Tonto Apaches
-
- Part Timer
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 7:33 pm
- Contact:
Tonto Apaches
Does anyone know the origin of what the white man called the Tonto Apaches, or the origin of their name? I have been told something like they came out of Mexico, but not as a tribe or Apache group, but rather as a conglomeration of several groups that had been held as slaves (?). Thus, their origins were comparatively recent as compared to “genuine Apache tribes/groups”. However, I have no documentation of this idea.
Thanks,
Thomas
Thanks,
Thomas
-
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Tonto Apaches
Thomas,
The word itself is Spanish. The best answers to your questions may come from Grenville Goodwin, The Social Organization of the Western Apache. "An interesting sidelight on the derivation of the word 'Tonto' (Spanish: 'fools')is that the Chiricahuas applied the name Bini-edine, ('people without minds')--in other words, 'crazy' or 'foolish people'--to all Western Apaches,. It is quite possible that the Spanish knew the meaning of this Chiricahua word and shaped their own after it. Escudero, in his Noticias Esdtadisticas de Chihuahua, puplished in Mexico in 1834, gives the names of various Apache tribes in Apache, together with their Spanish equivalents. He records 'Viniettinen-ne' as the Apache (Chiricahua division name for the Tonto (Western Apaches)"
From "In The Days of Victorio" by Eve Ball we get this passage from James Kaywaykla: "The Chiricahua and Warm Springs had fought occasionally also with the Tontos, though they were Apaches. The name Tonto, meaning fool, was given them because they were considered inferior in intelligence. So scouts who fought against the Tontos were not despised by their own people."
There are hundreds of other references to the Tonto Apache, which can be found in almost every book dealing with Apache history. The Apache seem to consider them "Apache", but inferior.
The Tontos were divided into two tribes, Northern and Southern. Prior to being renamed by the Spanish, they were called the dilje or true ones.
In "The Apaches: Eagles of the Southwest" by, Donald E. Worcester the author states on page 33: The Tontos seem to have been a heterogeneous collection of linguistic families, united by common culture traits rather than by language. Included were the Hualapais, Yavapais, and possibly some Pinalenos."
Hope this helps, if not, just ask.
Respectfully,
Joe
The word itself is Spanish. The best answers to your questions may come from Grenville Goodwin, The Social Organization of the Western Apache. "An interesting sidelight on the derivation of the word 'Tonto' (Spanish: 'fools')is that the Chiricahuas applied the name Bini-edine, ('people without minds')--in other words, 'crazy' or 'foolish people'--to all Western Apaches,. It is quite possible that the Spanish knew the meaning of this Chiricahua word and shaped their own after it. Escudero, in his Noticias Esdtadisticas de Chihuahua, puplished in Mexico in 1834, gives the names of various Apache tribes in Apache, together with their Spanish equivalents. He records 'Viniettinen-ne' as the Apache (Chiricahua division name for the Tonto (Western Apaches)"
From "In The Days of Victorio" by Eve Ball we get this passage from James Kaywaykla: "The Chiricahua and Warm Springs had fought occasionally also with the Tontos, though they were Apaches. The name Tonto, meaning fool, was given them because they were considered inferior in intelligence. So scouts who fought against the Tontos were not despised by their own people."
There are hundreds of other references to the Tonto Apache, which can be found in almost every book dealing with Apache history. The Apache seem to consider them "Apache", but inferior.
The Tontos were divided into two tribes, Northern and Southern. Prior to being renamed by the Spanish, they were called the dilje or true ones.
In "The Apaches: Eagles of the Southwest" by, Donald E. Worcester the author states on page 33: The Tontos seem to have been a heterogeneous collection of linguistic families, united by common culture traits rather than by language. Included were the Hualapais, Yavapais, and possibly some Pinalenos."
Hope this helps, if not, just ask.

