Egyptians in America‽

[Turtle]

So I posted this as a 'Quirky History Fact', but I think it needs further exploration. Is this story true? If not, what's the real story? If so, where is the network of caves exactly, and where are the artifacts from it now?

 

Given we have evidence the Egyptians traded in the Americas by virtue of cocaine & tobacco in their mummies (http://hypography.com/forums/history-forum/12770-tobacco-cocaine-egyptian-mummies.html), is it possible they lived here as well?

 

Anybody here hear of this before? :doh: ........:)

 

Phoenix Gazette Grand Canyon article text, April 5, 1909

According to the story related to the Gazette by Mr. Kinkaid, the archeologists of the Smithsonian Institute [1], which is financing the expeditions, have made discoveries which almost conclusively prove that the race which inhabited this mysterious cavern, hewn in solid rock by human hands, was of oriental origin, possibly from Egypt, tracing back to Ramses. If their theories are borne out by the translation of the tablets engraved with hieroglyphics, the mystery of the prehistoric peoples of North America, their ancient arts, who they were and whence they came, will be solved. Egypt and the Nile, and Arizona and the Colorado will be linked by a historical chain running back to ages which staggers the wildest fancy of the fictionist.

...

"First, I would impress that the cavern is nearly inaccessible. The entrance is 1,486 feet down the sheer canyon wall. It is located on government land and no visitor will be allowed there under penalty of trespass. The scientists wish to work unmolested, without fear of archeological discoveries being disturbed by curio or relic hunters.

 

A trip there would be fruitless, and the visitor would be sent on his way. The story of how I found the cavern has been related, but in a paragraph: I was journeying down the Colorado river in a boat, alone, looking for mineral. Some forty-two miles up the river from the El Tovar Crystal canyon, I saw on the east wall, stains in the sedimentary formation about 2,000 feet above the river bed. There was no trail to this point, but I finally reached it with great difficulty.

 

PS Would a kind Editor fix my misspelling of Egyptians in the title? :)

[Boerseun]

Interesting! I suppose if cocaine and tobacco in mummies is evidence of trade between the Americas and Egypt, then it follows that there should be some evidence in the Americas of such visits? Maybe a "trade station" of some sorts?

 

History rocks!

[modest]

If so, where is the network of caves exactly, and where are the artifacts from it now?

 

There's a good question. My first instinct would be either: the entire story is made up; or, some pre-Columbian native ruins have been blown out of proportion.

 

Making me think it's made up:

1. There is no author attributed to the article. If the author believed he was reporting the find of the century his/her name would be in bold above, below, and several times throughout.
   
2. This bit sounds suspicious to me:

   First, I would impress that the cavern is nearly inaccessible. The entrance is 1,486 feet down the sheer canyon wall. It is located on government land and no visitor will be allowed there under penalty of trespass. The scientists wish to work unmolested, without fear of archeological discoveries being disturbed by curio or relic hunters.

3. Way too perfect. No real archeological find has ever been so complete. They found heiroglyphs, pottery, copper tools, materials for making copper tools, gold vases, statues, mummies, ect.
   
4. The mummies were all male? It also says they were all wrapped. Did they do x-rays or DNA tests?
   

 

Making me think it's a real find that's exaggerated:

1. Weren't native Americans all about carving pueblos into rock faces? That's all I got for this list :eek2:
   

 

I just found a website discussing the article in length (a lot of length):

Canyonitis: Seeing evidence of ancient Egypt in the Grand Canyon

 

According to it, the Smithsonian has no record of the find or the scientists quoted in the paper:

 

"But the story gets weirder when the Smithsonian stated that it had no Kinkaid or Jordan on record. In one enquiry from 2000, the institution replied: “The Smithsonian Institution has received many questions about an article in the April 5, 1909 Phoenix Gazette about G. E. Kincaid and his discovery of a 'great underground citadel' in the Grand Canyon, hewn by an ancient race 'of oriental origin, possibly from Egypt.' […] The Smithsonian's Department of Anthropology, has searched its files without finding any mention of a Professor Jordan, Kincaid, or a lost Egyptian civilization in Arizona. Nevertheless, the story continues to be repeated in books and articles.”

 

Yeah, looks like it's entirely made up. I wonder why.

