Ancient Chinese account of the Grand Canyon, or course of the Colorado

by Alexander McAllan

THE COLORADO—BOTTOMLESS?

Knowing quite well as we do, that our mighty river possesses a very substantial bottom composed of step-like ledges of rock, we learn with surprise that it is said to flow through a section described as bottomless! Is not such a statement or assertion absurd? But what did the ancient writer mean? What could he have meant?

The translation states that, according to a poem, the Tsang-shan-wu, "in the east there is a stream flowing in a bottomless ravine. It is supposed to be this Canyon"—the "Great Canyon of the Region beyond the Eastern Sea."

The Chinese term rendered "Canyon" is Hoh, which stands also for "a bed of a torrent, a deep gully or wady; a valley" (see Williams dict. p. 453.)

Of course, a Ta (or "Great") Hoh ought to be a Great Canyon, or a remarkable deep gorge or valley containing the bed of a torrent.

We have already been informed that a Chu (or river of ledges and falls) is in the Ta Hoh, or mighty gorge beyond the Eastern Sea. We also perceive that the title Ta Hoh applies properly to the mountain-hemmed course of our Colorado (which connects with Middle Park and runs to the Gulf.)

Somewhere in this immense and peerless Ta Hoh—somewhere among the majestic mountains—somewhere along the bed of the Colorado (either inside or outside of Middle Park,) the investigator should find a section which is bottomless. The ancient account locates it there. Nor are we to look for it in any Philippine Island. We are restricted to the bed or banks of the Colorado which we have identified as the Chu or plunging river that rushes downward to the Gulf. Our leaping stream flows into and out of Grand Lake (within Middle Park.) Now this Lake (or enlargement of the bed of the Grand Colorado) "has a beach, and far out into the body of the water a sandy bottom" and "in the center, covering an area of nearly a mile square the Lake to all appearance is bottomless."

We are further informed that "explorations of the edges of this great submarine cavern give the most positive evidences that it was once the crater of a great volcano" (note 18).

"The Lake to all appearance is bottomless. The deepest soundings that could ever be made have failed to reach bottom. Hence it is concluded that it has no bottom."

Turn these two words, "no bottom" into Chinese and we get wu ti,—the very terms employed in the Chinese account.

No bottom, say the Ancients.

No bottom, say the Moderns.

The old account puts the unfathomable abyss in a Kuh (valley or ravine) and it is within a Valley—the Valley of Middle Park—that we actually find it. Moreover, this bottomless valley is "supposed" (or reported) to belong to the Ta Hoh—a title which would cover both Valley and Canyon. Indeed, Middle Park, with its enormous mountain-walls connects directly with the system of the Grand Canyon. Moreover, the one stream flows through both. And here it may be remarked that the Chu (or River of Ledges and Falls) is not terminated or swallowed up by the Bottomless abyss in Kuh (or Valley of Middle Park.) It flows on through the Ta Hoh and ultimately enlarges into a Gulf (the Gulf of California).

The rocky floor of the Kuh (or Valley of Middle Park) evidently constitutes a support or bottom for an impetuous and important River of Ledges or rapids and yet, at the same time, is reported to be Bottomless. This seems contradictory. But reaching the precise locality referred to in the old account, modern scientists simply echo the declaration of the Ancients,—that this Valley or Kuh, traversed by a leaping, furious Chu, is unfathomable.

Bottomless! say the Ancients.

Bottomless! say the Moderns.

It thus appears that a statement seemingly calculated at first sight to drown the ancient claim in a flood of derision, turns out on examination to be overwhelmingly powerful evidence in support of the validity of the old record.

In no respect or degree is the ancient testimony contradicted or falsified by modern evidence. Take for instance the old assertion that the shan or mountain-range of the Great Canyon, is "beautiful." Nothing seems more natural than to conclude that such a laudatory term is grossly out of place and that the Mountain-range, with its Canyon and furious Chu, is a frightful, gloomy, dangerous, horrible, repulsive, bleak, and ugly mass of shattered and tottering heights. And, indeed, there is much truth in this view of the situation. Nevertheless, modern visitors unite in declaring that Beauty is a marked feature of the rocky heights that possess or direct the Colorado; and this is in agreement with the ancient account.

One traveler says: "The roar of its waters was heard unceasingly, ... but its walls and cliffs, its peaks and crags, its amphitheatres and alcoves, tell a story of beauty and sublimity" (note 19).

