the history of the places!

[mapit]

I was very interested to read accounts of Aravapai Canyon trips.
The story of the place is not mentioned.Folks who come to AZ may find it of interest to know the stories .For Aravapai Canyon is the story of Eskiminzin A very peacful Apache whos tribe was wiped out in a terrible massacre,There Are no Aravapai Apache today.

[Al_HikesAZ]

A very peacful Apache whos tribe was wiped out in a terrible massacre,There Are no Aravapai Apache today.

"These were the Apaches killed in the Camp Grant Massacre of 1871. In 1872 the few survivors were moved to the San Carlos Agency. Hodge spells the word "Ari-vai-pa" which was approved by the U.S.G.B. but later changed to "Ara-vai-pa" Hodge said the word came from a Pima word, Lumholtz said the word came from a Papago word. Source Will C. Barnes Arizona Place Names

[azbackpackr]

I personally believe that saying these Apaches were "peaceful" is what is known as revisionist history. It's true, the massacre was terrible, because as I recall in reading accounts of it, the only people who were at home were women, children and the elderly.

A lot of horrendous atrocities were committed by all parties: Apaches, Mexicans and Anglos, back in those days. A couple of books I like about this topic are Death in the Desert, The Fifty Years War for the Great Southwest, by Paul I. Wellman and On the Border With Crook by John G. Bourke. Both are available from Amazon.

[Al_HikesAZ]

I personally believe that saying these Apaches were "peaceful" is what is known as revisionist history.

Some were peaceful. Alchesay (a Chief of the White Mountain Apache) became a friend of our military and was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service. Some were hostile - Geronimo is famous for his exploits. Some Arizona businessmen exploited the reputation of the Apaches to profiteer off the wars. History is always written by the victors.

It's true, the massacre was terrible, because as I recall in reading accounts of it, the only people who were at home were women, children and the elderly.

"On the afternoon of April 28, six Anglos, 48 Mexicans, and 94 O'odham (Papago) gathered along Rillito Creek and set off on a march to Aravaipa Canyon. At dawn on Sunday, April 30, they surrounded the Apache camp. O'odham were the main fighters, while Anglos and Mexicans picked off Apaches who tried to escape. Most of the Apache men were off hunting in the mountains. All but eight of the corpses were women and children. Twenty-seven children had been captured and were sold in Mexico by the Papago. A total of 144 Aravaipas and Pinals had been slain and mutilated. [1]"
1 ^ Phil Konstantin, "This day in North American Indian history", p.107
2 ^ Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip. Western Apache Oral Histories and Traditions of the Camp Grant Massacre. The American Indian Quarterly - Volume 27, Number 3&4, Summer/Fall 2003, pp. 639-666.
Source Wikipedia.

[azdesertfather]

I personally believe that saying these Apaches were "peaceful" is what is known as revisionist history.

Can you imagine another people group coming from another part of the world, taking over the land of other Americans back East, and then coming out here and doing the same to you and your neighbors? Do you think you would be "peaceful"?

Just thought I'd throw this in to get some of you riled up ;) :guilty:

[azbackpackr]

Oh, please. This guilt trip stuff doesn't work on me! I ain't buyin'. The Apaches were raiders of other tribes long before there were any Spanish or Anglo settlements. That was one way they acquired what they wanted. They were semi-nomadic, and they raided the more settled farming tribes, all of whom were terrified of them.

When the Army left the area of Tucson in the early 1860's to go fight the Civil War, the Apaches came into the Santa Cruz Valley, around the area of Tubac and Tumacacori, and murdered over 600 settlers within the first year, hideously torturing many of them before killing them. Incidently, the women were usually the torturers and took great pleasure in it. Mostly what the Apaches actually wanted to acquire from these settlers was their livestock. The few remaining settlers who weren't ambushed fled into the walled city of Tucson.

The Apaches and the Navajos were originally one tribe, and today, although many of them won't admit it, they can talk to one another quite easily because the languages are still very similar. Culturally, however, Navajos and Apaches are not similar at all, partly because the Navajo religion has been influenced deeply by the Hopis. As far as anyone can determine Navajos and Apaches are Athabaskans who migrated from Canada, arriving in the Southwest possibly only about 500-600 years ago, not long before the first Spanish exploratory expeditions. It's unknown, however, how quickly they may have traveled south from Canada--whether it was a gradual thing over many generations, or if they migrated more quickly, raiding other tribes as they traveled. By the time the Spaniards began to build settlements the Navajos were beginning to be more a distinct group apart from the Apaches, but even at that time the Spaniards called them the Navajo Apaches.

[PaleoRob]

As far as anyone can determine Navajos and Apaches are Athabaskans who migrated from Canada, arriving in the Southwest possibly only about 500-600 years ago, not long before the first Spanish exploratory expeditions.

