Zion Canyon had already been carved half-a-mile deep in the brilliant
Navajo sandstone and most of its geological history had passed long
before the eyes of man beheld its glory. One of the world’s rare beauty
spots, lying within Zion National Park in southwestern Utah, it serves
as a striking example of the thousands of flaming gorges or red box
canyons eroded through millions of years on the edges of the plateaus
along the Colorado River in southern Utah and northern Arizona.
Prehistoric man came and left his ruins, relics and pictographs strewn
along the floor of the canyon, hidden under sheltering arches and
boulders, buried in mounds or etched on the faces of the cliffs. Myths,
legends and traditions played their part in linking the ancient
inhabitants with the modern Indians.
In spite of the fact that primitive cliff dwellers used to live in Zion
Canyon, the Indians of more recent date appear to have avoided it as a
camping ground. There seems to have been something mysterious and
foreboding in the gloomy depths of twilight and darkness that appalled
these semi-savages. So far as can be determined from both Indians and
early white settlers, the natives especially avoided the canyon after
sundown. O. D. Gifford, a pioneer of Springdale, says they never camped
above its mouth. They would go up the canyon in the daylight but
invariably would come back before dark.
E. C. Behunin, who lived in Zion Canyon from 1862 to 1872, says he never
saw an Indian come above Springdale, and although his father tried to
induce Indians to work for him, they could never be persuaded to venture
into the upper part of the canyon. John Dennett, who farmed in Zion for
many years after 1875, says the Indians never raised crops in Zion,
except the little they did for the white settlers; and that they were
very superstitious about the canyon. Other early settlers add the same
testimony.
Tony Tillohash, an educated Shivwits Indian, says an Indian would not
dare go alone into Zion Canyon. The solitary traveler might be killed
without warning. Kai-ne-sava was not the main spirit in the supernatural
hierarchy of the Paiute, an honor reserved for the Wolf-god, variously
rendered as Shin-na′-wav or Sin-na′-wava. Rather, Kai-ne-sava was a
mysterious being of changeable moods. There was no assurance of his
friendship and he had to be propitiated. He might whistle or yell at any
moment while remaining invisible. Again, he might reveal himself in the
distance in human form and then disappear when approached. His movement
might stir up a whirlwind of dust and then trail away into nothing.
Sometimes he built fires (lightning) on the West Temple or other places
inaccessible to human beings. The smoke from fires on the West Temple
could be seen for many miles in every direction. Kai-ne-sava then was
sending a message.
He pushed the rocks that fall down in Zion. His mood might be
capricious. If so, the Indians must keep out of the way. Then it was no
use to hunt, for Kai-ne-sava would frighten the deer before the Indian
could get close enough to shoot. Sometimes he would tantalize by taking
the form of a big buck deer with spreading antlers, and would hide and
jump out in front of the Indians with such great bounds that they could
not pierce him with their arrows no matter what their skill. On such
days it was better to go home.
Nevertheless, in a friendly mood Kai-ne-sava might be extremely helpful.
He could soothe the deer so they were not frightened and lure them where
they were easily found. Then the Indians could shoot their arrows with
assurance of killing. Such good fortune the Indians did not forget. A
bounteous kill they were willing to share with Kai-ne-sava. To show
their appreciation, little pieces of meat were laid out here and there
for him. When they returned, the meat was always gone, hence Kai-ne-sava
must have taken it.
Although Kai-ne-sava was fond of playing pranks, he was often kind and
pleasant. This is in marked contrast with another supernatural being who
was always at cross purposes and who caused the Indians no end of
trouble. This was Wai-no-pits, who lurked in gloomy shadows and was
always intent on evil. It was sometimes hard to distinguish between the
pranks of Kai-ne-sava and the evil doings of Wai-no-pits. There seems to
have been some confusion in the minds of the Indians. The one was to be
propitiated, the other avoided.
Wai-no-pits might visit a camp and bring sickness to it. He might cause
an accident or waylay the Indians with all sorts of dire calamities.
Wherever his presence was suspected it was best to run away.
The Wolf-god (Shin-na′-wav), on the other hand, was the friendly one.
There was no fear of him, but he was more distant and less distinctly
defined. There were legends connecting him with the past history of the
Paiute Indians and his influence was more or less mysterious. While his
friendly acts were to be appreciated it was not always possible to
distinguish his manifestations from those of Kai-ne-sava.
These supernatural beings, apparently, were not familiar spirits. Never
were they directly encountered. Their manifestations were veiled and it
was only by signs and implications that they could be interpreted.
