The Enduring Mystery of Ancient Egyptians and the Grand Canyon
A little over one hundred years ago, a scintillating story was published in an Arizona newspaper, The Arizona Gazette, which claimed that an extraordinary discovery had taken place in the Grand Canyon. (If you haven’t already, you can read the article here: Grand Canyon. In order for you to understand what I’m doing in this article, it is imperative that you read or follow along with the original articles.) Artifacts dating back thousands of years had been found inside a cave carved into the upper reaches of the Grand Canyon. Stunningly these artifacts were suggestive of Old World contacts and, if confirmed, would re-write much of what we think we know about both the history of the Americas and the history of Egypt. But was the story true? What ever happened to this story? And, better still, how can we know?
In 1909, the year after the Tunguska Incident, Arizona’s second largest newspaper published a front page, full-spread article about explorations in the Grand Canyon. These explorations had turned up what were referred to as “Orient”-style artifacts which resembled Egyptian and Mongolian forms. The site had been located by a man called G.E. Kincaid (or Kinkaid, I will alternate spelling throughout because we do not know which is correct). Kincaid had purportedly been traveling down a series of river systems and stopping to photograph nature along the way. He claimed to have been on the lookout for “mineral” (a well-known euphemism at the time for gold).
Coincidentally, President Roosevelt had made the extraction of gold from the Grand Canyon illegal. During Kinkaid’s travels, you noticed stains high up in the Canyon and decided to inspect further. He clambered up the Canyon and eventually discovered the entrance to a cavern that turned out to be, per his testimony provided to the paper, a massive underground “citadel”. Kinkaid made a brief preliminary incursion and discovered a number of ancient relics and sent a few samples back to his seemingly peripatetic employer (or contractor) the Smithsonian “Institute”.
Upon receiving his missive and the items, the Smithsonian dispatched a more senior archeologist called S.A. Jordan (or Jordon — I’ll explain later) to lead an expansive investigation. Jordan apparently arrived rapidly but with only small team. Rather quickly, Kincaid was ready to reveal some of this information to the press.
The tale related was extraordinary but was delivered in the most matter-of-fact way. The article, at least upon one way of reading it, was meant to announce initial discoveries and impressions and to assure everyone that appropriate follow-up would take place.
But was that the intent? Others upon reading it, even at the time of publication, said the article had to be the product of the “Prince of all Liars” Joe Mulhatton (1848–1913). It seems ole Joe was notorious by the late 1800s for spinning wild yarns and passing them off in newspapers as if they were true. However, there are numerous problems with this theory as I will detail later.
There was never any follow-up to the two original Gazette stories. This despite the fact that Joe Mulhatton sometimes took credit for his stories. Yet the amazing nature of the story would seem to demand follow-up. The story was re-published in two other newspapers without additional information or commentary (including the Jerome Mining News). However, eleven days later, The Coconino Sun out of Flagstaff ran a single paragraph 111 word response that only claimed the story seemed “like a Mulhatton story”. Identical versions of this same piece then ran on April 25 in the Daily Arizona Silver Belt and then on April 28 in the Bisbee Daily Review. None of the three had any attribution or byline. They were little more than space-fillers and one even spelled Mulhatton differently.
Just like that the story died. For decades. Was it buried? Was it a hoax? Was it a Mulhatton? Was there a cover-up?
Considering these articles were written 111 and 112 years ago respectively (as of this writing in 2020), trying to put together how it came about and what went on afterward, has been difficult. Many answers have emerged on individual aspects, but new questions and puzzles have come about as well. On the one hand, skeptics and debunkers want to claim that if any such cave exists, someone would have found it since. However, caving/spelunking is illegal in the Grand Canyon and has been for a long time. Moreover, if the entrance has been gated, as have dozens of caves in the Grand Canyon, no one could get in far enough to know short of somehow illegally breaking into the caves. Even today, only a few caves can be accessed with special research permission.
The Theories
First, I will cover the negative approaches. The debunker or skeptic positions often claim:
- It was an April Fools’ Day joke or a hoax
- Names are spelled differently
- It was “yellow journalism”
- It was meant to increase circulation
- It was a Joseph Mulhatton story
- It was a Latter Day Saint’s/Mormon attempt to “prove” their religion correct
- The lack of a byline means it was not true
- Smithsonian “Institute” vs “Institution”
- The idea that, “I would know about it.”
