POLITICAL HEADS CHIEFS, KINGS, ETC. 335 



intelligent and rich man often controls the tribe by his 

 influence.&quot; Of the chief less Navajos we read that &quot;every 

 rich man has many dependants, and these dependants are 

 obedient to his will, in peace and in war.&quot; And to other 

 evidence that it is the same in Africa, may be added the state 

 ment of Heuglin that &quot; a Dor chief is generally the richest 

 and most reputable man of the village or neighbourhood.&quot; 



But, naturally, in societies not yet politically developed, 

 acknowledged superiority is ever liable to be competed with 

 or replaced by superiority arising afresh. 



* If an Arab, accompanied by his own relations only, has been suc 

 cessful on many predatory excursions against the enemy, he is joined 

 by other friends ; and if his success still continues, he obtains the repu 

 tation of being lucky; and he thus establishes a kind of second, or 

 inferior agydship in the tribe.&quot; 



So in Sumatra 



&quot;A commanding aspect, an insinuating manner, a ready fluency in 

 discourse, and a penetration and sagacity in unravelling the little in 

 tricacies of their disputes, are qualities which seldom fail to procure to 

 their possessor respect and influence, sometimes, perhaps, superior to 

 that of an acknowledged chief.&quot; 



And supplantings of kindred kinds occur among the Tongans 

 and the Dyaks. 



At the outset then, what we before distinguished as the 

 principle of efficiency is the sole principle of organization. 

 Such political headship as exists, is acquired by one whose 

 fitness asserts itself in the form of greater age, superior 

 prowess, stronger will, wider knowledge, quicker insight, or 

 larger wealth. But evidently supremacy which thus depends 

 exclusively on personal attributes is but transitory. It is 

 liable to be superseded by the supremacy of some more able 

 man from time to time arising; and if not superseded, is 

 ended by death. We have, then, to inquire how permanent 

 chieftainship becomes established. Before doing this, how 

 ever, we must consider more fully the two kinds of superiority 

 which especially conduce to chieftainship, and their modes of 

 operation* 



80 



