• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Egyptian Ruins In The Grand Canyon

Aside from the fact that late 19th/early 20th century American newspapers were more than a little prone to tall tales - particularly when it came to faux archaeological claims. That the only sources for this story appear to be a couple of newspaper articles tells me a lot.

There's also potential for more sinister motivation than that, as there was a concerted effort for many years (to some extent still to this day) to fabricate evidence of an earlier civilisation inhabiting North America, and ascribing the origin of Native American mounds and artefacts to this precursor race. With 1909 being towards the tail end of Egypt-mania in the English speaking world, it wouldn't be that unusual for someone to try and "prove" Ancient Egyptian provenance.

It seems that people felt that proving that someone had been there prior to the Native Americans would justify modern American claims to the land, and excuse their treatment of Native Americans, as it would mean that the Natives themselves had been savage invaders wiping out an advanced civilisation that came before them.
 
This LinkedIn article gives a fuller account of the alleged G E Kincaid expedition:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/canyonitis-seeing-evidence-ancient-egypt-grand-canyon-pharms-phd

Interestingly, Kincaid never claimed the stone workings, relics and petroglyphs/carvings he saw were Egyptian, just describing them as resembling "oriental or Tibetan" , which opens the possibility that they were actually Native American. Later commentators added the spurious Egyptian angle due to the alleged presence of mummies. The mummies Kincaid found in the cave system were not wrapped in bandages and laid to rest in sarcophagi, but were simply wrapped in bark.

Loads of Fortean aspects to this story. Did Kincaid and Jordan really exist? Where precisely is the mysterious cave system? If it was, as described, a third of the way up the sheer Canyon wall, how did Kincaid gain access? Were the alleged artefacts from a hitherto unknown American culture?
How the story has grown, with the misleading Egyptian theme added later. Finally, if the original newspaper article was correct in describing the expedition as being sponsored by The Smithsonian, why does that organisation deny possessing any records of it?
 
Last edited:
Numerous limestone caves in the Grand Canyon region.

The privately owned 'Grand Canyon Caverns' is developed up with an elevator, guided tours, etc. It supposedly links with other caves and fissures that open into the Grand Canyon itself.
 
Cynical Apathist said:
Numerous limestone caves in the Grand Canyon region.

The privately owned 'Grand Canyon Caverns' is developed up with an elevator, guided tours, etc. It supposedly links with other caves and fissures that open into the Grand Canyon itself.
Click to expand...

Definitely on my bucket list to visit.
 
https://gccaverns.com/tours-activities/caverns/
Ozzy and his son Jack visited this place on their tv show....
11727a_t715.jpg
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
This LinkedIn article gives a fuller account of the alleged G E Kincaid expedition:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/canyonitis-seeing-evidence-ancient-egypt-grand-canyon-pharms-phd
Click to expand...

That webpage also provides the full text of a March 12 item from the Arizona Gazette concerning the arrival of the mysterious Kincaid (sp?) in Yuma at the end of his epic boat trip.

This brief news item is significant in providing some additional factoids, e.g.:

- Kincaid was from Lewiston, Idaho.
- Kincaid's trip down the Green / Colorado Rivers started in October 1908 at Green River (the town) in Wyoming.
- Kincaid is claimed to be only the second man to make this journey.
- Kincaid made the trip alone, in a "small skiff".
- Kincaid's history or vocation is not mentioned.
- Kincaid was carrying a 'fine camera' with which he'd made "... over seven hundred views of the river and canyons which are unsurpassed."
- It states "Some interesting archaeological discoveries were unearthed ..."
- It states Kincaid was planning to repeat the trip the following winter, this time along with others.

I suspect this item served as the seed for the more florid article published in April.
 
Now here are some things from the March article that seem to have a taint about them ...

Kincaid wasn't the 'second man' to descend the Green / Colorado watershed from Green River WY. John Wesley Powell and his parties did it during the expeditions of 1869 and 1871 - 1872.

The still-undammed course of the Green / Colorado rivers in 1909 was no less treacherous than it had been for Powell's expeditions 40 years earlier. Powell's expedition parties, consisting of multiple veteran outdoorsmen, lost most of their supplies and at least one of their boats. They had to contend with rapids so daunting they had to portage their boats and equipment / supplies around them.

How did a single man do this with nothing worse than losing a single oar? How did this single man manage to either run the rapids without damage / loss or portage his skiff and equipment around them?

To add to the weirdness - how reasonable is it to presume a man in his 70's could accomplish such a thing?

The subsequent April article includes a claim that Kincaid was the first white child born in Idaho. The first officially documented Euro-child born in Idaho was Liza Spalding - the daughter of early missionaries, born in 1837. If Kincaid was the first white child born in Idaho, he'd have had to be at least as old as Ms. Spalding. This would mean Kincaid was in his 70's as of 1908 / 1909.

One clue suggestive of fabrication may lie in the motif of a single man in a rowboat traveling, surveying, and collecting specimens throughout a river's entire watershed. As it turns out, this is something John Wesley Powell himself was claimed to have done in his younger days (prior to the Civil War) on the Mississippi and possibly other, more placid, rivers 'back east'. This Powell parallel also aligns with the claim that Kincaid set out from Green River WY - the same launch point as Powell's expeditions.

Another issue is the timetable for Kincaid's alleged journey. The way to avoid the worst whitewater risks is to travel while a river is high - i.e., during periods when the water flow is maximal. Powell's two expeditions were undertaken during the late spring and summer months, when the Rocky Mountains' snow melt constituting the Colorado basin's primary inputs are highest. Kincaid's trip supposedly occurred from October to March - precisely the period during which the Green / Colorado basin's flow is typically at its lowest.