 

-modest

[Turtle]

There's a good question. My first instinct would be either: the entire story is made up; or, some pre-Columbian native ruins have been blown out of proportion.

 

Making me think it's made up:

[*]There is no author attributed to the article. If the author believed he was reporting the find of the century his/her name would be in bold above, below, and several times throughout.

 

Possibly; but the article is from 1909 when standards were quite different for newspaper layouts than today.

 

 

*Way too perfect. No real archeological find has ever been so complete. They found heiroglyphs, pottery, copper tools, materials for making copper tools, gold vases, statues, mummies, ect.

 

Mmmmm...Tutankamen comes to mind.

*The mummies were all male? It also says they were all wrapped. Did they do x-rays or DNA tests?

Again, this was 1909 and given x-rays weren't discovered until 1895, it seems unlikely the technology was available.

 

 

Weren't native Americans all about carving pueblos into rock faces? That's all I got for this list :(

 

Some yes, some not so much. But then this is reported as not Native American construction and artifacts.

 

I just found a website discussing the article in length (a lot of length):

Canyonitis: Seeing evidence of ancient Egypt in the Grand Canyon

 

According to it, the Smithsonian has no record of the find or the scientists quoted in the paper:

 

Of course they wouldn't lie. :hihi:

 

Yeah, looks like it's entirely made up. I wonder why.

 

-modest

 

Certainly an option, but that declaration seems a bit mature. Let's milk this cow a bit more shall we? .............:eek2:

[modest]

The mummies were all male? It also says they were all wrapped. Did they do x-rays or DNA tests?

Again, this was 1909 and given x-rays weren't discovered until 1895, it seems unlikely the technology was available.

 

Turtle, that was my point. It seems very unlikely that the early investigation would indicate all the mummies were male. Especially considering we often have to rely on x-rays and DNA test today. That seemed very suspicious to me.

 

So we're clear: Either the Smithsonian is covering something up, or the paper is a hoax? I can't think of another plausible explanation. Well, I've assumed the website I've linked isn't misquoting the Smithsonian. But, given that - can we say that one party is lying?

 

-modest

[Boerseun]

Deducing the sex of a mummy can be made by analyzing the hips and shoulders.

 

If the mummys are in good nick, you can simply tell the sex by looking at the crotch.

If the mummys are in bad shape, then decomposition would have stretched a leathery skin very tight around the hipbones, where very fine measurements of the skeleton can be made without cutting through the mummy.

 

Either ways, you don't need X-rays nor DNA tests to determine the sex.

 

Right - off the sidetrack, on with the thread:

[modest]

Boerseun is spot on. My point was not well-founded. I've just peeked around google and it looks like DNA and x-rays are used to determine sex only when necessary and are by far not the only method used. I digress.

 

I'm also thinking,

 

There are of course cases where archaeological finds are covered up so that they may be looted. Happens in Egypt all the time. I wonder...

 

-modest

[Turtle]

Boerseun is spot on. My point was not well-founded. I've just peeked around google and it looks like DNA and x-rays are used to determine sex only when necessary and are by far not the only method used. I digress.

 

I'm also thinking,

 

There are of course cases where archaeological finds are covered up so that they may be looted. Happens in Egypt all the time. I wonder...

 

-modest

 

The theft aspect did cross my mind, but there is no mention of gold in the 1909 article. I find it a bit unbelievable the Egyptians wouldn't have it if they were here, and more so that 'Kinkaid' wouldn't mention it.

 

Another curious bit is that in 1909 the Smithsonian was poppin with change. Charles Walcott had just taken over as Secretary, Walcott had made his discovery of the Burgess shale in British Columbia in 1909, and the Smithsonian's new museum building was complete enough to start moving in collections. All good enough reasons for someone to hype a 'new discovery' in an effort to get on the gravy train. :shrug:

 

So, as Boerseun says, on with the thread! :cup: How about Egyptians (Phoenicians) mining copper in Michigan? ...:)

 

Michigan's mysterious Indian mounds

...Dr Henriette Mertz, in her book, "The Mystic Symbol," (1986) speculates that the ancient Phoenician mariners traveled to Upper Michigan to mine the extremely pure and abundant copper lodes to satisfy the demands of the ancient Egyptians and Greeks. The mines of Sinai, she says had been played out by that time, and those of Crete were too meager. Records spoke of an alien red-skinned people linked with the import of copper and that it took three years for the ocean vessles to return with their copper. Mertz cites tablets found in Michigan with hieroglyphic and cuneiform writing, often dismissed as forgeries, as evidence of later contact with the Mediterranean. ...

