As every such thorp, using the word in its original sense, must have a ruler, such a one was chosen from and by the heads of the families. He was called the " king," which very ancient title is not allied, as the older etymologists thought, to the verb can, to be able, or hen, to know, but with gets (Greek yivo;), stock, descent, and meant one who represented in himself the whole and pure lineage of the leaders of the community.
A combination of several such tliorps for mutual protection or defence led to the formation of the tribe or city (tribus, Its leader, chosen probably by election or indicated by the history of the combination itself, was called the ruler—Latin, rex. It was natural that he should often seek to retain and strengthen the power during his life and transmit it in his own clan. In this way were formed the hereditary chieftaincies which were in vogue among the Aryan race when it first came within the ken of history. The later aspects of their governments belong to the his torian, and need not detain us here.
It is claimed by some writers that the development of the principles of government in the Malayan and American races was quite different from this. But a careful examination will disclose the fact that these differences are much less than have been supposed. For instance, the cus tom of tracing descent through the female line and time law of marriage outside the clan did not at all impair the devotion of the individual to his clan, and left its boundaries just as clearly defined as the patriarchal system. If we take a developed American state with a history, such as the Quiches of Central America, we can trace its governmental evolution through much the same stadia of growth as we have depicted in the Proto-Arvans.
The Quiches had thirteen clans or calpules, and the head of each clan was an independent chieftain within its limits, subject only to such duties to the commonwealth as ancient custom had laid upon him. The chief power was hereditary in one of the clans, limited, however, by the national council, made up of the heads of all the clans and certain priestly and other officials. Such a social conformation strongly resem bles the German gait as it appears in early mediceval history, and in its general principles arose in all likelihood in a similar manner.
Property and Property writers have assumed that the idea of property was very slowly formed in the human mind. According to Mr. Morgan, it required "immense periods of time to develop its germ." But the germs of the ideas both of territorial and personal prop
erty, and the privileges they confer, are certainly plainly evident in the lower animals. The dog knows what belongs to his master, and will pro tect it ; he will carry off and bury an unfinished bone with as distinct an impression that it is his as has the miser when he locks his gold in his strongbox; and both cats and dogs manifest decided resentment at others of their species encroaching on the limits of their territories. In their own way, and in matters which are of importance to themselves, savages have very positive ideas of property. One of the most frequent causes of their wars is the act of trespassing on each other's lands. The assertion of Mr. Morgan that the consideration of a common territorial area forms no part of the primitive form of government, but that this derives its respect solely from claims of personal relation, will not bear examination. For instance, at a certain treaty held in the last century in Pennsylvania the natives on one side of the Delaware consented to the stipulations ; and when they were reported to those on the other bank they were accepted— not on the ground of personal kinship, but on that of territorial unity, or as one of the chiefs said, " Because we drink of one water." Personal of any kind and in all classes of society is held in common so long as it is more than sufficient for all; but as soon as it falls short of this, it is claimed by whoever can hold it; and this alike in all conditions. The real and only difference is that the savage's wants are few and he is indifferent to the future. Where scarcity prevails he shows the common nature of man well developed in this respect. A traveller in the arid wastes of Australia stopped to drink of a brook, but a native hastened to warn him that that portion of the brook was his, and that he did not allow others to drink there (Waitz). The surliest English landholder could scarcely go beyond this. Among the tribes of the Ori noco a cultivated field is recognized as the private property of the person who cultivates it, but the fisheries and hunting-grounds belong to the tribe at large (Gilii). A proof that the most valued objects among savage nations were regarded as strictly personal property is given in the wide spread custom of burying such with the dead, that he or she may not be deprived of the use and enjoyment of them in the other life.