Anything not clearly comprehended was likely to be interpreted by the
Indian as a manifestation of the preternatural. Zion Canyon was full of
mystery; it was a place where anything might happen, especially in the
shadows and darkness. The fear of Wai-no-pits or of Kai-ne-sava in his
austere moods more than offset the assurance of Shin-na-wav or of
Kai-ne-sava propitiated. Small wonder the superstitious Indian tried to
avoid Zion Canyon, especially when night had fallen in its awesome
depths.
The Paiute, himself extremely primitive, contributed not a little to our
culture in the way of an early knowledge of geography and routes of
travel, place names and a heritage of traditions. Most of the pioneers
explored these new regions and traveled new routes largely or partly
with the aid of Indian guides or advice. Without such assistance, the
explorers many times wandered from the proper route, lost valuable time,
and encountered dangers and hardships that could have been avoided.
Escalante tells us in 1776 that with proper Indian guidance he could
have covered in three days the Arizona Strip which in his wanderings
required ten. Geographical knowledge thus acquired wove itself into our
culture through personal contact, writings and maps that have since been
passed on from generation to generation.
Many Indian geographical names, anglicized or unchanged, have been
perpetuated in our nomenclature; for example, Toquerville, named for
Indian chief Toquer, Kaibab (big flat mountain or mountain lying down),
Kanarra (also named for an Indian chief), Shunesburg (an abandoned
village named for an old Indian who lived there), Parunuweap (canyon
with a swift stream of water), Kanab (meaning willow; there were many of
them growing there when the town was first settled), and Paria or Pahrea
(meaning a settlement and plateau). The name Mukuntuweap, pronounced
Mu-koon-tu-weap, without accent, is undoubtedly of Indian origin, but
there has been much dispute as to its derivation and application.
Originally applied by Major Powell to both Zion Canyon and the river
flowing through it, the name is now restricted to the latter. Some of
the early white settlers suggest that it means “the place of the gods”
or simply “God’s land.” This interpretation, however, seems to have no
real foundation. Both Indians and whites appear to be in complete
agreement that tu-weap means ground, earth, or place. It is the rest of
the word which is in doubt. William W. Seegmiller, who is familiar with
the Indian language, is of the opinion that it is named for a chief of
the Virgin River Indians named Mukun, and therefore simply means the
land of Mukun.
Old George of the Kaibab Indians pronounced it Mukoontau′-weap, with
accent on tau, and said it meant straight canyon. William R. Palmer,
also an authority on Paiute lore, concludes that there are two
possibilities: one, that it is derived from the Indian word yucca or
oose, muk-unk, the whole word muk-unk-o-weap, thus meaning Oose Creek
(or since the oose was sometimes used for soap simply Soap Creek); and
the other derived from Muk-unt-o-weap, meaning straight canyon. Major
Powell (September 12, 1872) says, “The Indians call the canyon through
which it [the river] runs, Mu-koon-tu-weap, or Straight Canyon.”[2]
Several of the better informed Indians on the Shivwits Reservation near
Santa Clara did not recognize the word Mukuntuweap. Tommy Mayo
pronounced it Huh-cut-u-weap, and said it meant red dirt, red country,
or place of red soil. Frank Mustache pronounced it Un-ga-tu-weap and
gave its meaning as red dirt. Tony Tillohash gave a different version,
pronouncing it huh-kon-tu-weap, meaning a big canyon.
The confusion is further increased by suggestions of other names. Frank
Mustache says the Indians called Zion Canyon, Un[k]ga-timpe pai-ave,
(unka or unga, meaning red, timpe rock, and pai-ave signifying a canyon
between mountains, the whole meaning a big, red rock canyon). Several
Indians referred to the Canyon as I-u-goon. Nearly all of them agreed
that Pahroos was the proper name for the Virgin River, meaning a swift
stream of rippling or turbulent water, bounding or foaming over the
rocks as it does in Zion Canyon.
The discrepancies are partly explained by the common Indian custom of
naming places from some striking local characteristic. Different
communities impressed by various facets of a canyon like Zion may have
given different names to the same thing. Some, remarking the resemblance
of the canyon to an arrow quiver, called it I-u-goon. Those who gathered
yucca root for soap may have referred to it as Muk-unk-o-weap. Those who
recognized Mukun as a great leader may have used the name Mukuntuweap.
Those who looked down from Cedar Mountain into the straight, deep canyon
of Zion, probably said Mukuntoweap. Others thinking of the high, red
walls could scarcely refrain from using the Indian term, unka or unga,
meaning red. Hence we have several variations of Unkatuweap, or even
Unga-timpe pai-ave.
The Indians encountered by the early white explorers were Parrusits
living in scattered bands along the upper Virgin River and forming one
of the dozen or more clans belonging to the Paiute tribe. This tribe
occupied the land lying west of the mountains and south of the high
plateaus of southern Utah from Pahvant Valley (Millard County) southward
to the Colorado River in Arizona and reaching westward into Nevada as
far as the mouth of the Virgin River. The Paiute tribe was one of five
belonging to the Ute Nation, occupying a vast territory extending to the
north and east.
