scholar

²⁷ McBride, George M., The Land Systems of Mexico (New York: American Geographical Society, 1923), pp. 115–116.Google Scholar

²⁸ Diego de Landa, Landa’s Relación de las Cosas de Yucatán, Edited and annotated by Tozzer, Alfred M. (Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. XVIII; Cambridge, Mass.: Published by’the Museum, 1941), p. 96 Google Scholar. See discussion in Gann, Thomas and Thompson, J. Eric, The History of the Maya (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1931), p. 187 Google Scholar. Gann and Thompson maintain that this small area was only a garden plot in the vicinity of the town, and that more extensive plots, further distant, were used for principal crops. Gann, and Thompson, , op. cit., pp. 142–143 Google Scholar, note that the modern Maya, whose agricultural methods and techniques have not varied since ancient times use as the basis of measurement of milpa parcels the mecate, which is approximately a square, twenty meters to the side. See also: Steggerda, Morris, Maya Indians of Yucatan (Carnegie Inst, of Washington, Pub. No. 531; Washington, 1941), p. 94. Landa (p. 97)Google Scholar also states that the Maya would “sow in a great number of places,” so that the total acreage of his holdings would be several times that of a single hun uinic.

²⁹ Kroeber, , Cultural and Natural Areas, p. 163.Google Scholar

³⁰ McBride, , op. cit., p. 115.Google Scholar

³¹ Métraux, , “Tribes of Eastern Bolivian Andes,” HSAI , III, 442.Google Scholar

³² Peer, , op. cit., pp. 122–132.Google Scholar

³³ McBryde, Felix W., Cultural and Historical Geography of Southwest Guatemala (Smithsonian Institution, Institute of Social Anthropology, No. 4; Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947)Google Scholar, notes that in Guatemala, where among the Indians studied by him, the average family holding was about seven acres (p. 95), “relatively few individuals or even communities are self-sufficient” with respect to their staple, maize (p. 74).

³⁴ Lowie, , “Property Among the Tropical Forest and Marginal Tribes,” HSAl, V, 351 Google Scholar. For isolated instances of individual, or private, property rights in land, see in HSAl: Murra, “The Historic Tribes of Ecuador,” II, 795, 797; Kroeber, , “Chibcha,” II, 898 Google Scholar; Wagley, and Galvão, , “Tenetehara,” III, 139 Google Scholar; Wagley, and Galvão, , “Tapirape,” III, 168 Google Scholar; Goldman, , “Uapes-Caqueta Region,” III, 785 Google Scholar; Steward, , “Wkotoan Tribes,” III, 755;Google Scholar and Foster, George N., Empire’s Children, The People of Tzintzuntzan (Smithsonian Institution, Institute of Social Anthropology, No. 6; Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1948), p. 10 Google Scholar. In most of these, and similar cases, especially among the tribes which practiced the “slash and burn,” or milpa system, cleared and tilled lands were considered to be the “property” of the individual or family which cleared them. There is no indication in the writer’s research that such lands, although heritable, could be alienated, which is basic to consider land as private property.

³⁵ McBride, George M. , “Land Tenure: Latin America,” Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, IX, 119 Google Scholar. See Clauson, Gerard, Communal Land Tenure (Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization, Agricultural Study No. 17. March, 1953).Google Scholar

³⁶ Lowie, , “Property Among the Tropical Forest Tribes,” HSA1, V, 351.Google Scholar

³⁷ Wissler, , American Indian, pp. 185–186.Google Scholar

³⁸ Lowie, Robert H., “Land Tenure: Primitive Societies,” Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, IX, 76.Google Scholar

³⁹ A “classic” treatment of land tenure in a primitive society in accord with this frame of reference is Bronislaw Malinowski, Coral Gardens and their Magic (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1935), I, 341–381.

⁴⁰ Lowie, , “Land Tenure: Primitive Societies,” Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, IX, 76.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Herkovits, Melville J., Economic Anthropology (New York: Knopf, Alfred A., 1952), p. 382.Google Scholar

⁴² Hoebel, E. A., The Political Organization and Law-ways of the Comanche Indians (American Anthropological Association Memoir, No. 42, 1940), p. 118.Google Scholar

⁴³ Cooper, J. M., “Patagonian and Pampean Hunter,” HSAI, I, 150.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Cooper, , “Yahgan,” ibid., p. 95 Google Scholar; Cooper, , “Ona,” ibid., pp. 118–119.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ford, Daryll, Habitat, Economy and Society: A Geographical Introduction to Ethnology (London: Methuen and Co., Ltd., 1952), pp. 373–374, 389–391 Google Scholar; Lowie, Robert H., Primitive Society (New York: Boni and Liveright, 1920), pp. 218–220.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Lowie, , “Land Tenure: Primitive Societies,” Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, IX, 76 Google Scholar ff. Lowie, “Property Among the Tropical Forest Tribes,” HSAI, V, 351–356.