[modest]

The theft aspect did cross my mind, but there is no mention of gold in the 1909 article. I find it a bit unbelievable the Egyptians wouldn't have it if they were here, and more so that 'Kinkaid' wouldn't mention it.

 

Among the other finds are vases or urns and cups of copper and gold, made very artistic in design.

 

Another curious bit is that in 1909 the Smithsonian was poppin with change. Charles Walcott had just taken over as Secretary, Walcott had made his discovery of the Burgess shale in British Columbia in 1909, and the Smithsonian's new museum building was complete enough to start moving in collections. All good enough reasons for someone to hype a 'new discovery' in an effort to get on the gravy train. :)

 

I suppose poppin with change would be a good description. A new secretary isn't much to gawk at. A new building is about medium on the Bob Dylan things are a-changin' scale. But, put them together and I suppose you've got some pretty big changes.

 

But, does this help an argument toward a Smithsonian devised hoax? I don't think so. The board of regents, inspector general, as well as lower level secretaries, directors, and officers were presumably unchanged. A hoax that goes all the way up to secretary Walcott seems incredibly unlikely.

 

At best we could perhaps say records of any find or anyone involved with the find were lost in the move. But this again seems very unlikely. If there were artifacts of any significance - it would be hard to loose all of them.

 

How about Egyptians (Phoenicians) mining copper in Michigan? ...:cup:

 

If they were smart enough to get over here - they were smart enough to find sources of copper closer to home.

 

One way to disprove the actual validity of the article's claim would be through population genetics where The Genographic Project would show a prehistoric influx of Middle-Eastern people. It's probably a safe bet that they would have 'mixed' with the locals.

 

It really seems to me that the article is a hoax and that it must have been confined to Arizona. If the names of the archaeologists were real that could maybe indicate a wider hoax/conspiracy.

 

-modest

[Turtle]

I suppose poppin with change would be a good description. A new secretary isn't much to gawk at. A new building is about medium on the Bob Dylan things are a-changin' scale. But, put them together and I suppose you've got some pretty big changes.

 

:shrug: What was to gawk at though was the find of fossils in the Burgess shales. >> The Burgess Shale Geoscience Foundation - "the world's most significant fossil find" - Field, British Columbia, Canada

 

But, does this help an argument toward a Smithsonian devised hoax? I don't think so. The board of regents, inspector general, as well as lower level secretaries, directors, and officers were presumably unchanged. A hoax that goes all the way up to secretary Walcott seems incredibly unlikely.

 

I meant to suggest that Kinkaid hoaxed it, not the Smithsonian.

 

If they were smart enough to get over here - they were smart enough to find sources of copper closer to home.

 

I will look for more on this, but I have read that the Egyptians et al had exhausted their own copper mines, and also that the mines they did have could not have produced all the copper they left behind. Not that Zahi Hawass would let us, but I think modern metallurical analysis would tell us if a particular artifact found in Egypt was made of copper from Michigan.

 

One way to disprove the actual validity of the article's claim would be through population genetics where The Genographic Project would show a prehistoric influx of Middle-Eastern people. It's probably a safe bet that they would have 'mixed' with the locals.

 

I saw the Hopi mentioned somewhere; shall we start with them?

 

It really seems to me that the article is a hoax and that it must have been confined to Arizona. If the names of the archaeologists were real that could maybe indicate a wider hoax/conspiracy.

 

-modest

 

On page 162 of this link, a fella named Childress says he found documents verifying Jordon as a Smithsonian associate. :) >>The Land of Osiris - Google Book Search

 

Finally, I was wrong about no gold found; the 1909 newpaper article mentions gold cups. ......:cup:

[modest]

I saw the Hopi mentioned somewhere; shall we start with them?

 

Sure, the Navajo have roots in Arizona also (I believe). I think we should be able to (at the very least) put an upper date on any new arrivals before Columbus. If we could say there was no significant outside interaction after a certain date that might be helpful. From what I remember of reading about the genetics population project there were three?? periods of addition to the gene pool in native Americans. They call them new migrations - but I suppose trade would leave the same genetic imprint.