Respectfully,
Joe
Apachies
Tom, Joe; I thought the apachies came from the turahumbra and the yocky, they all claimed tobe cousins to them and when an indian referred to other tribes he would call them almost indian BUT not quit the People. NOT that they were predjudiced or anything ??? Bill 

-
- Part Timer
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 7:33 pm
- Contact:
Joe,
Thanks. It reminds me of a line from an old Harry Belefonte record, “Its clear as mud, but it covers the ground.” This is not a reference to your post and/or efforts; but there in lies some of my lack of understanding – the Tontos were Apache, but the Tontos did not have a common, language – they were Apache, but other Apache considered them inferior in mind, yet from my research the Apache seemed to consider all non-Apache as inferior, but not other Apache (right now I am finishing Cermony’s “Life Among the Apache” and that point is made several times) – they were Apache, but it was alright for other Apache to war with them. Something is “interesting” here. Just what it is I am not yet sure. But, for me it is relevant as I have a copy map with a date in the early 18th Century showing what we now call the Superstitions and gold deposits. There is a reference on it to Tontos to the north. If the Tontos were indigenous to the area and if they were actually a tribe of Apache then that is one thing, but if that turns out not to be the case then that could have a bearing on the validity of the map. So far what research I have done has given me the same mixed results yours has given you. Are we having fun yet?
With respect,
Thomas
Thanks. It reminds me of a line from an old Harry Belefonte record, “Its clear as mud, but it covers the ground.” This is not a reference to your post and/or efforts; but there in lies some of my lack of understanding – the Tontos were Apache, but the Tontos did not have a common, language – they were Apache, but other Apache considered them inferior in mind, yet from my research the Apache seemed to consider all non-Apache as inferior, but not other Apache (right now I am finishing Cermony’s “Life Among the Apache” and that point is made several times) – they were Apache, but it was alright for other Apache to war with them. Something is “interesting” here. Just what it is I am not yet sure. But, for me it is relevant as I have a copy map with a date in the early 18th Century showing what we now call the Superstitions and gold deposits. There is a reference on it to Tontos to the north. If the Tontos were indigenous to the area and if they were actually a tribe of Apache then that is one thing, but if that turns out not to be the case then that could have a bearing on the validity of the map. So far what research I have done has given me the same mixed results yours has given you. Are we having fun yet?
With respect,
Thomas
Tonto apachia
Well Tom where do you dream up these questions? Before your 1st 5th or after? I have 3 tonto,s for you tonto basin, tonto rim, and tonto and the lone ranger. I have read where the kaws were used to hunt the apachia,s and the comancha and then the other day I read that they were the kaw were apachia too?? SO were the tonto apachia also called the white mountain apachia,s too??? Joe help me with my spelling on the turahumbera,s and the yockies??? I cannot remember how to. IF Peter would quit playing indian "sneaking around" Maybe he knows something about them. Thomas I liked your mud in between bit it was good....bill 

-
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Common Ground
Thomas,
Most of the confusion associated with the Tonto Apache may be due to their small numbers and the fact that they intermarried with other tribes of non-Apache. Not being at home, I am not sure of the numbers, but believe they only numbered aroung 1500. That number was divided among six or seven sub tribes which occupied the mountain area North and East of the Verde. Originally they were pure Apache, possibly the purest, at one time.
Bill,
I assmue you are speaking of the Tarahumara, which are a tribe located in Mexico. The other tribe may be the Yaqui. Peter would be the source to go to for the "Tonto" portion of this thread. No offense intended here Peter.
He does look in on the forum and may decide to add something to the conversation.
The White Mountain Apache were not Tonto.
As I said, "I am not home", so don't take any of this to the bank.
Respectfully,
Joe
Most of the confusion associated with the Tonto Apache may be due to their small numbers and the fact that they intermarried with other tribes of non-Apache. Not being at home, I am not sure of the numbers, but believe they only numbered aroung 1500. That number was divided among six or seven sub tribes which occupied the mountain area North and East of the Verde. Originally they were pure Apache, possibly the purest, at one time.
Bill,
I assmue you are speaking of the Tarahumara, which are a tribe located in Mexico. The other tribe may be the Yaqui. Peter would be the source to go to for the "Tonto" portion of this thread. No offense intended here Peter.

