HikeArizona.COM

@hikeaz
I wonder who the native women are that have done that?

rcorfman wrote: ↑Jul 06 2023 8:41 pm @hikeaz
I wonder who the native women are that have done that?

I figure it's an assumption about what may have happened before anyone recorded such things, or before anyone recorded anything in writing.

Her route must have involved a heartbreaking amount of in-and-out of side canyons, with an equally dispiriting amount of up and down on sketchy routes. I imagine rounding a corner to be confronted with a fresh new obstacle, taking a few deep breaths, and pushing very carefully on through, then repeating about 50 times a day. I'd be tempted if it weren't for the exposure, at least for a couple days.

I remember some years back a young woman acquaintance of Rich Rudow and her fellow backpacker were almost on their last leg of finishing that when apparently she stepped on an undercut rock shelf and fell to her death in Owl Eyes. Terribly sad for all involved.

Ioana's death in Owl Eyes was a tragic reminder of the dangers of off-trail travel in the rough conditions of the GC. Though I get the impression that this woman's through-hike was on the north side which is supposed to be easier than the south (terrain wise, though worse drinkable water-wise). I am assuming to qualify as a through hike she didn't use a packraft at all?

big_load wrote: ↑Jul 06 2023 9:04 pm

rcorfman wrote: ↑Jul 06 2023 8:41 pm @hikeaz
I wonder who the native women are that have done that?

I figure it's an assumption about what may have happened before anyone recorded such things, or before anyone recorded anything in writing.

You're probably right but I think that's pretty stupid assumption. I mean, why would any natives even do such a thing instead of just going around or whatever.

@rcorfman
Yeah, the old-timers weren't going for bragging rights and their life-style derived conditioning would have made going around seem less of a penalty than it does to us.

@big_load
Yes and I don't think they would have seen a reason to do it. Their focus was much different than ours.

My guess is the 'native' caveat may be twofold.. 1) No written history was kept by them AND 2) likely to avoid the presumptuous position that anglos were 'first'; especially when natives were in GC for thousands of years prior.

hikeaz wrote: AND 2) likely to avoid the presumptuous position that anglos were 'first'; especially when natives were in GC for thousands of years prior.

The Havasupai " People of the Blue-Green Waters" are said to have been there eight centuries. The Hopi on their land significantly longer. But the Hopi emerged into this Fourth World from Sipapu at the bottom of the canyon. The Havasupai are guardians of Sipapu. That being said, yes the wording in the article made me pause.

@Alston_Neal
From > https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/historyculture/arch.htm
Prehistory of Grand Canyon
The earliest known period of occupation, the Paleoindian period, began at approximately 11,500 Before Present (B.P.) and lasted approximately 3,000 years to the end of the last ice age. During this occupation, small, mobile bands of people hunted megafauna such as mountain goats, ground sloth, and bison; and gathered wild plants. Paleoindian sites are extremely rare in the Southwest; one known site has been found within the Grand Canyon.

More > https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/educatio ... istory.htm

Supposed to be some folks over in the neighboring White Sands area about 21-23K years ago so who knows how long all these people were roaming around different parts. I agree, they likely wouldn't be interested in the GC traverse unless they were chasing something really significant, doing lots of peyote, or being chased by something very nasty.

I'm willing to bet, knowing human nature, that there probably through the millennium of time a number of Natives that thought, where does this go, what is at the end? Humans have been known to endure mental and physical challenges for no apparent reasons, with or without peyote. Mt. Everest come to mind.