Taken together, the negative claims are just that — claims. They are assertions without proof. Many are bereft of any support or evidence at all. They amount to little more than attempts to dismiss without thought or investigation. I decided to look into each and to hone to the evidence, the time period concerned, social expectations at the time, the way newspaper articles were written at the time, and what was or was not common for the Gazette itself.
It is just here that I found the flaws with the debunker approach. They refuse to ask basic, serious questions, they refuse to engage in research (sadly this often goes across the board on other alternative topics as well). They operate off of their opinions, their assumptions, and their knee-jerk reactions. “This can’t be true, I would’ve heard about it” is a terrible place to start. It is best to dust off those assumptions, take the articles for what they are, and interrogate the claims made in it. What can be confirmed? What can be double-checked? Which factual claims are most critical because clearly not all are of equal value or criticality.
In order to address the common objections, one should begin with the most common claim. Was it simply an April Fool’s Day joke? The first problem with this objection is that a serious and, in every way, normal short notice article was published fully 24 days prior. This is not at all typical of April Fool’s pranks. More than this, the Gazette had no history of running absurdist hoaxes on April Fool’s. The more one looks into that notion the more problems emerge.
For instance, the article was published on April 5. That’s a significant problem. Moreover, April 5, 1909 fell on a Monday. If it were an April Fool’s joke, it just as well could have ran on the previous Thursday which was actually April 1 or even on Friday the 2nd. Even then stories tended to get spread over a weekend. But also even then, major stories were expected to grow if released on a Monday. So were it a joke, why put that out on a Monday as a front page article knowing there would be no follow-up and no further explanation?
Another objection has been that G.E. Kinkaid’s name changed spelling from the initial notice to the full spread article. This was not at all uncommon at the time. Papers both then and today can be found to be riddled with errors, typos, spelling, and grammar mistakes.
Was the article an example of just plain old “yellow journalism”? First of all, yellow journalism was most common between the 1880s and the early 1900s. It had tapered off a bit by 1908 and 1909. Also, the Gazette didn’t have much of a negative track record for producing sensationalistic stories. There had been a silly story here and there but none had been full spread articles with such implications.
Was this article a crass attempt to increase newspaper sales and circulation? I’ve found no evidence to support this complaint. An extraordinary, but one-off article couldn’t be expected to have such an effect. In order to do that, there would seemingly need to be a plan for a series of such articles. Either a series on the main topic or on other sensationalistic topics. This did not happen. The Gazette continued on just as it always had.
Another common assertion is that this must have been just another Joseph Mulhatton story? What is a Joseph Mulhatton story? Who was Joseph Mulhatton? Mulhatton (and there are a slew of alternative spellings that can be found across numerous newspapers, magazine articles, and books) was infamous by the late 1890s for making ludicrous claims of discoveries. He was pilloried as a liar, the world’s greatest liar, the American Baron Munchausen, and so on. And he found this hilarious. Mulhatton spread preposterous stories for decades but by 1908 and 1909, he had succumbed to severe alcoholism, had been in multiple mental and inebriate institutions, and had not perpetrated his frauds for many years. I’ve found no evidence that supports the Mulhatton theory. Although a clever imitation cannot be ruled out.
Yet another claim is that this article came from over-zealous members of the Church of Latter Day Saints (or Mormons) who were attempting to bolster belief in their religion by supposed historical or archeological evidence. As it stands, this is little more than an assertion or declaration without any supporting evidence. Presumably a discovery in the Americas of peoples from the orient in a Precolumbian context would potentially be a kind of support for such beliefs. However, LDS views make specific claims about times and peoples which would be particularly relevant vis-a-vis Egyptians or Asian Buddhists in the Grand Canyon.
Finally, I come to two very common complaints. One being that there is no byline and the other that the Smithsonian is referred to as an “Institute” rather than it’s actual name of “Institution”. I’ll take the second first because it is simple. By performing a basic historical records search, I found dozens of examples of the Smithsonian being referred to as “Institute”. So that claim amounts to nothing. Now in terms of bylines, the history on this is rather straightforward. In 1908 and 1909, there was no general expectation of attribution for newspaper articles at all. Authorial identification did not emerge as a commonality in newspapers for many years after. In fact, the first AP stories with a byline did not take place until 1925. The word byline itself was not even coined until 1926. Perhaps more surprisingly, bylines had in the past been used in yellow journalism in order to promote the individual journalist or writers of sensational pieces. This, too, mitigates against the other complaints that the article was an example of yellow journalism. Indeed the so-called newspaper of record, the New York Times (infinitely better in those days by comparison to today), resisted the use of bylines for many decades. Bylines did not become almost ubiquitous until the 1970s. Thus, I must conclude here that neither of these common complaints are relevant and are strongly mitigated against because they are contemporary expectations being projected back onto the past (a historical fallacy sometimes referred to as presentism).