The White Mountain Apache were not Tonto.
As I said, "I am not home", so don't take any of this to the bank.

Respectfully,
Joe
Tonto apachia
Thank you Joe; I had a mental block when it came to spelling the 2 names. I can,t understand why but I did. I was sure you or tom would help me out. I haven,t used those 2 names in years and just couldn,t remember. 1500 is alot of apachia,s. If you had them in one wade at a time. Usually they were in small scattered groups. They had to live that way to survive. BUT they claimed kin to all the indians around them. BUT would attack them too. This helped lead to their destruction too. When you look at where they had to make aliving at, You know why their training was so sevear it had tobe for them to survive. bill 

-
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Tough Living!
Bill,
The Tontos were broken up, as I said, into two main groups. The Southern Tonto Group consisted of the Mazatzal Band and Six Semibands.
The Northern Tontos consisted of: Mormon Lake, Fossil Creek, Bald Mountain and Oak Creek bands. Each of these bands broke down into smaller local groups, as you mentioned.
As for your comment that: "When you look at where they had to make aliving at, You know why their training was so sevear it had tobe for them to survive.", maybe that is true.
Are you saying that the Apache were "geographically" pre-disposed to a lifestyle that was different than other tribes living in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Mexico?
Did all Indian tribes living in the same environment as the Apache, adopt the same life style? Was the envronment for the Pima and Papagos substantially different?
The Tonto Apache do belong to the Western Apache Division. There are five groups in that division: White Mountain, Cibecue, San Carlos, Southern Tonto and Northern Tonto.
"Tales of violence and wrong, of outrage and devilish malignity, committed by Indians, are rife all along our frontiers; but who ever hears the other side? Who chronicles the inciting causes, the long unbroken series of injuries perpetrated by the semi-civilized white savages...?"
Captain John C. Cremony, "Life Among the Apaches"
It seems to me, there are a good number of books which attempt to tell
"the other side". Cremony was one of many.
In "America and Americans", John Steinbeck wrote: "The Indians survived our open intention of wiping them out, and since the tide turned they have even weathered our good intentions toward them, which can be much more deadly."
"Today the Apache are trapped between the past and the present. Yet the Apache heritage testifies eloquently to their strength. Like the century plant, this heritage will inevitably blossom and cast its seeds into the soil. Many of them will take root and grow." Michael E. Melody
"The Apache".
This does not scratch the surface. Their are many, many "white eyes" who have spent their careers defending and recording the history of the Apache Indians.
Respectfully,
Joe
The Tontos were broken up, as I said, into two main groups. The Southern Tonto Group consisted of the Mazatzal Band and Six Semibands.
The Northern Tontos consisted of: Mormon Lake, Fossil Creek, Bald Mountain and Oak Creek bands. Each of these bands broke down into smaller local groups, as you mentioned.
As for your comment that: "When you look at where they had to make aliving at, You know why their training was so sevear it had tobe for them to survive.", maybe that is true.
Are you saying that the Apache were "geographically" pre-disposed to a lifestyle that was different than other tribes living in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Mexico?
Did all Indian tribes living in the same environment as the Apache, adopt the same life style? Was the envronment for the Pima and Papagos substantially different?
The Tonto Apache do belong to the Western Apache Division. There are five groups in that division: White Mountain, Cibecue, San Carlos, Southern Tonto and Northern Tonto.
"Tales of violence and wrong, of outrage and devilish malignity, committed by Indians, are rife all along our frontiers; but who ever hears the other side? Who chronicles the inciting causes, the long unbroken series of injuries perpetrated by the semi-civilized white savages...?"
Captain John C. Cremony, "Life Among the Apaches"
It seems to me, there are a good number of books which attempt to tell
"the other side". Cremony was one of many.
In "America and Americans", John Steinbeck wrote: "The Indians survived our open intention of wiping them out, and since the tide turned they have even weathered our good intentions toward them, which can be much more deadly."
"Today the Apache are trapped between the past and the present. Yet the Apache heritage testifies eloquently to their strength. Like the century plant, this heritage will inevitably blossom and cast its seeds into the soil. Many of them will take root and grow." Michael E. Melody
"The Apache".
This does not scratch the surface. Their are many, many "white eyes" who have spent their careers defending and recording the history of the Apache Indians.
Respectfully,
Joe
Tonto apachia
JOE; I will not dispute your quotes. for now. BUT The apachia, like the comancha and the dakota,s all were dependent on game amd killing for 95% of their living and they just couldn,t adjust to farming and their life styles were stepped in war. People who were around the old time indians said you could smell the wildness in them. Finally every hand was turned against them. Led to their destruction. The smaller group,s you spoke of I guess would be the family group,s I suppose; with the women doing the work as usuall. bill 