The chief of the Utes, whose headquarters were in central Utah,
dominated the whole nation and was at liberty to come and go without
restraint throughout his domain and to levy such tribute as he desired.
The suffragan chiefs could do the same within their tribal limits.
Natural resources belonged to the community and no individual could
claim property other than personal effects, such as horses, arms,
wickiups and food supplies.
Each tribe had definite boundaries and members of one could not encroach
upon the lands of another without permission, else resentment might lead
to war. Each clan or community within a tribe also had a definite area
claimed as its own, the limits of which were settled by agreement or
war, and were clearly understood. Anyone entering foreign territory to
hunt or fish without permission was regarded as an illegal trespasser
and it was proper to make war upon him and even to kill him. Frequently
the whites got into difficulties by not observing these Indian laws and
customs.
When Indians of one group entered the territory of another, it was
obligatory for them to go through a fixed ritual to obtain permission to
do so. Once this ritual had been fulfilled the visitors were under
tribal protection and any loss or injury must be made good by the tribe.
Without such promise and protection, anything might happen. In
recompense some sort of gift was usually expected.
If, during times of peace, a tribesman injured or killed another,
satisfaction had to be rendered to the family, friends or tribe of the
victim. It was usually required on the principle of an eye for an eye
and a tooth for a tooth, but occasionally other bargains were made. A
slain man’s relatives ordinarily demanded the culprit or a relative,
even though they sometimes had to be satisfied with a weakling, a
cripple, or an aged person of little value to the tribe.
The early settlers of Rockville discovered the weightiness of this
Indian law. One day in February, 1869, Tom Flanigan and Sam Green were
carrying express from Rockville to Pipe Springs, where they were met at
dusk by two Indians. Flanigan, thinking in his excitement that something
was amiss, shot one of them. The Indian was badly wounded and died a few
days later in spite of all the care given him after he was taken back to
Rockville. The Indians demanded that Flanigan surrender to be tortured
and killed in satisfaction. This was of course refused. A crowd of
Indians gathered and the situation was tense. The affair, however, was
finally compromised by delivering to the Indians an ox.
The Paiutes formed a sparse population spread out over a large
territory. Depending mostly upon natural foods and but little upon
cultivated crops, they were limited in numbers by the scanty resources
of this semi-arid or desert region. Their weakness made them a prey to
stronger marauding neighbors such as the Navajos. They were so poor they
could seldom pay the tax levied by the chief of the Ute nation and
usually gave children as slaves in lieu of other tribute. Failing this,
they were in danger of having their women and children stolen.
The Paiute tribe had a number of subdivisions or clans loosely held
together by the tribal government. There is a difference of opinion
about the identity of the tribal chief. William R. Palmer states that
the chief was the leader of the strong Com-o-its clan living in the
region of Cedar City.[3] There is evidence, however, that the Virgin
River Indians (the Parrusits) were dominated by a chief of the band
living on the Santa Clara sometimes referred to as the Tonaquintits.
Nearly all the historical data of the early settlement of the Virgin
River indicate that the Paiutes recognized this leadership and not that
of the Com-o-its. Neighboring clans included the Shivwits (Shebits) of
the Parashont, the Uinkarets of the Trumbull and the Kaibabits of the
Kaibab region, all occupying the “Arizona Strip” north of the Colorado
River.
The first historical references to these Indians were given by the
Spanish Franciscan, Fray Silvestre Velez de Escalante, in October, 1776.
On the Pilar River (now Ash Creek), below Toquerville, near its junction
with the Virgin River twenty-five miles below Zion Canyon, he tells us
that his party found a well-made platform with a large supply of ears of
corn and corn husks which had been stored upon it. Nearby on a small
flat on the river bank were three small cornfields with very well made
irrigation ditches. The stalks of the maize which they had raised that
year were still intact. His journal records:
From here down the stream and on the mesa and on both sides for a long
distance, according to what we learned, these Indians apply themselves
to the cultivation of maize and calabashes. In their own language they
are called Parrusis.
The next day, October 15, after meeting some of these Indians, he wrote:
... they made us understand that they were called Parrusis ... and
that they were the ones who planted crops on the banks of the Pilar
River and lived down stream a long distance.
Still later, on October 19, when he met the Uinkarets Indians north of
Mt. Trumbull, Escalante remarked:
They told us that they were called Yubincariri; that they did not
plant maize; that their foods were those seeds, tuna,[4] pine nuts,
which are scarce judging from the few they gave us; and such hares,
rabbits and wild sheep as they could get by hunting. They added that
on this side of the river [Colorado] only the Parrusis planted maize
and calabashes.[5]