What about those who accept the story at face value? David Hatcher Childress is often used as an example of this approach, however the reality is not so simple. Childress is a self-made expert on archaeological anomalies, seems to accept the story simply stating, “There it is in black and white.” Childress is not just some naive oaf. In fact, he points out in his lectures and books that his initial impression about the story was one of incredulity. It couldn’t possibly be true he thought. However, once he found the original article, he was impressed and researched the matter further by looking into similar stories about the southwest. This led to the publication of is book Lost Cities and Ancient Mysteries of the American Southwest (2009). This book, however, only provides circumstantial support that the Gazette story could potentially have some merit.
Others who accept the Gazette story to be true, assert a massive conspiracy involving professionals across academia and reaching to the highest levels of government as well. The story here seems to be that the Smithsonian itself has been commandeered by conspirators (or was originally founded by conspirators) who set upon a series of cover-ups for all kinds of reasons: graft and greed, protection of pet historical and archeological theories, careerism, and even reasons that extend into metaphysical motives relating to what is or is not possible given the current understanding of nature, physics, and reality. This is because some who see this as one component of a cover-up may also believe in ESP, remote-viewing, the power of (usually) quartz crystals, and so on. Some are religious and hold that as a motive for belief and others are resolutely secular but believe the past may have been filled with technologically advanced civilizations now lost to history.
These views are not simply artifacts of aberrant minds. Numerous real cover-ups have taken place and eventually have been either admitted or exposed: the construction of the secret city of Oak Ridge was possibly the biggest known secret project of all time and was comprised of tens of thousands of people and eventually leading to the development of the nuclear bomb, a number of secret medical experiments on unsuspecting persons has ranged from syphilis to plutonium injections in men, women, and children, and the infamous MK-ULTRA program ran by the CIA and revealed in the 1970s by CIA Director William Colby who felt his conscience demand that he make the public aware of that and other nefarious government programs that had been in operation under his watch. Those are just the tip of an iceberg of secrecy and official cover-ups that are known today. Thus, it should not come as a shock that many people do not trust official pronouncements. This brings me to the Smithsonian’s official pronouncement on the Kincaid article: no Egyptian artifacts have ever been discovered in the Americas. Which is question begging. If they indeed did conduct or pay for an investigation that they later endeavored to conceal, no one could reasonably expect an employee there to either admit to it or for anyone other than a select few would even know today. In fact, my personal expectation would be that almost no one working there today would have a clue about a secret project in 1908–1909.
However, just because a cover-up could be possible, that doesn’t prove the events took place. In the same way, just because the story could be a Mulhatton-type story, that doesn’t prove it was. Mulhatton supposedly died by drowning while attempting to cross a river. Indeed, even Mulhatton afficianados do not categorize the 1908 and 1909 stories as his.
Now, I will progress through several factual claims made in the article. What can be checked and what can not? Click one of the links above to follow along with the article if you have not done so already.
The initial short announcement article noted that G.E. Kincaide had traversed the rivers from Green River, Wyoming to the Colorado, the Grand Canyon, and on to Yuma. The time span given for this is October 1908 to March 1909, which comes out to about 160 days or a little over 5 months. This is some 39 years after the famous Powell Geography Expedition of 1869 which took 3 months to make it to Nevada from the Green River. So, on the surface, this seems reasonably possible.
Next, the short article pointed out that Kinkaid had taken some 700 photographs. How could this have been possible one wonders? It turns out that Eastman Kodak had produced a camera known as the Brownie that made this possible. In fact, millions of these cameras were sold in the early 1900s. There was a major marketing push in 1905 that encouraged exactly the kind of photography that Kincaid was said to have performed.
Almost four weeks later the major front page full spread article appeared. The headlines in bold, first mention an individual other than Kincaid. “Jordan is Enthused” we are told. I do not assume the reader was meant to know either “Jordan” or “Kinkaid” (the spelling had changed from the first article to the second). It was typical at the time to headline explorers, professors, and so forth and then to provide more info about them in the body of the article.