What sort of camera was Kincaid carrying and using? The March report characterizes it as 'fine', which implies it was something better than the Eastman 'Kodak' and 'Brownie' cameras that were (so far as I'm aware) the only roll-film cameras available as of 1908. It wouldn't be until 1913 that 35mm roll-film cameras were generally available to the public. Still, there were Eastman folding cameras available as of 1908 which used roll film, but these weren't exactly professional grade equipment. Professionals still used plate cameras, and it's difficult to imagine Kincaid lugging over 700 plates (or plate magazines holding over 700 plates) in his small skiff.
 
I'm always surprised when people give this yarn a second look. Newspapers in the US a hundred years ago were rife with this kind of filler. That doesn't mean that every unlikely sounding story from back then is a hoax, of course, but there doesn't seem to be even the flimsiest corroboration for the adventures of this Kincaid character. The story seems to live entirely in those two very questionable newspaper articles and the embellishments of those who repeated it.

The Grand Canyon is an awesome spectacle. Ms Popper and I hiked into the bottom of it some years ago with some friends. We stayed two nights at the "ranch" down at the bottom and hiked back up via a different trail. It was an unforgettable experience. I can't imagine anyone being disappointed with a trip there. Unless of course one is unprepared and gets lost or something. It's the desert, which will kill you if you aren't careful.
 
A footnote ...

Online discussions of this case sometimes touch on the fact the articles are variously cited as coming from the Phoenix Gazette or the Arizona Gazette. The actual printed versions carry the Arizona Gazette name.

Because some skeptical critics have tended to cite the main (April) article as being from a Phoenix Gazette, true believers have dismissed them for not even knowing which newspaper was involved.

There's only one newspaper / company involved. The primary publication (and company name) was the Phoenix Gazette. The Arizona Gazette was the evening edition of the paper as of 1909.
 
The logical anomalies and disconnects really erupt with the April news story, the full text of which can be accessed at:

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/nov2/gazette.htm

The biggest such disconnects concern the purported relationship between Kincaid, the alleged cave site, and the Smithsonian.

The April article claims that Kincaid's cave was already being visited and studied by archeologists from the Smithsonian. This doesn't align with the March article that claims he'd finished his alleged journey only some 3 - 3.5 weeks earlier.

Things didn't move all that fast in 1909, and I don't believe the Smithsonian (or any other such institution) could have received / reviewed Kincaid's report, organized an archeological team, and gotten them to the site within the timeframe elapsing from Kincaid's discovery - even if he'd telegraphed or telephoned his news prior to getting to Yuma.

Furthermore, the April article quotes Kinkaid as follows:

... I gathered a number of relics, which I carried down the Colorado to Yuma, from whence I shipped them to Washington with details of the discovery. Following this, the explorations were undertaken.
Click to expand...

The inventory of items Kincaid / Kinkaid had accumulated (film; relics) and transported in his 'small skiff' must have filled the boat!

This even more specifically implies the package(s) he shipped made it to Washington, motivated a subsequent expedition, and resulted in the follow-on work being underway at the remote site in only about 3 weeks.

The April article consistently mis-references the sponsoring organization as 'Smithsonian Institute'. It is, and has always been, the 'Smithsonian Institution'.

Speaking of naming mistakes ... The March news item consistently cites the traveler's name as 'Kincaid', whereas the April article cites him as 'Kinkaid'. This is one reason I don't believe the same writer penned both articles.

My working theory is that someone at the Gazette needed to generate a filler story, took the brief Kincaid note from March 12, and went wild inflating it to the required length and degree of sensationalism. Another possibility was that the March 12 story was a deliberate 'plant' preparatory to a more florid April 1 article, but for some reason the Gazette didn't or couldn't print the follow-on until April 5.
 
Austin Popper said:
I'm always surprised when people give this yarn a second look. Newspapers in the US a hundred years ago were rife with this kind of filler. That doesn't mean that every unlikely sounding story from back then is a hoax, of course, but there doesn't seem to be even the flimsiest corroboration for the adventures of this Kincaid character. The story seems to live entirely in those two very questionable newspaper articles and the embellishments of those who repeated it. ...
Click to expand...

Agreed ...

One note, however ... I'm not sure anyone had found or mentioned the March 12 article prior to its being cited in December 2016 (the LinkedIn article; cited above).
 
I'm pretty sure both articles were discussed on the interwebz in the early aughts, but I could be wrong. I do recall reading about the differences in the two pieces well before '16 though. There was a lot of excitement about the story after it hit some prominent "ancient astronauts" type web site years ago, and nobody uncovered anything remotely substantial in support of it, at least that I saw. I'm sure Art Bell kept it going for a while.
 
I'm kinda hoping that if we poke enough holes in this non-story it will sink once and for all ... :reyes:
 
Came across this by accident -
Ancient Egyptian Lost City & Buddha Statue Discovered in The GRAND CANYON?!
 
These artifacts are in the Smithsonian, yet none of this seems to be well known?
The Smithsonian does seem to have a habit of hiding stuff that doesn't fit archaeological 'orthodoxy'.
 
Sid said:
Came across this by accident -
Ancient Egyptian Lost City & Buddha Statue Discovered in The GRAND CANYON?!
Click to expand...
As well as the Smithsonian denying the expedition took place they deny Kincaid ever worked for them and the land is restricted access now...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top