By Mike Bowen, co-author, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site
What do we know about the location of Black Kettle’s village from the people who were there?
Irving Howbert said the soldiers reached the top of a ridge and then saw a large Indian village off in the distance starting about three miles up the creek. His account lines up with where Chuck Bowen found artifacts on the Bowen family ranch, what we call the Lost Sand Creek Site.
We believe that ridge is the bluff at the National Park Service Sand Creek site, where they claim the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians at Sand Creek were camped. Though no period artifacts have been found there, the bluff is still important.
The discovery of the Lost Sand Creek Site proves the real location of the village and battle locations. One of the false claims about Bowen’s Sand Creek site discovery is all he found was a secondary skirmish area. He actually found multiple running battle locations and the location of Black Kettle’s village, not a small area Indians ran to after soldiers attacked the village. In reality the soldiers didn’t attack the village—the Indians fled. Bowen discovered over 4,000 battle and village artifacts, along and near Sand Creek on the Bowen family ranch for over five miles, which precisely documents where events at Sand Creek took place.
There isn’t a verifiable claim the Indians at Sand Creek were camped anywhere near the bluff.
The NPS conducted a search in May of 99–they didn’t find any period artifacts anywhere near the bluff. Before their search, Chuck met with NPS Sand Creek leadership and showed them a VHS video that detailed where he found artifacts on the Bowen ranch and where he believed more artifacts could be found on a neighboring property. He was right, and during the NPS search, about 400 artifacts were discovered, all starting over a mile up the creek from the alleged massacre location.
Irving Howbert said the ridge overlooked the valley of Sand Creek, and from the top of the ridge, they could see a large Indian village starting nearly three miles up the creek to the north. That’s important to understand. He didn’t say they saw a village below a bluff or ridge. The soldiers saw a wide open prairie and a large village that stretched along the creek off in the distance.
Howbert’s claims are verified by the physical evidence Chuck Bowen found at the Lost Sand Creek Site.
It’s also important to understand there aren’t any eyewitnesses who claimed the village was below or near the bluff.
The soldiers reached the top of the ridge after they turned off the lodgepole trail on their way to Sand Creek from Fort Lyon. It’s a difficult point to make, since many have believed the false claim the soldiers wiped out the Indians, but Robert Bent accomplished something quite significant. According to George Bent, an eyewitness, Robert was compelled by Col. Chivington to lead the soldiers from Fort Lyon to Sand Creek (Bent to Thoburn Sept. 23, 1910). Robert convinced Chivington to turn off the lodgepole trail, which led the soldiers along a ridge. This placed the soldiers higher than the Indians down in the village below, which allowed the Indians to see the soldiers from several miles away, silhouetted on the horizon. Had the soldiers continued on the trail, they would have gone right into the center of the village, and the Indians would not have seen them coming. After the Indians saw the soldiers, the Indians fled the village. This is corroborated by George Bent and the artifacts.
Robert’s two brothers, George and Charley, were in Black Kettle’s village. He had no interest in helping the soldiers. It was in his best interest to give the Indians an opportunity to flee. Chivington may have compelled him, but Robert wasn’t going to assist in putting his brothers in harm’s way. During the 40 mile ride, he made several attempts to thwart the attack.
What Robert accomplished has been buried in history as it doesn’t fit with the massacre claim. His heroic efforts are not included as part of the story told by the NPS. The massacre claim says the soldiers attacked the Indians as they were awoken and came out of their tipis, but that narrative is debunked by the Lost Sand Creek Site Discovery and eyewitness accounts. Bowen’s artifact discovery proves the claim made by soldier Irving Howbert that very little fighting or action took place in the village. Fellow soldier,David Louderback, who had accompanied Indian trader John Smith to the village a few days before Sand Creek, testified that he didn’t see much of the battle as he spent much of his time in the village. Louderback’s account verified the village and battle areas are two different locations. Read our blog about that here: SoldierWarriorItems. We also go into more detail about Robert’s heroic efforts in our book.
If it weren’t for Bowen’s artifact discovery, it would be endless debate comparing theories, without any definitive evidence for either side, the Indians or soldiers.
The artifacts don’t leave room for a debate. They tell a clear story of a running battle that started on the opposite side of the creek from the village.
Robert’s actions provided the Indians an opportunity to flee. Soldiers testified saying many of the Indians were not involved in the engagement as they fled before the soldiers arrived. Soldiers, including Naman Snyder, called it a “desolate looking place” (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
George Bent, Naman Snyder, Irving Howbert, among many others all refer to Sand Creek as a battle—they were all eyewitnesses.
What did Howbert say about the village location?
