In 1909 after Kincaid had found the cave and the Smithsonian allegedly
became involved in delving into the mystery, the appearance of the
discovery as detailed in the Gazette article was one of a major
archaeological find, "not only oldest archaeological discoveries in the
United States, but one of the most valuable in the world". The problem
with this statement is obvious. If this find were as important as the
article claims, then why is the discovery barely even known today?
From
all appearances it looks as if the discovery "died" after emerging from
nowhere as a headline story in the Arizona Gazette back in 1909. This
unique and seemingly solitary "appearance" of the article has led to
criticism of the story as a "hoax" or a "fraud". Quite frankly, based on
that evidence alone, (the apparent death of the story) I can see where
that assessment emerges from in the critic's mind. Criticism has also
been leveled at Kincaid himself. If Kincaid had run the entire course
of the Colorado through the Grand Canyon from well beyond it's borders,
starting from Green River Wyoming to Yuma Arizona, as suggested in the
1909 article, then where is his name in the history of river running in
the Grand Canyon? Why is he not considered as a prominent figure in the
history books, why is he not a "record holder"?
My research has shown
that there are other levels to this mystery. The question of why the
story apparently "died" and what became of G. E. Kincaid and his
achievements cannot be answered by simple speculation or a rush to
critical judgment. There is other evidence and in order to come to terms
with the apparent mystery here one has to delve deeper, ask more
questions and not be easily satisfied with criticisms that put this
fantastic story into a nice neat little package and dismiss it all as a
"fraud". At the turn of the century when this discovery allegedly
occurred, the Grand Canyon had not nearly been as "tamed" by river
runners as it is today. There were only a handful of people who had
"run" the Colorado river through the
Grand Canyon and even survived to
tell the tale. River runners and Grand Canyon historians I have
contacted over the years have talked about John Wesley Powell's famous
traversing of the Canyon, a feat which is well known and well documented
(by Powell himself in his extensive journals) and in other books,
articles and television specials, which have entertained and informed
the world of Powell's exploits. There are also lesser known
characters
in the "taming" of the river, such as Bert Loper and others, who had
dared to test their tenacity against one of the world's most dangerous
and challenging rivers. Even these lesser character's undertakings with
the river are well documented.
There was however another, more obscure group of river runners,
near the turn of the century (when the Gazette story
occurred) who were
not running the river for the fame and glory of the accomplishment or
interested in "conquering" the river and Grand Canyon itself for the
record books or to secure a place in history. In fact, the intentions of
this group of solitary explorers were quite the opposite, They shunned
any public attention and purposefully kept quiet. They had good reason
to do so. They were the prospectors, the gold seekers, the
placer an
load miners always searching for fortune and that stream or side canyon
that would show "color" the flakes of gold which could yield to a mother
load vein. These prospectors are mentioned in "Quest for the Pillar of
Gold" by George H. Billengsley, (U. S. Geological Survey),
Earl E. Spamer (Academy of Natural Sciences) and Dove Menkes. In the book, they
talk of such attempts at prospecting in the Grand Canyon, and note that
"A few of the mines were profitable, but they were of limited extent and
life. Still this did not deter itinerant prospectors, who usually worked
alone, but showed up in waves when gold was discovered." These gold
seekers were not about to advertise there finds, or prospects to their
competitors or anyone else for that matter.
If we take Kincaid's own words as an indicator of his purpose in making
the trip at all in 1908 then we see that he may very well have been one
of these lesser more secretive river runners, when he said: "I was
journeying down the Colorado river in a boat, alone, looking for
mineral." This being the case, Kincaid most likely had not made public
notice of his intentions to "run the river" so to speak, since the
running of the river was not his main goal, but rather he was actively
"looking for mineral". This can account for his solitary and amazing
achievement of running the Colorado through the Grand Canyon, not being
in the history books as a "record" accomplishment. Unlike John Wesley
Powell, who was definitely out to set a record and tame a river, Kincaid
was quietly and somewhat secretly searching for mineral. What he
eventually discovered however was quite a bit more than the simple
"mineral" he was seeking.
What he did discover is detailed in the article as an important
archaeological find. Why then did the story "die"? What became of the
archaeological site in the Grand Canyon? I think that there may be
several reasons for the apparent death of the story. Running the
Colorado River at all in 1908-09 was a feat in itself. Kincaid had made
his attempt in a small wooden "skiff". Other attempts at the time were
generally made in wooden boats. The trips were full of danger and the
rocks and large boulders in the rapids that would have been encountered
en-route would have been more than enough to dash a wooden boat to
pieces. The site where the cave is located (Marble Canyon) was in
1909, very inaccessible. Kincaid himself said: "First, I would impress
that the cavern is nearly inaccessible"... It is in an area of sheer
walls and a series of rough rapids. I feel that any expedition in 1909
that would have gone to the cave site, would have been constantly in
danger of disaster on the river (crashing into the rocks) and the
associated loss of life, and very well may have actually experienced
such a disaster. Such a disaster would have made the investigations a
failure and as such, not something to brag about or publicize. It would
have also been very difficult to make such repeated attempts to get to
the site, haul all the necessary labor force, supplies, food and
scientific equipment required for extensive studies of the cave. These
considerations alone could have forced abandonment of the project and
"death" of the story.
There is also mention in the story of the hieroglyphics found. The
article states:
"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.."
I
think it is possible that the hieroglyphics may very well have never
been "translated" and the story of who inhabited the cave was never
deciphered. The article also states:
"On all the urns, or walls over
doorways, and tablets of stone which were found by the image are the
mysterious hieroglyphics the key to which the Smithsonian Institute
hopes yet to discover."
What if the Smithsonian never did discover the
"key" and the story of the cave remained a mystery. This alone could
account for the apparent death of the whole story. In this scenario
there simply would have been nothing conclusive to tell and therefore
no more newsworthy articles to print on the discovery.
What happened in 1909 at Marble Canyon and possibly
much earlier back into ancient times, at the site is a true mystery that
is much more complicated than the skeptics would have you believe, and
as such, it cannot be simply placed into a neat and tidy box and wished
away as a simple "hoax" or "fraud". There is more going on here than
meets the eye of a simple skeptical glance.