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.