-
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
They Are "Still Here".
Bill,
The Apache adapted quite well actually. They were survivors.
Raiding and warfare could only survive so long. That lifestyle and the fact that they occupied land that we wanted was their downfall. They were not "destroyed", but raiding and warfare, as a way of life, was ended.
For a long while the major industries for the Apache have been timber,cattle, farming, recreation/tourism and even some mining. I assume that is changing.
Eskiminzin, and his band had no real trouble being successful ranchers.
The tragedy that was perpetrated on them had nothing to do with their abilities as farmers and ranchers. They had raised corn for a long time prior to the 1800s.
For a better idea of just how successful they could be, if left alone, you might want to read "apache Chronicle" by, John Upton Terrell. Starting on page 274 you will read about "Skimmy", and his band's ability to become "civilized".
Respectfully,
Joe
The Apache adapted quite well actually. They were survivors.
Raiding and warfare could only survive so long. That lifestyle and the fact that they occupied land that we wanted was their downfall. They were not "destroyed", but raiding and warfare, as a way of life, was ended.
For a long while the major industries for the Apache have been timber,cattle, farming, recreation/tourism and even some mining. I assume that is changing.
Eskiminzin, and his band had no real trouble being successful ranchers.
The tragedy that was perpetrated on them had nothing to do with their abilities as farmers and ranchers. They had raised corn for a long time prior to the 1800s.
For a better idea of just how successful they could be, if left alone, you might want to read "apache Chronicle" by, John Upton Terrell. Starting on page 274 you will read about "Skimmy", and his band's ability to become "civilized".
Respectfully,
Joe
Last edited by Joe Ribaudo on Mon May 16, 2005 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Greenhorn
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 5:01 pm
-
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The Newcomers
RUK,
Like most things in archaeology, the exact date the Apache arrived in the Southwest, is a little grey. Maybe a lot grey.
"There is not so much agreement on when they arrived. Some archaeologists believe that Apache groups may have reached the southwest as early as the 13th century, basing their belief on the archaeological evidence of nomadic invaders harassing the prehistoric Pueblo Indian villages of Arizona and New Mexico in the late 1200's."
That seems like pretty slim evidence to me.
"But other archaeologists argue that there is no evidence that these 13th century intruders were Apaches. The raiders could just as likely have been desert nomads already occupying large partrs of Utah and Nevada.
Most of the historians and archaeologists place the Apache invasion of the southwest in the early 16th century, about the same time as the first Spanish expeditions reached Arizona and New Mexico from the south. Spanish documents, at least, seem to indicate Apaches in the plains in eastern New Mexico in 1541. The name Apache was first kused by the Spanish in the closing years of the 16th century. At that time Spanish accounts show Apaches in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado and out on the plains. After A.D. 1600 we cam trace their movements in considerable detail through Spanish, Mexican and American records.
Yet some confusion still exists because the Spaniards had the bad habit of applying the term Apache to certain non-Athapascan Indians merely because they happened to follow the Apache practice of raiding the Spanish settlements."
I chose to quote Dr. Gordon C. Baldwin from his book, "The Warrior Apaches", out of respect for his extensive work in the field. For six of his more than 30 years in anthropology/archaeology, he worked on the Ft. Apache Reservation, excavating prehistoric Indian ruins.
If you mean this continent when you say "here", you are probably, correct. It is most likely that the Apache arrived in the southwest by traveling south along the eastern flank of the Rocky Mountains.
Respectfully,
Joe
Like most things in archaeology, the exact date the Apache arrived in the Southwest, is a little grey. Maybe a lot grey.

