Three words that are easy to confuse
Writers about the Apache peoples use “tribe,” “band” and “clan” to mean different things, and sometimes use them loosely. A few working definitions help.
- A tribe in modern use usually means a nation recognized as a political unit, such as those described in the list of Apache tribes.
- A band or local group is a community of related families who lived, farmed, hunted and traveled together. Anthropologists use the terms in somewhat different ways, and the boundaries between bands were often fluid.
- A clan is a kinship category. It is traced through a line of descent, and in Apache groups where clans are documented, through the mother.
These categories do not line up neatly. A clan spread across many local groups, and a local group usually contained members of several clans. The family on the ground, the clan and the modern government are three separate things.
Matrilineal clans among the Western Apache
The Western Apache are the group for which clan systems are best documented, in sources that range from early 20th-century ethnography to later work. Their clans are matrilineal: a child belongs to the clan of the mother. Clans are also exogamous, meaning that people were expected to marry outside their own clan and also outside clans considered closely related. A person therefore had ties to the mother’s clan and a more distant relationship to the father’s clan.
Clans were commonly understood to be grouped into larger sets of related clans. The details varied from one regional group to another, and the individual clan names and their stories belong to the families concerned, so this article does not list them. Readers interested in how clans relate to land and communities can see the account of Western Apache local groups.
Clans served several purposes:
- they guided who could marry whom,
- they created obligations of hospitality and support between people who were not immediate relatives,
- they connected distant communities, since a person could expect a welcome from fellow clan members elsewhere.
This function is a reason that the idea of Apache clan system is often mentioned in discussions of kinship. It also helps explain how social ties could cross the boundaries of local groups without any central government.
Local groups and residence
Among the Western Apache, a local group was a cluster of extended families who shared a territory, often with farm sites and wild plant harvesting places. Residence after marriage was generally matrilocal, meaning that a couple tended to live near the wife’s family, so the core of a local group was commonly a set of related women. Leadership came from respected individuals, often men, whose standing depended on skill, generosity and persuasion rather than on inherited office. The role of women in this structure was substantial, and challenges to the older idea of a simple patriarchy connect to the wider picture of an Apache women matrilocal society.
Other Apache nations
The picture elsewhere is different in emphasis and in how well it is documented.
- Chiricahua. Sources describe several bands, including the Chihenne, Chokonen, Nednhi and Bedonkohe, each made up of local groups and extended family clusters. Kinship was central and residence tended to be near the wife’s family, but the formal clan structure described for the Western Apache is not generally portrayed in the same way. Details are less settled in the literature.
- Mescalero. Mescalero society is typically described in terms of local groups, extended families and bands, with kinship and residence customs similar in spirit to those of the Chiricahua.
- Jicarilla. The Jicarilla are often described as having two major divisions, commonly called Llanero and Olleros, along with local groups.
- Lipan and Plains Apache. Documentation is more limited and more affected by displacement. Both groups lived in the Plains or the Plains margins and drew on kinship ties and local group structure. Plains Apache society had features shaped by close association with the Kiowa.
These sketches are general. Specialists differ about how to describe them, and Apache nations themselves are the best authorities on their own social organization.
Why the differences matter
The common picture of a single “Apache tribe” governed by one chief leaves out all of this. Real authority was local and based on kinship. Leaders were chosen by consensus and could gain or lose followers. A widely known figure such as Geronimo, for example, was a respected fighter and spokesman for a small band, but not a head of “the Apache.” This is why the Geronimo chief misconception is so common.
What changed with reservations
Reservation life in the late 1800s mixed people from different bands and clans, and federal agents often named a “chief” for administrative convenience. This changed the way leadership worked and complicated the clan system. Later tribal governments, such as those formed under the Indian Reorganization Act, introduced elected councils and written constitutions. Clan and family ties have nevertheless remained meaningful in many communities, though how they function today varies by nation and family.
A note on sources
Much of the older description of Apache social organization comes from outside observers, whose interpretations are sometimes incomplete or out of date. Where possible, readers should look to Apache authors and to the official sources of each nation, and recognize that some knowledge about clans and ceremonies is not shared publicly.