Tooker] ETHNOGRAPHY OF THE HURON 47 



Further, a chief's children did not usually succeed him, but properly 

 his nephew or grandson.'^'' The person chosen had to have suitable 

 qualifications, had to be willing to accept the position, and had to be 

 acceptable to the whole country. Some refused the honor, sometimes 

 because they did not have the aptitude for speakmg, lacked sufficient 

 discretion or patience, or preferred a quiet life. A chief was always, 

 as it were, in the field : if a council was held 5 or 6 leagues away he 

 had to go, summer or winter, regardless of the weather. If there was 

 an assembly in the village, it was held in the chief's house and if there 

 was anything to be made public, he had to do it. The chief's power 

 was the power of the position and persuasion; he did not govern by 

 means of command and absolute power as he had no force to compel 

 men to do what he wished (cf. C 157-158) . The chief's authority was 

 solely civil ; he could only present what was to be done for the good 

 of the village or the country. Individuals acted as they wished. 

 Some chiefs knew well how to secure obedience, especially when they 

 had the affection of their subjects. Others were hampered in securing 

 their positions by the memory of their ancestors who had badly 

 served the country and could secure them only through giving pres- 

 ents, to the old men, which were accepted in their assembly and put 

 into the public coffers (JR 10 : 233-235). 



A chief had symbols of his authority and was entrusted with public 

 presents. These were "not the regalia nor the immense riches of 

 European princes," but were what the Indians considered "the most 

 honored and the most precious treasures of the country" (JR 28 : 87). 

 The chief had a package of council sticks, atsatoneioai^ which were 

 "all the books and papers of the country" (JR 10: 293).^^ 



The office had its compensations. Members of the council were in- 

 vited to all feasts and received the best portions at them.^^ Wlien 

 anyone made a present, the chiefs got the best part of it. And, 

 when a Huron or a stranger wanted to obtain something from 



"' This reference to a chief's nephew as succeeding him is probably a reference to 

 inheritance of the chieftainship in the matrllineal line. In practice, the inheritance of 

 the Iroquois chieftainships is similar to that recorded for the Huron, The best evidence 

 comes from Goldenweiser's (1914: 3G9) study. In a total of 68 cases, he found that 

 the deceased chief was followed by his brother in 21 cases, by his maternal nephew in 

 32 cases, by his grandson in 5 cases, by his great-grandson in 3 cases, and by irregular 

 succession in 7 cases. 



It may be of some interest to note that patrllateral cross-cousin marriage (marriage of 

 a man to his father's sister's daughter) on the part of a chief's son would result in the 

 possibility that the chieftainship would go to the chief's grandson. However, this does 

 not seem to have been Huron (see below, "Marriage") or Iroquois (see note 35, p. 126) 

 practice. 



*8 The council sticks were probably some of the mnemonic devices mentioned above 

 (note 64, p. 46). With the increased availability of wampum after European contact 

 (see note 26, p. 21), wampum strings and belts were probably more often used than 

 sticks. This substitution has meant that the chiefs are now keepers of wampum rather 

 than sticks. 



63 The chiefs and the important participants In an Iroquois ceremonial today are 

 given the first, and probably the largest, portions of the most desired food, although 

 an attempt is made to distribute it equally among all present. 



