The short answer
The Plains Apache were called Kiowa Apache because, for much of the 1700s and 1800s, they lived, travelled and made treaties alongside the Kiowa, and outsiders treated them as an Apache group attached to that larger people. The label is outdated. The Plains Apache are a distinct Apachean nation with their own language and identity, and they are not a subgroup of the Kiowa. Today their nation is the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma.
Two unrelated languages
The easiest fact to check is language. Plains Apache is a Southern Athabaskan language, in the same family as Navajo and the other Apache languages. Kiowa belongs to a different family, Kiowa-Tanoan, which is linked to the Pueblo languages of the Rio Grande region. The two languages are not mutually understandable, and the speakers could not simply talk to one another without learning the other language. Linguists therefore treat the Plains Apache as Apachean, and the Kiowa as a separate people altogether.
This difference is important. It means the Plains Apache did not become Kiowa by living with them. They kept their own speech, even as some individuals spoke both languages. A broader treatment of Apache languages and dialects belongs to other articles, and the Southern Athabaskan language family is explained there.
An alliance, not a merger
Spanish, French and American writers of the 1700s and 1800s recorded the Plains Apache as camping with the Kiowa and sharing in their diplomacy. Over time, the two peoples came to share many practices of Plains life, and intermarriage occurred. The alliance lasted long enough for outsiders to treat the two as a single unit in official records.
Historians generally describe this as a close alliance rather than a merger. The Plains Apache kept their own band structure, leadership and ceremonies, and they referred to themselves in their own language rather than by the Kiowa-linked name. Beyond this, the details of the relationship are not fully documented, and sources vary.
How the name entered the record
When the United States made treaties with Plains nations in the 1800s, officials needed names for the groups at the table. At the Medicine Lodge council of 1867, the Plains Apache were listed alongside the Kiowa and Comanche under a name that combined the two: Kiowa-Apache. The agency that managed the three peoples at the reservation in Indian Territory used similar wording. Over time, the name appeared in government documents, maps and books, and it became the standard English term for the group.
In this sense, the label is a product of administration as much as of Plains history. It was how officials sorted peoples on paper, and it carried the assumption that the Plains Apache were secondary to the Kiowa. That assumption does not match how Plains Apache people understood themselves.
Other names
Outsiders have used other names for the Plains Apache, and the nation has its own name in its own language. The spelling and meaning of such names are best taken from the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma itself and from published linguistic work, not from a quick summary. Older sources may use a range of spellings, which is a common problem when reading records written by outsiders.
Why the name has fallen out of favour
Several reasons explain why Plains Apache is now preferred.
- It identifies the people as Apache in their own right rather than as an attachment to another nation.
- It avoids suggesting that the Plains Apache are Kiowa or part of the Kiowa nation.
- It is closer to the way the nation presents itself today, as the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma.
The older name still appears in historical sources, library catalogues and some academic works, and readers will meet it often. When they do, it helps to remember that it refers to the Plains Apache. For the nation’s history in more detail, see the article on the Plains Apache people of Oklahoma.
Names and respect
Names matter in Native history because many were imposed from outside. Examples include Mescalero and Jicarilla, which come from Spanish, and the word Apache itself, which is probably an outsiders’ term. The question of what Apache peoples call themselves is taken up elsewhere; the Plains Apache case is an example of how one outsider’s label can hide a people’s own identity.
Using the name in practice
Writers who discuss the 1800s may need to quote the older name. A careful approach is to use Plains Apache as the main term, and to explain the older name once when it appears in a source. When in doubt, check how the nation names itself on its official website, and treat any older spelling or label with care.