 

On page 162 of this link, a fella named Childress says he found documents verifying Jordon as a Smithsonian associate. :cup: >>The Land of Osiris - Google Book Search

 

That is a very good find and very interesting to boot. Not only did Mahler say he found a "Jordan" but "S.A. Jordan" listed as a field archaeologist. If what Mahler says is true then that could have a change on the landscape.

 

He also says there were 2 front-page articles. It would be nice to see the other one.

 

-modest

[Cedars]

Just because....

 

How about a play on words here.

 

Smith... Mormons...

 

Maybe your looking for/towards the wrong smithsonians?

[Turtle]

Just because....

 

How about a play on words here.

 

Smith... Mormons...

 

Maybe your looking for/towards the wrong smithsonians?

 

:confused: Maybe. At the very least, all those geneological records the Mormans so assiduously keep may hold some information as to the identity of Kinkaid. :hihi:

 

On to the Egyptian connection with America! Specifically , the copper they got from the Phoenicians. Here's a very tanatalizing bit of script: >> Page 26 (sorry; I can't seem to find a way to copy & paste the text. :shrug:)

The Incredible Bronze Age Journey - Google Book Search

[Cedars]

:confused: Maybe. At the very least, all those geneological records the Mormans so assiduously keep may hold some information as to the identity of Kinkaid. :hihi:

 

On to the Egyptian connection with America! Specifically , the copper they got from the Phoenicians. Here's a very tanatalizing bit of script: >> Page 26 (sorry; I can't seem to find a way to copy & paste the text. :shrug:)

The Incredible Bronze Age Journey - Google Book Search

 

Yes you may be able to find Kinkaid.

 

Additionally it would be very unusual for that time period, for at least some of the booty to be hauled out. Dire warnings about trespass and government land?

 

But heres some references to indian similarities to mid-eastern peoples.

Where Did Joseph Smith Get His Ideas for the Book of Mormon?

 

My reference to mormons and smithsonians was tongue in cheek. Carpetbaggers and tall tales. Traveling side shows and snake oil salesmen.

 

But to carry on with the topic:

 

The Location of the Kincaid's "Cave" Revealed

 

"map" and "El Tovar Crystal canyon" - Google Search

[modest]

Do we have a record of Prof. Jordan's existence? I know Stephen Mahler's book claims to, but it doesn't elaborate. Oh, wait, it does a bit..

 

In the Denver Museum, I was able to locate back copies of the Smithsonian’s annual reports. I did not find the year 1909, but in the 1911 report, the name S.A. Jordan was listed as a field archaeologist for the Smithsonian Institute.

Land of Osiris

 

But who exactly is Stephen Mahler? Is The Land of Osiris the only book he's written? I think it is. His claim about finding info on Jordan doesn't seem verifiable, and it looks like he's the only one that's made that claim.

 

I just searched ancestry.com's 1910 census records for "S* A* Jordan" born 1850-1875 with occupation as geologist, professor, educator, etc. unsuccessfully :confused:

 

-modest

[Turtle]

Do we have a record of Prof. Jordan's existence? I know Stephen Mahler's book claims to, but it doesn't elaborate. Oh, wait, it does a bit..

 

 

Land of Osiris

 

But who exactly is Stephen Mahler? Is The Land of Osiris the only book he's written? I think it is. His claim about finding info on Jordan doesn't seem verifiable, and it looks like he's the only one that's made that claim.

 

I just searched ancestry.com's 1910 census records for "S* A* Jordan" born 1850-1875 with occupation as geologist, professor, educator, etc. unsuccessfully :epizza:

 

-modest

 

Try Jordon; I recall Mahler or some other source mentioning this find, saying they found it spelled with 2 o's, no 'a'. :shrug:

 

What do you make of the Phoenician ingots in Michigan angle? ....:hihi: :confused:

[modest]

Try Jordon; I recall Mahler or some other source mentioning this find, saying they found it spelled with 2 o's, no 'a'. :shrug:

 

Good idea but no luck. Closest was a farmer born in 1873 - sure would help if we had his whole name.

 

What do you make of the Phoenician ingots in Michigan angle? ....:hihi: :confused:

 

I'm a'readin'

 

-modest