"There is not so much agreement on when they arrived. Some archaeologists believe that Apache groups may have reached the southwest as early as the 13th century, basing their belief on the archaeological evidence of nomadic invaders harassing the prehistoric Pueblo Indian villages of Arizona and New Mexico in the late 1200's."
That seems like pretty slim evidence to me.
"But other archaeologists argue that there is no evidence that these 13th century intruders were Apaches. The raiders could just as likely have been desert nomads already occupying large partrs of Utah and Nevada.
Most of the historians and archaeologists place the Apache invasion of the southwest in the early 16th century, about the same time as the first Spanish expeditions reached Arizona and New Mexico from the south. Spanish documents, at least, seem to indicate Apaches in the plains in eastern New Mexico in 1541. The name Apache was first kused by the Spanish in the closing years of the 16th century. At that time Spanish accounts show Apaches in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado and out on the plains. After A.D. 1600 we cam trace their movements in considerable detail through Spanish, Mexican and American records.
Yet some confusion still exists because the Spaniards had the bad habit of applying the term Apache to certain non-Athapascan Indians merely because they happened to follow the Apache practice of raiding the Spanish settlements."
I chose to quote Dr. Gordon C. Baldwin from his book, "The Warrior Apaches", out of respect for his extensive work in the field. For six of his more than 30 years in anthropology/archaeology, he worked on the Ft. Apache Reservation, excavating prehistoric Indian ruins.
If you mean this continent when you say "here", you are probably, correct. It is most likely that the Apache arrived in the southwest by traveling south along the eastern flank of the Rocky Mountains.
Respectfully,
Joe
Last edited by Joe Ribaudo on Mon May 16, 2005 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tonto apachia
WELL Pinda-Likoye Joe; I wouldn,t call the apachia an invasion. I understood that they had their rears run out of their traditional lands by the numerous indians to the north. utes and the souix, cheyane.
bill 


-
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Semantics
Bill,
"I wouldn,t call the apachia an invasion."
I didn't choose the word. It is a term used by archaeologists and anthropologists to describe events that they can only make educated guesses as to what might have taken place. You may have noticed that "invasion" was still inside my quotation marks. If I had "Dr." in front of my name, I might try second guessing them.
"Numerous" is the key word in your next statement. The Apache were very careful in the spacing of births. Normally they waited for three or four years between pregnancies. The tribes you mentioned always greatly outnumbered them. Beyond that, those people used their greater numbers in an organized manner. Had the Apache gathered all of their people to dominate a specific area, the larger tribes would have defeated them as a nation, and absorbed the survivors.
Thomas and RUK,
I doubt you will ever be truly satisfied with the "facts" you receive concerning the Apache. The first written records of their history started with the arrival of the Spanish. Very little of that record can be verified with science. From the first, the history of the people was written by their enemies. Not a recording that would ever be considered "fair and balanced".
Respectfully,
Joe
"I wouldn,t call the apachia an invasion."
I didn't choose the word. It is a term used by archaeologists and anthropologists to describe events that they can only make educated guesses as to what might have taken place. You may have noticed that "invasion" was still inside my quotation marks. If I had "Dr." in front of my name, I might try second guessing them.