⁴⁷ Cooper, , “Araucanians,” HSAI, II, 727.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Lévi-Strauss, , “Tribes of the Upper Xingu River,” HSAI, III, 336 Google Scholar; Métraux, , “Tribes of Eastern Bolivia,” HSAI, III, 389 Google Scholar. See also: Diffie, , op. cit., 165–171 Google Scholar; Rouse, I. , “Arawak,” HSAI, IV, 528–530.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Baudin, Luis, El Imperio Socialista de los Incas (Santiago: Editora Zig-Zag, S.A., 1945), pp. 7–9.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Kroeber, A. L., “Chibcha,” HSAI, II, 887–888 Google Scholar; Bennett, , “Andean Highlands,” HSAI, II, 56–57.Google Scholar

⁵¹ The more familiar term Aztecs is used in this paper in referring to the ancient inhabitants of Tenochtitlan, today Mexico City. They are often called Mexicans (Bandelier), or Nahua (Wissler). Vaillant refers to them as the Tenochcas, their individual tribal name, or as the Aztecs of Tenochtitlan, to differentiate them among the many similar Nahuatl-speaking tribes of the Mesa Central.

⁵² Toscano, Salvador , Derecho y organización social de los Aztecas (México: Universidad Nacional de Mexico, 1937), pp. 20–23 Google Scholar.

⁵³ Vaillant, , op. cit., pp. 113–116.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ lbid., 116; Clavigero, Francisco Javier , Historia antigua de México (México: Editorial Porruá, S.A., 1945), II, 223–226.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ McBride, , Land Systems, p. 115 Google Scholar, defines the maceguales as “the free inhabitants of a town who held allotments.”

⁵⁶ Vaillant, , op. cit., p. 108 Google Scholar, writes, “The social organization of the Aztec tribes was in theory completely democratic…. Originally designed for simple farming communities and presumably of an antiquity dating back to Middle Culture times, this organization later ramified into the governmental complexity of a populous and highly complicated city-state.”

⁵⁷ This has been a mooted question. Bandelier, Adolphe, “On the Distribution and Tenure of Lands Among the Ancient Mexicans,” Reports of Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology, II, 447–448, 1876–1879 Google Scholar, maintains that individual proprietorship in lands was completely alien to the Aztec mind. In light of later investigations, McBride, Land Systems, note 30, p. 121, asserts that by the sixteenth century individual property rights in land were well on their way to acceptance among the Aztecs.

⁵⁸ Zorita, Alonso de, Breve y Sumaria Relación de los Señores de la Nueva España (México: Ediciones de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma, 1942), p. 30.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Simpson, , op. cit., pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Clavigero, , op. cit., p. 27 Google Scholar; McBride, , Land Systems, pp. 117–122 Google Scholar; Simpson, , op. cit., pp. 5–6 Google Scholar; Vaillant, , op. cit., p. 113 Google Scholar; Zorita, , op. cit., pp. 28–29 Google Scholar; Nadaillac, Marques de , Pre-History America (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1893), p. 311.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Núñez, Lucio Mendieta y , La Economía del Indio (México: n.p., 1938), pp. 4–6.Google Scholar

⁶² Ibid., p. 6.

⁶³ Zorita, , op. cit., pp. 116–117.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See also McBride, , Land Systems, p. 118.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Mendieta, loc. cit.

⁶⁶ Phipps, Helen, Some Aspects of the Agrarian Question in Mexico—A Historical Study (Austin: University of Texas, 1925), p. 19.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Philip, A. Means, History of the Spanish Conquest of Yucatan and of the Itzas (Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. VII; Cambridge, Mass.: Published by the Museum, 1917), pp. 1–15.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Ibid., pp. 16–23; Morley, , op. cit., pp. 174–179.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Roys, Ralph L. , The Indian Background of Colonial Yucatan (Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication No. 548; Washington, 1943), p. 33 Google Scholar; see also ibid., pp. 33–37, 57–64, 71–83.

