ch pittance from its produce as the
occupant might choose to give him. This was slavery in embryo. The
occupant did not own this outcast labourer, any more than he owned his
lot; he only possessed a limited right of user in both labourer and lot.
To a certain extent it was "adverse" or exclusive possession. If the
slave ran away or was obstinately lazy, he could be made to wear a
wooden collar and sold without his consent; if it proved too troublesome
to keep him, the collared slave could be handed over to the priests for
sacrifice.[135] In this class of outcasts and their masters we have an
interesting illustration of a rudimentary phase of slavery and of
private property.

[Footnote 134: Bandelier, _op. cit._ p. 611.]

[Footnote 135: There was, however, in this extreme case, a
right of sanctuary. If the doomed slave could flee and hide
himself in the _tecpan_ before the master or one of his sons
could catch him, he became free and recovered his clan-rights;
and no third person was allowed to interfere in aid of the
pursuer. Torquemada, _Monarquia indiana_, ii. 564-566.]

[Sidenote: The Aztec family.]

At this point it is worthy of note that in the development of the family
the Aztecs had advanced considerably beyond the point attained by
Shawnees and Mohawks, and a little way toward the point attained in the
patriarchal family of the ancient Romans and Hebrews. In the Aztec clan
(which was exogamous[136]) the change to descent in the male line seems
to have been accomplished before the time of the Discovery. Apparently
it had been recently accomplished. Names for designating family
relationships remained in that primitive stage in which no distinction
is made between father and uncle, grandchildren and cousins. The family
was still too feebly established to count for much in the structure of
society, which still rested firmly upon the clan.[137] Nevertheless the
marriage bonds were drawn much tighter than among Indians of the lower
status, and penalties for incontinence were more severe. The wife became
her husband's property and was entitled to the protection of his clan.
All matrimonial arrangements were controlled by the clan, and no member
of it, male or female, was allowed to remain unmarried, except for
certain religious reasons. The penalty for contumacy was expulsion from
the clan, and the same penalty was inflicted for such sexual
irregulariti