"Numerous" is the key word in your next statement. The Apache were very careful in the spacing of births. Normally they waited for three or four years between pregnancies. The tribes you mentioned always greatly outnumbered them. Beyond that, those people used their greater numbers in an organized manner. Had the Apache gathered all of their people to dominate a specific area, the larger tribes would have defeated them as a nation, and absorbed the survivors.
Thomas and RUK,
I doubt you will ever be truly satisfied with the "facts" you receive concerning the Apache. The first written records of their history started with the arrival of the Spanish. Very little of that record can be verified with science. From the first, the history of the people was written by their enemies. Not a recording that would ever be considered "fair and balanced".
Respectfully,
Joe
Tonto apachia
WELL I have to agree with you Joe. THOMAS; Before you go into a rage and go to seethin about my comment about before or after the 1th 5th. I ment that you can ask the MOST Studious questions and the discussin of them is interesting too.
Bill 


-
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The New Kids On The Block
Bill,
One last point before this conversation goes south.
The Apache were the last Athapascan-speaking people to cross over from Asia. What bearing did that have on their fate? (No pun intended)
By the time the Apache arrived, the other tribes that crossed over before them, as much as 25,000 years earlier, had established their boundries and increased their numbers substantially.
The Apache were the "new kids on the block". Every hand, almost, was turned against them. It's a tribute to their warriors ability that they survived at all. Leaving the battlefield with the least amount of casualties was an important part of their strategy.
The history of the Apache on this continent, is directly shaped by their numbers and late arrival. Consider this: If the Apache had crossed over the Bearing Straits twenty thousand years earlier, and had the time to establish themselves, along side the other early tribes and in some of the better climes, how would the Spanish or Americans have handled an Apache Nation of twenty or thirty thousand souls?
Respectfully,
Joe
One last point before this conversation goes south.
The Apache were the last Athapascan-speaking people to cross over from Asia. What bearing did that have on their fate? (No pun intended)

By the time the Apache arrived, the other tribes that crossed over before them, as much as 25,000 years earlier, had established their boundries and increased their numbers substantially.
The Apache were the "new kids on the block". Every hand, almost, was turned against them. It's a tribute to their warriors ability that they survived at all. Leaving the battlefield with the least amount of casualties was an important part of their strategy.
The history of the Apache on this continent, is directly shaped by their numbers and late arrival. Consider this: If the Apache had crossed over the Bearing Straits twenty thousand years earlier, and had the time to establish themselves, along side the other early tribes and in some of the better climes, how would the Spanish or Americans have handled an Apache Nation of twenty or thirty thousand souls?
Respectfully,
Joe
Tonto apachia
Joe; It,s my understanding that the cherry-cows thought that all other apachia were just not as indian as they were therefore were not indian enough to be the true people like they were, so they sort of scorned the others.
Bill 