⁷⁰ Schultze Jena, Cf. Leonhard, La vida y las creencias de los indígenas Quichés de Guatemala Google Scholar (Sobretiro de los Anales de la Sociedad de Geografía e Historia de Guatemala, Vol. XX, Nos. 1–4, 1945; Guatemala, C.A., 1946), p. 9.

⁷¹ For a discussion of the milpa system, common in the aboriginal New World, especially in lowland-forested areas, see Morley, , op. cit., pp. 141 Google Scholar ff.; Cook, O. F., “Milpa Agriculture, A Primitive Tropical System,” Annual Report, Smithsonian Institution, 1919 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1921), pp. 307–326.Google Scholar

⁷² See Vaillant, , op. cit., p. 9 Google Scholar; Roys, , op. cit., pp. 38–39 Google Scholar; Redfield, Robert, The Folk Culture of Yucatan (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1941), pp. 114–116 Google Scholar; Shattuck, George C. , et al., The Peninsula of Yucatan (Washington: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1933), p. 71 Google Scholar. This situation, interestingly enough, is not solely restricted to the New World, but is part of a greater world-wide pattern. Notes Ford, op. cit., pp. 389–390, “With migratory tillage and brush clearing, ownership of the land itself, save in the sense of group control of the territory as a whole, has in general little value. Good land promising a rich reward is undoubtedly appreciated in advance, but there is nearly always an abundance of such land within the territory for all the labour available; it is the actual work of clearing and cultivating that is of great significance. To cleared and productive land there are nearly always individual or family rights.”

⁷³ See: Wagley, Charles, Economics of a Guatemalan Village (Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association, No. 58; Menasha, Wis.: American Anthropological Association, 1941), pp. 58–59 Google Scholar; Sol Tax, et al., Heritage of Conquest, The Ethnology of Middle America (Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1952), pp. 60–61.

⁷⁴ Redfield, op. cit., p. 52.

⁷⁵ Gaspar Antonio Chi, “Relación,” (Affixed as Appendix “C” in Landa, op. cit.), p. 230. The parentheses of the Tozzer translation have been eliminated here.

⁷⁶ Landa, , op. cit., pp. 96–97.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ The literature on Maya land tenure is nowhere near as plentiful as that of their Aztec neighbors. Certainly the fact that Maya tenure was not formalized and rigidly restricted and, hence, was not of great concern to either Maya or European chroniclers and historians, partially explains this situation. The Chi manuscript is fragmentary; the good Bishop de Landa, otherwise so attuned to the Maya culture of his day, is niggardly with regard to land tenure. Morley, who has a great deal to say concerning milpa, agriculture, dismisses tenure in a few words (op. cit., p. 175) and further quotes from Landa, who has little to say. Roys has probably shown the greatest amount of interest in ancient tenure, and Redfield in modern tenure. It is, therefore, of interest to reproduce one of Redfield’s notes (op. cit., p. 381, note 8) written after communication with Roys concerning the matter of individual rights in lands among the Maya. States Redfield: “Roys’ study of early land documents in Yucatan indicates to him the existence of individually owned and inherited tracts of land in the Chan Kom region a few years after the Conquest. A document of 1561 suggests such ownership, and in another, probably only a few years later, dealing with the same property, the owner refers to the land as ‘the forest of my ancestors.’ Roys inclines to the view that just before the Conquest in this part of Yucatan most land was held by a land-holding organization similar to the Aztec calpolli, that other land was then held by individuals, and that after the Conquest the calpolli ownership became converted into ownership by towns, both of farmlands and of town plots … So in very early Colonial times or before both forms of control existed: by single villages (as in the tradition and now the law in Chan Kom area) and by groups or alliances of villages, as in east central Quintana Roo today …”

⁷⁸ Roys, , op. cit., pp. 34–35.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Chamberlain, Robert S. , The Pre-Conquest Tribute and Service System of the Maya as Preparation for the Spanish Repartimiento-Encomienda in Yucatan (University of Miami Hispanic-American Studies, No. 10; Coral Gables, Fla.: University of Miami Press, 1951), pp. 13–27 Google Scholar; see also “Cogolludo’s Account of the Early History of the Mayas and Some of their Customs” (1688), in Means, op. cit., pp. 12–13.

⁸⁰ Landa, op. cit., p. 96.

⁸¹ Roys, op. cit., pp. 34–35.

⁸² Landa, loc. cit.