“At daylight in the morning the command was forty miles away from the fort. Just as the sun came up the command reached the top of a ridge overlooking the valley of the Big Sandy, from which point a large Indian village could be seen scattered along the north bank of the stream about three miles away,” Irving Howbert said (Howbert, Irving, El Paso County Pioneers, The El Paso County Democrat, December 1908).
The location below the bluff is on the north side of a windbreak and would have placed the Indians where they couldn’t see an approaching enemy. That location is easily debunked based on the descriptions of Howbert saying the village was seen about three miles up the creek from the top of that bluff, and the fact no period artifacts have been found there.
We know from Bowen’s artifacts and multiple eyewitnesses, including George Bent, the Indians were camped where they could see an approaching enemy. Bent shared fellow warrior, Little Bear’s account, who got up very early the morning of November 29, 1864, crossed the creek and went up on the top of a hill to get his horse—he looked south toward the lodgepole trail and saw the soldiers appear as a long black line on the horizon (Bent to Hyde 4-14-1906). For soldiers on horseback to appear as a long black line, they would have to be several miles away.
George Bent and Irving Howbert make the same point about the distance the Indians first saw the soldiers and the distance the soldiers first saw the village.
Howbert said the soldiers saw the village from nearly three miles away. George Bent said Little Bear saw the soldiers from several miles away. A Cheyenne warrior and a white soldier each said they saw the other from miles away. Howbert and Bent never corresponded with each other, yet their accounts corroborate each other.
Chuck Bowen has over 400 pages of George Bent’s letters in his archives, and Bent never mentions a bluff at Sand Creek. For Little Bear to be able to see the soldiers from several miles away, the Indians had to be camped up the creek from the bluff, not below it. There is a hill on the Bowen family ranch that matches the description of Little Bear’s account.
Howbert’s distances line up with where Bowen started finding Sand Creek artifacts. You can see over 100 photos of village and battle artifacts in our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site, and the discovery is explained in more detail than in our blogs.
The bluff, as described by Howbert, is where the “Sand Creek Battle Ground” monument once sat, with the wordage confirming Sand Creek was a battle. The monument was likely removed as it didn’t line up with the massacre claim, and what many may not know is the NPS Sand Creek site property is owned by the Cheyenne, not the NPS. The park service only manages the property for the Indians, and tax payer money is used to tell a false story.
“The village was on north side of Sand Creek, about 146 lodges of Cheyennes, 7 lodges of Arapahoes under Chief Left Hand,” George Bent said (Bent to Hyde, 4-30-1913).
Bent is likely talking about where there would be a north and south bank, and there isn’t a north and south bank in the area of the bluff. It’s a matter of understanding the context of what Bent was describing. The village was on the north side of the creek and at a place where over 150 tipis would fit. A village of that size, even clustered together, would not fit below the bluff—that area is also void of period artifacts.
We know from the location Bowen found village artifacts, the tipis were spread out near the creek for over two miles. George Bent said the Cheyenne called Sand Creek, “dry creek,” as it was not known for having running water (Bent to Hyde 2-4-1913). There would have been small scattered pools of water, fed by underground aquifers, and the Indians would have placed their tipis close to them, and some of the Indians also picketed their horse next to their tipi, which would take additional space (Bent to Hyde 12-21-1905).
The area below the bluff would have placed the village on the north side of a wind break where they would be blocked by the warmth of the sun. Even cows gather on the south side of a wind break during a winter storm. The Indians were instructed to camp along Sand Creek, but they were not given any instructions on where to stop on Sand Creek. The Indians were smart—they knew where to set up a winter camp. Plus, as we’ve explained, no period artifacts have been found below that bluff.
If you believe the massacre claim is true, you are believing in a story that isn’t supported by physical evidence—there can’t be a massacre without artifacts. Until Bowen’s discovery of the Lost Sand Creek Site, all we knew was the massacre claim.
A person can only come to a conclusion based on the information available. With the discovery of the Lost Sand Creek Site, more information is now available. That additional information is physical evidence. All of Bowen’s artifacts were documented with a photo and the GPS coordinates—the artifacts are the one objective piece of evidence and should be the most important piece used in learning what happened and where it happened at Sand Creek.
To get an idea of where the village site started, a line of trees can be seen off in the distance, about two miles up the creek to the north from the NPS bluff—that line of trees shows the village location at the Bowen family ranch.
When it comes to Sand Creek, we’re simply following the evidence. The artifacts cannot lie.
Come to conclusions based on the evidence, not hearsay. Don’t allow rumor or oral history to cloud your judgment. Allow truth to form your conclusions. It is troublesome that people go along with the false massacre claim, especially Christians. We should be striving to know the truth.
Learn the truth and stand for truth.
Truth matters. Truth wins.
Give us a follow on Facebook: BowenHistory.
Click on the Buy The Book tab in the top right corner of the page.
