Page:American Anthropologist NS vol. 22.djvu/265

 GRINNELL] WHO WERE THE PADOUCA? 253

planted. Stories told by the Pawnees within forty years declare definitely that the Comanches knew nothing of the growing of crops.

Spanish documents quoted by Bandelier say that the Apaches of New Mexico in the early part of the eighteenth century lived somewhat in the same way as did the Padouca described by Bourg- mont. They had houses, jacales, and huts where they planted in spring, but they did not live at these villages the year through.

It is believed that during the eighteenth century, almost from its first years, the Comanches began to make raids on the people of the plains and especially on the Apaches who finally were driven in from some of their settlements close to the Pueblo villages.

The Apaches were never mentioned by the French, Apache being a southwestern term, the use of which seems never to have extended into French territory. The French hardly refer to any tribes on the plains or on the New Mexican frontier except the Padouca, until the time of Mallet, 1739, when the French first reached New Mexico and found "Laitanes" on the New Mexican frontier. On the other hand, the Spaniards seem to mention no large tribes between the Apache, who occupied the country beyond the New Mexican frontier, and the tribes near the Missouri river.. They speak of the Apache as extending out from the New Mexican borders and beyond them to the east were the Panana, Jumano, and other Caddoan tribes ; and to the northeast beyond the Apache were other Pananas who were the Pawnees of the Platte.

It must be remembered that scarcely any original observations were made by Lewis and Clark away from the Missouri river. They saw something of the Sioux and something of the village tribes, but for information about the people of the plains, were obliged to depend on the Indians and the few white men who had been long in the country.

For this reason in cases where they report only statements at second hand, the accounts of early explorers generally must not be taken too literally. On the other hand, those who saw the Indians about whom they wrote no doubt reported with substantial accuracy on matters which came under their own observation.

�� �