⁸³ See, regarding the sapa iñka: Rowe, “Inca Culture,” HSAI, II, 257–260; Baudin op. cit., pp. 115–128; José [Josephus] Acosta, [Natural History, etc. of the Indies] in Samuel Purchas, Hakluytus Posthumus or Purchas His Pilgrimes (Glasgow: James MacLehose and Sons, 1906), XV, 381 ff.; Bartolomé de las Casas, Las Antiguas Gentes del Perú (Lima: Librería e Imprenta Gil, S.A., 1939), pp. 87–110; Pedro Cieza de León, Del Señorío de los Incas (Buenos Aires: Ediciones Argentinas “Solar,” 1945), pp. 72–114; Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, Commentarios Reales de los Incas (2a Edición; Buenos Aires: Emecé Editores, S.A., 1945), I, 39 ff.; Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, Historia General del Perú (Buenos Aires: Emecé Editores, S.A., 1944), I, 198–199; Charles Gibson, The Inca Concept of Sovereignty and the Spanish Administration in Peru (Latin American Studies IV; Austin: The University of Texas Press, 1948), pp. 15–31; Harold Osborne, Indians of the Andes: Aymaras and Quechuas (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1952), pp. 88–93. Interestingly enough, the sapa iñka, for all of his elevated position, still took his turn at turning the soil, however symbolically, each year at the agricultural religious rite for that purpose. Inca tradition did not permit him to forget that he, along with his people, was an agriculturist. See Bernabe Cobo, Historia del Nuevo Mundo as quoted in Rowe, “Inca Culture,” p. 265.

⁸⁴ Baudin, op. cit., pp. 129–146; Las Casas, op. cit., pp. 122–129; Garcilaso, Comentarios, pp. 197–198; Osborne, op. cit., pp. 92–93; Rowe, “Inca Culture,” HSAI, II, 260–264; Paul Kirchoff, “The Social and Political Organization of the Andean Peoples,” HSAI, V, 297–300.

⁸⁵ The curacas, and the number of commoners under them, as well as the camayocs, and the number beneath them, follow: bono koraka, 10,000; picqa-warañqa koraka, 5,000; warañqa, 1,000; picqa-pacaka koraka, 500; pacaka koraka, 100; picqa-coñka kamayoq, 50; coñka kamayoq (decurion), 10. From Rowe, “Inca Culture,” HSAI, II, 263.

⁸⁶ Moisés Poblete Troncoso, La Economía Agraria de la America Latina y el Trabajador Campesino (Santiago: Ediciones de la Universidad de Chile, 1953), p. 107.

⁸⁷ As cited in Rowe, “Inca Culture,” HSAI, II, 265.

⁸⁸ Regarding Inca tenure, specifically the tenure of communal lands, see: Bennett, “Andean Highlands: An Introduction,” HSAI, II, 21, 48; Acosta, op. cit., pp. 388–389; Baudin, op. cit., pp. 153–168; Castro Pozo, op. cit., pp. 483–487; Garcilaso, Comentarios, pp. 225–232; Osborne, op. cit., pp. 93–97; Rowe, “Inca Culture,” HSAI, II, 255, 265–267; Poblete, op. cit., pp. 105–111; Leonard, Olen E., Bolivia: Land, People, and Institution (Washington, D. C.: The Scarecrow Press, 1952), pp. 102–194 Google Scholar; Markham, Clements, The Incas of Peru (New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1910), pp. 159–161.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Castro Pozo, op. cit., pp. 484–485.

⁹⁰ Cobo in Rowe, “Inca Culture,” HSAI, II, 266.

⁹¹ Ugarte, Cesar Antonio, Los Antecedentes Históricos del Régimen Agrario Peruano (Lima: Librería e Imprenta Gil, 1918), pp. 45 Google Scholar ff., 56–57.

⁹² Markham, op. cit., pp. 161–163. Such services might also be demanded of any other member of his family. His daughter, as an example, might be chosen to be an aklya-kona (chosen woman), who, because of her beauty and physical perfection, would serve as a nun-concubine in one of the Emperor’s convent-brothels. See Rowe, “Inca Culture,” HSAI, II, 269.

⁹³ Garcilaso, , Comentarios, pp. 232–233, 275–277 Google Scholar, remarks that it was through such mitas that the magnificent irrigation projects of the Inca were brought to completion. Most of the better irrigation systems were in the lands of either the Sun or the State.

⁹⁴ Rowe, “Inca Culture,” HSAI, II, 267–268.

⁹⁵ Bennett, “Andean Highlands; An Introduction,” HSAI, II, 21; Ugarte, op. cit., pp. 56–57.