The next group of bold headlines explain that the Grand Canyon discoveries suggest an ancient migration of peoples from the “Orient”. In 1909, the Orient could refer to anything from Egypt to Syria to Russia or even the Far East. In Roman times, the Orient was anything to the south and east of Rome itself. I point this out because at least one recent debunker of the article has asserted that ancient Egyptians are not considered to be from the Orient. That, however, is seriously mistaken. Indeed throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries there were many who believed in a notion termed “ex oriente lux” (out of the east, light or light from the east). Those who advocated this approach were often fascinated with Eastern ideals, beliefs, religions, languages, and so forth. Scholars and poets who promoted this position were typically enamored with ancient Babylon or ancient Egypt or ancient Buddhist societies and beliefs. An esoteric version of this seemed to peak in late 1870s as Madame H.P. Blavatsky (1831–1891) promoted an occult version of history that inspired many Westerners to seek Eastern “wisdom”.
More broadly, Western society (both the elites and regular folks) experienced periods of what has been called “Egyptomania” or “Babylonomania” which influenced art, architecture, and other fields. These phases of so-called “mania” had generally followed major archeological finds or breakthroughs such as Champollion’s decipherment of the Rosetta Stone or discoveries of ancient tombs of pharaohs and the like. Another notable aspect was that in 1903, as an example, some newspapers were running articles about a W.M. Kincaid who was regaling the masses about the wonders of Egypt, such as the city of Cairo, as one of the most interesting cities of the East.
The opening lines reveal a number of surprises. The article says explorations in the cave of the Grand Canyon are regarded by scientists to be the then oldest finds in the U.S. and to be of tremendous value (presumably both academic and monetary). But who are the scientists being referred to? Kinkaid and Jordan, other members of their team or other Smithsonian scholars? It isn’t at all clear. But, again, this was typical of the style of newspaper writing at the time. Also, here Kinkaid is referred to as an explorer.
In the next paragraph, we are told that the expeditions (yes, plural) are being financed by the Smithsonian and that artifacts had been found dating back to Rameses (the article does not specify I or II, but possibly meaning 3,200 years ago). The cave also contained tablets engraved with what may have been hieroglyphics. The paragraph ends with a bit of flair from the unknown author.
The next section informs us that a professor by the name of S.A. Jordan was directing the investigations. It is unclear who this professor was. Numerous newspaper searches turn up nothing. However, it is possible that his name was also misspelled. Some have claimed that there was a European archaeologist named S.A. Jordon active at the time, but that connection is obscure. I have found a newspaper report from September 22, 1908 in the Lewiston Evening Teller out of Idaho that relates a small report about something called “The Stites Excursion Project” that had among it a “J.E. Kincaid” and “W.J. Jordan”. I do not know if there is a connection, but it could be a path for further research.
More specificity comes in the next paragraph wherein we are told of copper war weapons that are extremely hard. These discoveries were considered so stunning that the size of the expedition was to be increased to 30 or 40 people. This tells us that the original investigative group was possibly composed of 10 to 20 people. But who were they? Did this extensive follow-up research ever take place?
The following section gives, what to our modern eyes, is a bizarre comment about Mr. Kinkaid being “the first white child born in Idaho”. Such claims were actually very common throughout the 1700s and 1800s and continued to be printed and commented upon in newspapers in the early 1900s. More importantly, was the claim true? It is unclear. Although many who have commented on this article give a flat “no” as they point to Eliza Spalding as the first white child born in Idaho, but that does not include Idaho as a territory. Idaho became a state in 1890, but it was a territory from 1863–1890 and record-keeping was not perfect during this period. Additionally, this could have been something Kincaid had been raised to believe. Perhaps a familial myth.
Further we find out Kincaid had been a hunter and explorer all his life and that he worked for the Smithsonian for some 30 years. Assuming Kincaid first took employ with the Smithsonian as young as possible (say 16 or 17) this would make him a minimum of 46 or 47 years old. The Smithsonian was founded in 1846, thus it was possible. Also counting from 1863 for the territorial designation of Idaho, by 1909 that too comes out to 46 years. At minimum, that makes for an interesting congruence or internal consistency. One that I think a once or twice declared “insane” and known alcoholic Joe Mulhatton would not likely have considered. One final odd side note here is that this short newspaper section says of Kincaid that his personal history “sounds fabulous, almost grotesque” and etymologically the word ‘grotesque’ is derived from the Italian grottesco which means “of a cave”.
