Can someone tell me any new information on this discovery?

As a published Arizona historian and frequent Grand Canyon hiker, I have looked into this story on occasion - not because I believe there are Egyptian ruins in the canyon (there are not), but to try to figure out what the whole back story behind the article itself.

Aside from the question of Egyptian ruins themselves, there are many other statements and claims in the article which can be verified as false. For example, Kinkaid was definitely not the first white child born in Idaho and several of the well-known canyon descriptions and locations mentioned in the article are incorrect indicating that the writer did not know the canyon very well. There is no record that any Kincaid ever worked for the Smithsonian at that time.

Nor is there any record of his even attempting, let alone completing, a Grand Canyon river trip - this alone should raise eye-brows because in 1909, only a handfull of people had run the river and any attempts (successful or failed) would have been big news even before they discovered any mysterious ruins. When the USGS made its famous survey expedition in 1923, it was covered in national headlines.

Most of the conspiracy websites that support the story try to rationalize all the problems with two arguements:

1 - that because it did not run on April 1, the story is not a joke and thus must be true.

2 - There are a number of geographical features in the canyon (Cheops Pyramid, Temple of Set, etc) with names based on Egyptian mythology.

3 - the Smithsonian must have destroyed or hidden all the Kincaid-Canyon records to hide and protect the site.

What you will notice when reading these websites is that NONE of the authors are experienced historians or archaeologists. Nor do they reference any of the many published history books on the canyon or mention any of the main archives holding canyon-related materials (such as the Grand Canyon Park Archives and NAU's Special Collections) - basically none of these people have done even the slightest basic background research into the canyon and are just making assumptions and referencing other equally-unauthoritative websites.

Much of their reasoning is based on the completely incorrect assumption that newspapers in 1909 operated under the same standards and processes as newspapers today - something that an experienced historian familiar with those sorts of sources would never assume. In the early 20th century, newspapers were a combination of news, gossip, political advocation and National Enquirer style sensationalism. They often had only a couple of reporters (sometimes the editor and owner was also the only reporter) and without widespread long distance telephone lines or paved automobile roads, it was very difficult to validate stories outside of the paper's town - generally they did not even bother. If somebody road into town with an interesting story, than it was often printed without question - no validation done.

For example, you will notice that in the article the paper appears to have received all of its information from one source. You will notice that they do not mention trying to contact the Smithsonian to verify, they did not try to contact any of the officials or businesses at the canyon or contact the much closer Sun newspaper in Flagstaff. They don't even mention considering sending a reporter up to check it out! Can you even imagine a paper today running a story like that without contacting any other sources or sending a reporter to verify it? However, that was par for the course back then.

For example, I have recently be researching the discovery and excavation of fossil beds in southern Arizona in the 1920s and the local papers claimed that the discovery of mammoth bones were actually those of giant humans (they never bothered to check with the geolgists actually doing the excavations - just wrote the story based on some travelers that passed by the dig site). In another famous example from the 1870s, a newspaper reported that an entire small mining town had been complete wiped out in an Apache raid and gave gruesome details of the various deaths and horrors - in fact, the town had never been attacked.

In neither of the above cases, did the paper intentionally write the articles as hoaxes, nor did they ever print a retraction or correction. Somebody either fed them a line or they took partial information from an unreliable source and spun it into something that would attract readers. Again... this was not uncommon for that time period.

As far as the Smithsonian destroying all records of Kincaid and his trip... while it is possible that an institution could destroy its own records, a supposed experienced explorer and scientist like Kinkaid would have left a size-able documentary footprint in the historic record outside of the Smithsonian. There would articles that he published in other journals, school records, reports of other expeditions, published lecutures and presentations to the public - all of which would have created numerous documents and records outside of the Smithsonian's control - yet no record anywhere exists of this Kinkaid.

The arguement that there must be some connection because of the names is just plain silly. We know where the names came from - they were designated by the early geologists who first mapped and scientifically described the canyon (and thus got to name things whatever they wanted and generally ignored the original indian terms). The one who did most of the naming was Dr. Clarence Dutton who notes that because the canyon was such an impressive world feature that he wanted to tie it to all the world's cultures. He named many canyon features not just after Egyptian myths and gods, but after myths and gods from around the whole world (ie: Norse - Wotan's Throne, Buddist - Budda Temple, Zorasterism - Zoraster Temple, etc). Think about it - even if Egyptians had come and named features, those names (spelled and pronounced in English none the less!) would not have survived once all the Egyptians left).

Lastly, aside from the article, ruins would not make sense from an archaeological perspective. It is true that a small group may briefly travel through an area without leaving much of an archaeological trace. But the ruin described in the article is a huge city that would have required the work of hundreds (maybe thousands) for years. Such large scale activity would have left a huge and lasting imprint on the surrounding country beyond just the cave/city itself. There would have been well-worn trails going up to the rim, surrounding fields (and associated features) to supply the food and evidence of advanced materials and artistic styles being shared and traded with surrounding cultures. Such a city would not have existed in a glass bubble, but would have created a detectable impact for many miles in all directions. Yet despite all the prospectors, geologists and river runners that have explored the canyon over the years, none have found even the slighted path, artifact or rock etching to support the story.

So what is the real story behind the articles?

- It may have been some joker pulling a fast one on the paper to see if they would print it

- There were a number of early canyon residents who loved to spin tall tales for the tourists. Most famous was Capt John Hance who once told a story about the canyon being so filled with clouds that he walked on them from one rim to the other. Perhaps a gullible tourist heard one of his yarns than passed it on in all seriousness to the paper when arriving Phoenix.

- Perhaps a prospector working along the river upstream or downstream of the canyon came across some old prehistoric indian ruins (Anasazi) and then exhaggerated story to get some attention and a few free drinks.

All of the above are far more likely that a giant underground city. Whatever the case, if everything that was printed in early 20th century newspapers is true, than giant egyptian ruins in the Grand Canyon is actually one of the LESS amazing stories. :)

Dont believe what I write. There is an underground civilization of beings who evolved from dinosaurs that can take human shape and has power abilities to control our minds. They live underground all over the world and probably influenced, if not led, the Egyptians and all ancient (?) cultures. Can you find other stories about treasures buried in the American West. I bet you can.

It's bulls**t.