In some cases Spanish accounts seem to suggest "after" as well, with I believe the Cardenas expedition to the S. Rim not finding Apaches in the White Mountains during their trip to Hopi/The Canyon, but finding them setting up houses in the mountains in (what is now) NM on the return. I could be mistaken on the specific timing, but I do recall this story from my Peoples of the Southwest class back at NAU.

The Navajos have become more peaceful over the years, but especially around the Rio Grande during the Spanish era, Los Apaches de Nabahos were also known as swift raiders, plundering Pueblo villages and Spanish settlements alike.

[azbackpackr]

Yes, thanks for clarifying, Rob. I recall tidbits from similar class and lots of reading. Since I'm now in Yuma, everything I'm saying is from memory--my books are back home. I know I could probably come up with some specifics, however, by visiting the local library or surfing the net.

[Jeffshadows]

I personally believe that saying these Apaches were "peaceful" is what is known as revisionist history.

Some were peaceful. Alchesay (a Chief of the White Mountain Apache) became a friend of our military and was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service. Some were hostile - Geronimo is famous for his exploits. Some Arizona businessmen exploited the reputation of the Apaches to profiteer off the wars. History is always written by the victors.

It's true, the massacre was terrible, because as I recall in reading accounts of it, the only people who were at home were women, children and the elderly.

"On the afternoon of April 28, six Anglos, 48 Mexicans, and 94 O'odham (Papago) gathered along Rillito Creek and set off on a march to Aravaipa Canyon. At dawn on Sunday, April 30, they surrounded the Apache camp. O'odham were the main fighters, while Anglos and Mexicans picked off Apaches who tried to escape. Most of the Apache men were off hunting in the mountains. All but eight of the corpses were women and children. Twenty-seven children had been captured and were sold in Mexico by the Papago. A total of 144 Aravaipas and Pinals had been slain and mutilated. [1]"
1 ^ Phil Konstantin, "This day in North American Indian history", p.107
2 ^ Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip. Western Apache Oral Histories and Traditions of the Camp Grant Massacre. The American Indian Quarterly - Volume 27, Number 3&4, Summer/Fall 2003, pp. 639-666.
Source Wikipedia.

The O'odham and Apache had a long history of conflict long before the Spanish or Anglo Settlers ever set foot here in southern AZ. The O'odham word for "enemy" is synonymous with "Apache." Those who attacked the Apache at Ft. Grant were doing so ostensibly to avenge recent Apache depredations involving the kidnapping of an Anglo family from a wagon train and repeated raids against prominent Spanish ranches that had resulted in great loss of life and property. In addition, the O'odham could probably have scribbled down a two mile long list of reasons for their involvement. Leave us not forget, also, that the esteemed Sam Hughes was the one who unlocked the armory and supplied government rations to the party. History now says that the bodies left at Grant after the dust settled were mostly those of unarmed women and children. You know what? I also seems like every time our military takes out a house being used to build car bombs in Baghdad the officer in charge of the raid comes back and reports that five or six armed young men were killed and a ton of contraband was found and/or destroyed; yet, somehow, Al Jazeera still seems to get the message wrong and report how marauding US soldiers slaughtered a group of three dozen sixty year old women who were just doing their laundry together after praying...

[mapit]

I worked at San Carlos and was fortunate to spend time getting to look at the tribal Archives,Aravapa Or Aravapai were not moved to San carlos,following the massacre the majority of the men were hunted down. The Apache were raiders ,with some exceptions.Jicarilla and Aravapa {ai } were regarded as peaceful having developed trade with agricultural groups such as the ZunI,Hopi.

Use of brutal torture was a numbers game,Yavapai tribes {not Apaches } Practiced cannibalism on a living prisoner then sent them home because it kept other tribes away.The Apache used the fear of their name to keep territory.

psychology was alive and well.the original Shock and awful.

[PaleoRob]

Use of brutal torture was a numbers game,Yavapai tribes {not Apaches } Practiced cannibalism on a living prisoner then sent them home because it kept other tribes away.

Have a reference for this? I'm interested in prehistoric cannibalism, and I haven't heard this before.

[Jeffshadows]

Use of brutal torture was a numbers game,Yavapai tribes {not Apaches } Practiced cannibalism on a living prisoner then sent them home because it kept other tribes away.

Have a reference for this? I'm interested in prehistoric cannibalism, and I haven't heard this before.

Please tell me you don't own an altar

[PaleoRob]

Use of brutal torture was a numbers game,Yavapai tribes {not Apaches } Practiced cannibalism on a living prisoner then sent them home because it kept other tribes away.

Have a reference for this? I'm interested in prehistoric cannibalism, and I haven't heard this before.

Please tell me you don't own an altar

Wouldn't you like to know!