From here we are treated to direct quotes from Kincaid himself. He uses these comments to ward off thrill-seekers and those hoping to make a quick buck off of precious archaeological finds. He says it is both dangerous and illegal. He quickly recaps his trip and initial discovery and points out he had been searching for mineral which we presume to be gold. Finally, he makes mention of something he calls “El Tovar Crystal Canyon” which is a puzzling mystery in and of itself.
Continuing to the next paragraph, Kincaid describes a bit about what he did when he found the cave. He entered the main passage and walked in for several hundred feet until he entered a crypt that contained mummies. He used his flashlight and camera to take photographs of one of the mummies. He then gathered up a few relics which he carried down river to Yuma and then shipped them to Washington, D.C. (presumably to the Smithsonian). He also communicated to them details of his discovery, which spurred the explorations. This raises a series of basic questions. What method(s) did Kincaid use to ship the materials and send the message? The first postal service in Phoenix did not open until 1903 following an older rural route and there was no Yuma post office until 1933. In fact, Yuma was not even incorporated by official state charter until 1914. So, did Kincaid procure the services of a private courier? I would guess that would be likely. Yuma, however, did have a Western Union telegraph station so that method of communication was available.
After this, Kincaid provided a series of specific descriptions of the interior of the of the caverns and then the description of a monument or statue of a god that “almost resembles Buddha”. Throughout this portion, Kinkaid is unsure how or to whom to attribute the statue. He said that it possibly resembles the style of worship found in ancient Tibet. But how ancient? We do not know. 3,200 years ago? More? Less?
Kincaid goes on to describe copper tools found in the room. Also in the room he says were charcoal, matte, and slag. Together these suggest smelting took place and likely the creation of very hard copper alloys. Through pyrometallurgy, the occupants may have used copper, nickel, and other base metals to be purified and combined with other molten metals to increase the hardness. Although Kincaid says he doesn’t know the origins of the metal ores, we know copper extraction in the Americas goes back some 8,000 to 10,000 years and smelting some 4,000 years.
In the next portion, he describes granaries that were discovered. It is notable that the cliff dwellers (Anasazi) also had granaries in caves. He mentions an unknown greyish metal found in the cave that was then unidentified but resembled platinum. Also yellow stones spread around the room that he called “cat’s eyes” which were engraved with what he referred to as “Malay type” heads. According to the Cyclopedia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia (edited by Edward Balfour), cat’s eyes are stones mainly found in Ceylon and that usually display a yellow hue tinged with green. At this point, the odds of old Joe Mulhattan knowing all these things is increasingly bordering impossible.
A short paragraph on hieroglyphs comes next. We are told they are untranslated inscriptions and found on urns, above passageways, and on tablets. Kincaid says they resemble certain pictographs discovered in southern Arizona. This may refer to petroglyphs. Some experts today believe they have found ancient Chinese pictograms among these petroglyphs.
Kincaid quickly moves on to mummies found in the crypt that are wrapped in a “bark fabric”. This most likely referred to bark cloth, which was a treasure in Asia, Africa, and many lands throughout the Pacific. The mummies were also reported to be covered in clay, a technique known in the Americas (among the South American Chinchorro culture) to date back over 7,000 years ago. However, the Chinchorro mummies were not discovered until 1917. So here we have an element that could not even in principle have been know by the unknown author of the articles, which deepens the mystery.
The final paragraph in this section discusses a dangerous unventilated passage. This passage smelled “snaky” and gave other members of the team the impression that the smell was produced by chemicals or gasses. They could perhaps have been the product of sulphide minerals such as the highly toxic nitrobenzene (or oil of mirbane) which produces a musky odor.
The concluding section relates a Hopi tradition about their origins in an underground world. This legend had been learned by W.E Rollins (1861–1962) who was a moderately famous artist at the time.
