T HE endeavor to trace the origin of the institution of kingship is recognized to offer great difficulties. A variety of social forces may have evolved it at different times in various ways. It cannot be my task to examine the question of origin, this I have to leave to scholars devoted primarily to the study of social institutions. My work will be limited to the examination of certain phenomena, which, I hope, will throw some light on the development which the idea of kingship has undergone among the Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and the Egyptians. But, though, I leave the question of origin of this particular institution untouched, we may assume that kingship was at first synonymous with leadership. The various ways of development that kingship has taken would a priori have to be explained from the especial emphasis that had been laid on this or that especial aspect of leadership. The emphasis might have been placed in one instance on military leadership, in another on social leadership, or in a third instance on intellectual leadership. In the last case kingship may not infrequently have developed out of a purely religious leadership, but any generalization that kingship must invariably have originated from religious leadership bears the stamp of improbability. Kingship is subject to the general trend that any social organization, of which it is a part, will take. The basis of social organizations, however, is not dependent on religious beliefs and practices, they simply mold them, but more especially on economic factors. This is clear from a consideration of the origins of the matriarchal and patriarchal systems of social organization. Both systems have