Homelands Before Reservations
Apache peoples lived across a large part of what is now Arizona, New Mexico, west Texas, Oklahoma, northern Mexico and, for some groups, parts of Colorado and Kansas. They did not hold land as a single bloc. Each group, and often each local group within it, knew a range of country for seasonal movement, gathering, hunting and, among some Western Apache and Jicarilla communities, farming. Mountains, springs and other features carried names and stories, as the material on place-based stories and the land as teacher describes.
The shape of this land use matters for any discussion of claims. When the United States and Mexico set boundaries and when settlers, miners and the army arrived in the mid-nineteenth century, Apache groups lost access to much of this country over a few decades. The reservation system then confined communities to areas that were small compared to what they had used. The pattern of loss is described in the article on how Apache territory shrank, and this article does not repeat it.
Land Claims and the Law, Briefly
The legal history of claims is covered elsewhere on this site. In short, a mid-twentieth century commission heard claims for land taken and paid money for it, and that process closed many questions. Federal law has also, at times, restored or added land to reservations or placed land in trust for a nation. This article looks instead at the land: what communities sought, and what is still disputed.
Which Homelands Are in Question
It is hard to give a single list, because situations differ by nation.
- Chiricahua homelands. The Chiricahua and Warm Springs peoples lived across southeastern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico and northern Mexico. After 1886 the Chiricahua were held as prisoners of war for more than two decades, and no reservation was set aside in their homeland. After release in 1913, some chose to go to the Mescalero reservation and others stayed in Oklahoma, the history behind the Fort Sill Apache Tribe. Land questions for descendants therefore often concern places far from where they now live.
- Western Apache lands. The San Carlos Apache and White Mountain Apache have reservations in Arizona, but those reservations are smaller than the areas their ancestors used, and some places of deep importance now lie outside reservation boundaries, on national forest and other public land.
- Mescalero, Jicarilla, Lipan and Plains Apache. The Mescalero and Jicarilla have reservations in New Mexico, each smaller than historic ranges. Lipan Apache history extends across Texas and northern Mexico, and Lipan descendants today are not recognized as a separate federal nation, which affects how land and recognition questions arise. The Plains Apache in Oklahoma lost much of a shared reservation through allotment.
Sacred Places on Public Land
Many sacred places important to Apache communities lie on lands owned by the federal government, the states or private parties. Two well-known examples show the kind of dispute that arises. Both are described here in general terms, and details of ceremonial use are not shared on this site.
Mount Graham in southeastern Arizona, called Dzil Nchaa Si An in the Western Apache language, is regarded by the San Carlos Apache and other Apache communities as sacred. In the 1980s and 1990s, plans to build an astronomical observatory on the mountain led to years of dispute involving Apache objections, environmental concerns about wildlife on the mountain, and federal legislation. Telescopes were built despite the opposition, and the question of protection and access has continued to be raised.
Oak Flat, known in Apache as Chi’chil Bildagoteel, lies in the Tonto National Forest near Superior, Arizona. It has long been used by Apache people for ceremonies and gathering, and it sits above a large copper deposit. A 2014 law authorized a land exchange that would transfer the area to a mining company, a plan that drew opposition from the San Carlos Apache Tribe and many Apache individuals and organizations. Lawsuits and public campaigns followed, and the matter has been before the courts. Its present status may have changed since this article was written, so readers should consult current news and official tribal sources.
These cases are often described by Apache advocates as being about whether a living religious and cultural relationship with a place can be protected. In several prominent cases, courts have held that religious freedom laws do not bar the government from managing public land in ways that harm a sacred site, which is one reason the issue remains difficult. The broader topic of protecting sacred sites is discussed in the material on Apache sacred site protection.
Why Claims Remain Unresolved
Several reasons are generally given:
- Land taken long ago has often passed through many owners, and returning it would affect people who now live there.
- Federal law offers few routes for recovering land, and the commission process closed many claims in exchange for money.
- Recognition of a group, which depends on federal acknowledgment, shapes who can bring a claim.
- Sacred places on public land are managed under laws that balance many interests.
- Different Apache groups and individuals sometimes hold different views about what should be sought.
Some progress has come through trust land acquisitions, agreements for co-management or access, and legislation. Such developments change over time, and this site does not report on them as current news.
Reading Further
For present facts, readers should turn to the official websites of the nations concerned, to court records and to reliable news reports. This site is independent and speaks for no Apache nation.