Then the article ends by mentioning a couple of theories regarding the origins of the ancient Egyptians. It points out that some thought they had come from Ethiopia and Sudan. It also refers to the scholar A.H.L. Heeren (1760–1842), a German historian, which the article refers to as an Egyptologist. Heeren wrote a number of historical works including multi-volume sets. Heeren’s works included Historical Researches into the Politics, Intercourse, and the Trade of the Carthagenians, Ethiopians, and Egyptians (1832) and A Manual of Ancient History (1834). These were generally large leather-bound or expensive hardback volumes, especially Heeren’s more dense series on the Egyptians. It is puzzling how the author of the article would have known of Heeren or his works since they were about 70 years old by 1909. Why would a newspaper journalist in Arizona know about these books? This, along with numerous other complicated aspects of history, metallurgy, and chemistry was not something that was common knowledge at the time for just any old Arizona newspaper journalist.
Conclusion
As much as I found out researching this article, I believe I have opened even more questions. I hope that this can serve as a roadmap for further investigation. For those who wish to proclaim this as case-closed as either a so-called “obvious” April Fool’s hoax or as proof of a widespread cover-up, the verdict is still out. That being said, huge open questions remain. First and foremost: who were Kinkaid and Jordan exactly? If they were accomplished scholars, what happened to their academic or scholarly publications? I haven’t found any. And I searched numerous databases for them. There is no way for any such publications to have been meticulously tracked down and erased from history some covert agency. Traces of their works would exist. This leads to a bigger question: what exactly were their names? Even if the initials are right, and there’s no guarantee they are, how can we uncover their full names? What happened to them if they actually existed? The research? The pictures? The relics?
Regarding the unusual place names found in the Grand Canyon which many appeal to as support for or proof of an Egyptian presence in the Grand Canyon long ago, much has been made in the circles that accept the story as true. They often point out that many Egyptian and other exotic place names (Tower of Set, Horus, Osiris, etc.) are found in the Grand Canyon. However, the history on this is quite clear — most of these places were named by Clarence Dutton (1841–1912). Dutton was an Army officer and geologist and was a colleague of John Wesley Powell (1834–1902) who navigated much of the Grand Canyon. Dutton was sometimes given to bold rhetorical flourishes and he rather liked to name locations after gods, goddesses, and mythological concepts. However, feeding the suspicions of the more cover-up minded — Dutton was also, according to some, a very high level Freemason and a graduate of Yale (although I have found no evidence that he was a member of Skull and Bones and his connections, if any, to Freemasonry seems speculative at best). Nevertheless, the National Geographic Society had 33 founders (a number with esoteric significance and the number of degrees in the Scottish rite of Freemasonry) and Captain Dutton was one of them. Dutton, like many influential people of his era, was an agnostic and viewed non-Christian religions the way other dilettantish-types do: a panoply of deities that are all basically equal and any appeal they may have is purely subjective. No “right-thinking” scientist of his time gave much credence to religious views.
To add to confusion beyond Captain Dutton himself, the Grand Canyon is still a place of much mystery. For even today the U.S. government’s National Park Service admits that there are around 1,000 known caves in the Grand Canyon, but only 335 have been officially recorded (and even fewer have been mapped and only one is open which is called The Cave of the Domes). President Roosevelt first visited the area in 1903 and in 1906 it was made the Grand Canyon Game Reserve and in 1908 it became a national monument.
According to the 1908 “Report of the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution,” the Grand Canyon and all associated dwellings and burial places were added in 1908 under a 1906 regulation by executive proclamation (the Antiquities Act). In 1919 the Grand Canyon was made a federal holding as a national park.
What I have set out above, I hope can serve as not the final word but rather as a roadmap for further research. Moreover, I hope that it can serve as a bit of a warning to those who just want to make instantaneous snap judgements like “hoax!” or “cover-up!”. There’s much more work that can be done on this topic and it could serve as a good subject for a thesis, a book, or possibly even a doctoral research project. (If anyone decides to take this up, please contact me.)
Sources Cited:
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/nov2/gazette.htm https://www.eyeofthepsychic.com/egyptiancanyon/ http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/nov2/gcegypt.htm http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/nov2/gcegypt.htm https://www.gaia.com/article/grand-canyon-mysteries-pyramids-and-ancient-civilizations https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/egipto/grandcanyon/ArizonaGazette5April1909.htm https://universallighthous.wixsite.com/loveandlight/post/the-strange-cover-up-in-1909-at-the-grand-canyon https://whiskeytangotexas.com/2019/10/20/the-pyramids-of-the-grand-canyon-its-off-limit-areas-egyptian-relics/
https://www.doi.gov/blog/13-things-you-didnt-know-about-grand-canyon-national-park