-
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The Apache as a Farmer?
Bill,
"The apachia, like the comancha and the dakota,s all were dependent on game amd killing for 95% of their living and they just couldn,t adjust to farming and their life styles were stepped in war."
While your statement is "somewhat" true, it has more to do with climate than predisposition.
"The Apache seldom farmed, not only because the climate discouraged it but also because they were frequently on the move and unlikely to linger long enough in one place to nurture their crops. Some Apache did cultivate the land, however. The Western Apache grew maize (corn), beans, and squash and even remained near their crops for part of the year. Still, the harvest provided only 20 percent of their diet."
"Women contributed to the food supply by gathering fruits, vegetables,
roots, and nuts that grew wild, including strawberries, grapes, and mulberries; pinon nuts and walnuts; and sunflower seeds and acorns. These foodstuffs constituted a major portion of the diet: 40 percent among the Western Apache, the most agricultural of the bands."
Michael E. Melody, "The Apache".
That adds up to 60 percent, leaving only 40 percent to be supplied by "game and killing".
Historically, the Apache did a good job of farming when left alone and in an invronment conducive to planting and harvesting.
"It,s my understanding that the cherry-cows thought that all other apachia were just not as indian as they were therefore were not indian enough to be the true people like they were, so they sort of scorned the others."
"Despite these geographical distinctions, the various Apache bands viewed themselves as a single, related people. The Apache called themselves N'de, Dini, Tinde, or Inde--all derived fron the term tinneh, meaning "the people" superior to all other humans, whom they regarded as members of an inferior species." (Emphesis in bold by Joe) Also from "The Apache" by, Melody.
Respectfully,
Joe
"The apachia, like the comancha and the dakota,s all were dependent on game amd killing for 95% of their living and they just couldn,t adjust to farming and their life styles were stepped in war."
While your statement is "somewhat" true, it has more to do with climate than predisposition.
"The Apache seldom farmed, not only because the climate discouraged it but also because they were frequently on the move and unlikely to linger long enough in one place to nurture their crops. Some Apache did cultivate the land, however. The Western Apache grew maize (corn), beans, and squash and even remained near their crops for part of the year. Still, the harvest provided only 20 percent of their diet."
"Women contributed to the food supply by gathering fruits, vegetables,
roots, and nuts that grew wild, including strawberries, grapes, and mulberries; pinon nuts and walnuts; and sunflower seeds and acorns. These foodstuffs constituted a major portion of the diet: 40 percent among the Western Apache, the most agricultural of the bands."
Michael E. Melody, "The Apache".
That adds up to 60 percent, leaving only 40 percent to be supplied by "game and killing".
Historically, the Apache did a good job of farming when left alone and in an invronment conducive to planting and harvesting.
"It,s my understanding that the cherry-cows thought that all other apachia were just not as indian as they were therefore were not indian enough to be the true people like they were, so they sort of scorned the others."
"Despite these geographical distinctions, the various Apache bands viewed themselves as a single, related people. The Apache called themselves N'de, Dini, Tinde, or Inde--all derived fron the term tinneh, meaning "the people" superior to all other humans, whom they regarded as members of an inferior species." (Emphesis in bold by Joe) Also from "The Apache" by, Melody.
Respectfully,
Joe
Cherry cows
Bill,
You are for the most part correct. The "cherry-cows" thought of themselves as superior to other Indians, including fellow Apache. This is one of the reasons that the Army found it a relatively simple task to enlist Tonto, White Mtn and other Apache groups as scouts. To put it in modern baseball terms, the "cherry-cows" would be similar to the Yankees...all the other teams seem to get pumped up to play them.
Some say they were arrogant, haughty and played the part of Apache royalty. Of the four bands, the Nednhi prided themselves as being the "wildest" and "worst of the worse".
P
You are for the most part correct. The "cherry-cows" thought of themselves as superior to other Indians, including fellow Apache. This is one of the reasons that the Army found it a relatively simple task to enlist Tonto, White Mtn and other Apache groups as scouts. To put it in modern baseball terms, the "cherry-cows" would be similar to the Yankees...all the other teams seem to get pumped up to play them.
Some say they were arrogant, haughty and played the part of Apache royalty. Of the four bands, the Nednhi prided themselves as being the "wildest" and "worst of the worse".
P
Black Sheep
Peter,
It almost seems as though the Nednhi were the black sheep of the family. You put up with them but can't wait for them to leave.
That is until extermination seemed to be the destiny for all Apache.
Then they were turned to for all the skills they were capable of (by some). Even the Chiricahau.
Others during the 70's and 80's saw them as the cause of all the troubles the Apache endured.
At least that's how it appears to me from what little I know.
It almost seems as though the Nednhi were the black sheep of the family. You put up with them but can't wait for them to leave.
That is until extermination seemed to be the destiny for all Apache.
Then they were turned to for all the skills they were capable of (by some). Even the Chiricahau.
Others during the 70's and 80's saw them as the cause of all the troubles the Apache endured.
At least that's how it appears to me from what little I know.
-
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The Best Of The Best?
Peter,
Would it be fair to say that every Apache considered himself superior to every other Apache or non-Apache, up to the point where the other man's power showed itself to be superior to his own?
Other than the example of the "scouts", can you cite any other examples of how the Chiricahua's "superior" demeanor affected their relationships with the other Apache bands?
Is there a written source for that information? It's possible I already have it in my collection, but the memory is fading fast so, of course, I don't remember this being a major point about the Chiricahuas.
What induced the scouts who were Chiricahua, such as Martine and Kaitah
to enlist with the army?
Thanks.
Respectfully,
Joe
Would it be fair to say that every Apache considered himself superior to every other Apache or non-Apache, up to the point where the other man's power showed itself to be superior to his own?
Other than the example of the "scouts", can you cite any other examples of how the Chiricahua's "superior" demeanor affected their relationships with the other Apache bands?
Is there a written source for that information? It's possible I already have it in my collection, but the memory is fading fast so, of course, I don't remember this being a major point about the Chiricahuas.
What induced the scouts who were Chiricahua, such as Martine and Kaitah
to enlist with the army?
Thanks.
Respectfully,
Joe
Tonto apachia
WELL Pete; WE all have to agree that all the apaches eviriment alone sqeezed all the fat off him and made him a serviver without the hardassed training they went thru from cradle to grave. BUT they were so wild and feriece that was part of their downfall in the human society. I have read many accounts of whitemens fights with them and they all respected the apache training and knowledge of servival in all terrain along with their fighting ability and for the most part would really not have to fight with them. The old timers said the worst part about being friends with the apache is you never knew when he would try to kill you? He would be good friends one day and something would happen wayoff somewhere and war would break out , your good friend would be the one to kill you. YOU never knew when you met him where you fought him or not. He would be friends one day and be trying to kill you the next no matter how well you liked one another. The only thing wrong with the indian was he was out numbered and his culture was tooo different, He was too set in war and killing. He couldn,t have a wife until he had killed and so on. OH an fighting after dark? The snake,s scorpians were out and his bow strings would streech from the damp night air. I see you have the e by your name you must got the same mozilla I did it would not let me send a message either, I finnally did something that let me back on but I don,t know what it was but it was pretty flustarating trying to do it. I wanted to thro the dang thing out the door.
bill 