Another visitor, who was treated most disrespectfully by our Chu, has eyes only for its "beauty": "The Canyon grows more and more picturesque and beautiful the farther we proceed.... On many of the long stretches where the river can be seen for several miles, the picture is one of charming beauty.... As the clouds rose we were treated to scenes rare and beautiful in the extreme" (n. 20.)

Again: "Cataract and Narrow Canyons are wonderful, Glen Canyon is beautiful, Marble Canyon is mighty; but it is left for the Grand Canyon, where the river has cut its way down through the sandstones, the marbles, and the granites of the Kaibab Mountains, to form those beautiful and awe-inspiring pictures that are seen from the bottom of the black granite gorge, where above us rise great wondrous mountains of bright red sandstone capped with cathedral domes and spires of white, with pinnacles and turrets, and towers, in such intricate forms and flaming colors that words fail to convey any idea of their beauty and sublimity."

The translation informs us that the mighty gorge is the Canyon of Kiang, Shang, or Almighty God.

And a modern visitor declares that "here Omnipotence stands revealed," and that here is "a glorious creation of God." (n. 21.)

So impressed were the ancients with the beauty and grandeur of this region that they peopled it with the souls of illustrious sages, and declared that here was the Canyon of Almighty God. And those who enter it today, come reeling back from its portals,—declaring that no mortal can describe its glories, and that it is the Grand Canyon of Almighty God!

Words fail one in the attempt to describe this glorious creation of God. The impression it leaves upon the mind is overpowering. One feels as though he had been admitted into the presence of the Genii of the plutonic regions, had penetrated to the very heart of the inner world of elemental creations."

We need not wonder that the old account connects a revered ancestor with this glorious and celestial retreat in the Grand Canyon. He is called Shao Hao, and is furthur termed a ju, (or sucking child.)

Shao signifies "little" or "a little," and Hao is formed of the signs for "sun" and "heaven." It is therefore evident that the ju or infant at the Canyon is (or was) a little sun child, or child of the sun.

American rulers called themselves "Children of the Sun," and we should be careful not to confound our Arizona Prince with any Asiatic ruler. [The Hao or Shao Hao of supposed Chinese origin is represented by some different symbols: see Williams' dict. p. 172, columns 1 and 2.]

The little Child of the Sun at the Ta-Hoh or Great Canyon should not be—must not be—confounded with any early Chinese sun-worshiper. We are to look far to the east of China for both the Canyon and the little Child of the Sun referred to in the account before us.

We are informed that the country connected with the Great Canyon was called "Shao Hao's country" (or the land of the Sun-child) on account of the little Prince. He entered (chi) it, and this furnished the reason (or chih) for its title—Land of the Sun-child.

The infant (or ju) is distinctly called a ruler (or ti.) Moreover, although he was little (shao) or but a ju (suckling); he was a supreme king (or chwen suh). (Note 22.)

Chwen is formed by putting together the two words "only" and "head." And suh is a Chinese term composed of the two significant words "only" and "king" (see Williams' dict. pp. 117, 825, 1043.)

Evidently the baby ruler (or ju ti) was regarded by his people, in this region remarkable for its mountains, as the only or supreme head—the chwen suh, as Chinese historians might forcibly phrase it—of the people ruled.

[Because the infant was king and even the supreme king, it seems reasonable to suppose that his father was dead (and his mother alive) at the time when he was carried into the Great Canyon and duly suckled there.] We need not just here attempt to unravel his history. Enough to show that our Grand Canyon is positively and clearly referred to in Chinese literature. We may, however, note the fact that the royal infant (see translation) belonged to the Kin Tien or Golden Heaven family, and this title must be considered when the history of our Arizona Prince comes to be investigated. It should further be remarked that the respected translator has erred slightly in his supposition that the Chwen Suh (or Supreme Head) was "Shao Hao's descendant." The Chinese terms in the original are: shao hao (not hao's) ju (baby) ti (ruler) chwen suh (head king.) It was the little sun child ruler and supreme king who was at the Canyon.

Particular attention should be paid to the fact, that, although regarded as a supreme ruler, the Prince is represented as being but a suckling (or ju) when in the neighborhood of the Great Canyon.

Now, the translation states that this baby or supreme lord "of whom no further description is given, left there his lute and lyre. It says that his lute and lyre are in this canyon."