352 POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS. 



&quot; chose an Apo, or Commander-in-chief, from among the 

 oldest or most celebrated of the Caciques.&quot; The Indians of 

 the Upper Orinoco live &quot; in hordes of forty or fifty under a 

 family government, and they recognize a common chief only 

 in times of war.&quot; So is it in Borneo. &quot; During war the 

 chiefs of the Sarebas Dyaks give an uncertain allegiance to a 

 head chief, or commander-in-chief.&quot; It has been the same 

 in Europe. Seeley remarks that the Sabines &quot; seem to have 

 had a central government only in war time.&quot; Again, &quot; Ger 

 many had anciently as many republics as it had tribes. Except 

 in time of war, there was no chief common to all, or even to 

 any given confederation.&quot; 



This recalls the fact, indicated when treating of Political 

 Integration, that the cohesion within compound groups is less 

 than that within simple groups, and that the cohesion within 

 the doubly compound is less than that within the compound. 

 What was there said of cohesion may here be said of the sub 

 ordination conducing to it ; for we find that when, by con 

 tinuous war, a permanent headship of a compound group has 

 been generated, it is less stable than the headships of the simple 

 groups are. Often it lasts only for the life of the man who 

 achieves it ; as among the Karens and the Maganga, instanced 

 in 226, and as among the Dyaks, of whom Boyle says 



&quot; It is an exceptional case if a Byak chief is raised to an acknow 

 ledged supremacy over the other chiefs. If he is so raised he can lay 

 no claim to his power except that of personal merit and the consent of 

 his former equals ; and his death is instantly followed by the disruption 

 of his dominions.&quot; 



Even where there has arisen a headship of the compound group 

 which lasts beyond the life of its founder, it remains for a long 

 time not equal in stability to the headships of the component 

 groups. Pallas, while describing the Mongol and Kalmuck 

 chiefs as having unlimited power over their dependants, says 

 that the khans had in general only an uncertain and weak 

 authority over the subordinate chiefs. Concerning the Arau- 

 canians, Thompson says &quot; the ulmenes are the lawful judges 