Tonto apachia
Joe people speculate as to why the indians got mad and wiped out the paralta,s mining party, I would suspect that the mexicans killed too much game and used too much timber and too many herbs that the indians used for their servival for them to tolerate it. bill 

tonto indians
JOE I read an acount of 50 years as a texas ranger; I do not remember his name but the man had spent 50 yr as a texas ranger. He described some of their fights with the comanche. He said that when they caught up with indian that they line up against the rangers and shout insults at one another and then the shooting started, abt then it started to rain, the indians bow strings streeched and were usless, so the indians ran, the rangers gave chase, the indian ran into a big groove of trees the rangers followed them into the trees, and started to shoot them and dang their gun powder was wet their guns wouldn,t fire, the indian saw this and then they went to it hand to hand, he said this was some of the hardest fighting you ever saw because it was for servival. He said some times they would jump the indians and chase him because he out numbered the indi and the indi would run into another group of indi the they would chase the rangers for awhile. He said the comanche could keep 3 to 4 arrows inthe air at the same time. He said the best thing that happened for the rangeres was the sam walker colt, it was a life saver and equilizer in the fights. bill
-
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Friends?
Bill,
Here is a well known quote from Eskiminzen:
"Any coward can kill his enemy but it takes a brave man to kill his friend."
This statement was made by Arivaipa Chief Eskiminzin after he visited Charles McKinney, a friend of many years. After having a good meal, conversation and a smoke, "Eskiminzin drew a pistol and killled McKinney."
He did it, he said, " to convince his people that there could be no friendship with Anglos."
Got to admire a man who "knows his limits".
Respectfully,
Joe
Here is a well known quote from Eskiminzen:
"Any coward can kill his enemy but it takes a brave man to kill his friend."
This statement was made by Arivaipa Chief Eskiminzin after he visited Charles McKinney, a friend of many years. After having a good meal, conversation and a smoke, "Eskiminzin drew a pistol and killled McKinney."
He did it, he said, " to convince his people that there could be no friendship with Anglos."
Got to admire a man who "knows his limits".
Respectfully,
Joe
Last edited by Joe Ribaudo on Tue May 24, 2005 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.