By Mike Bowen, co-author, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site
George Bent is one of our main sources of information for Sand Creek. He was living in Black Kettle’s village as a Cheyenne Dog Soldier (warrior). He was half-Cheyenne and lived among them after he fought in the Civil War. More can be read about him in chapter four of our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
Bent wrote about the fight at the rifle pits at Sand Creek in his letters. To understand the importance of the rifle pits, it’s important to understand how spread out events were at Sand Creek. The traditional massacre story says the Indians were camped in a small congested area below a bluff where they couldn’t see or hear an approaching enemy—the story further claims the soldiers rode around the village, killed the Indians as they awoke and came out of their tipis, and the Indians were all defenseless little children, women and elderly. According to eyewitnesses, including Bent, none of that is true.
One misconception about Sand Creek is where Black Kettle’s village was located.
“The village was on north side of Sand Creek, about 146 lodges of Cheyennes, 7 lodges of Arapahoes under Chief Left Hand,” Bent said (Bent to Hyde, 4-30-1913).
He is likely talking about where there would be a north bank and there isn’t a north bank at the National Park Service Sand Creek site—the creek runs directly north and south at their site. About two miles up the creek to the north from the NPS bluff, Chuck Bowen found over 4,000 village and battle artifacts, all on the Bowen family ranch. No period artifacts have ever been found at the NPS’ alleged massacre location. The location on the Bowen family ranch, where Chuck discovered village artifacts, matches Bent’s description of the village being on the “north side of Sand Creek.”
Sand Creek soldier Captain Silas Soule said the village was located on the north bank. There’s not a north bank at the NPS site—there is a distinct north bank at the Lost Sand Creek Site on the Bowen family ranch. See more in our blog here: (VillageLocation).
A misconception about Bowen’s discovery of the Lost Sand Creek Site, the real location of Black Kettle’s village and running battle areas, is that all Bowen found was a secondary skirmish area.
Bowen did not discover a secondary skirmish area. He discovered the village site and running battle areas, which is thoroughly detailed in our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site, which includes over 100 photos of artifacts and maps explaining the artifacts found and where they were found. Had the Indians been camped below the bluff at the NPS site, as claimed by them, that area would have been littered with bullets, village artifacts, cannonball shell fragments and much more. No period artifacts have ever been found there.
Another misconception is the soldiers attacked the Indians in the village. Bowen’s discovery proves the village and battle areas are two separate locations.
Very little action or fighting took place in the village. Most Indians actually fled the village. Bent said that he and others ran to rifle pits that were located over two miles above the village, up the creek to the north.
Women & children ran up bed of Sand Creek about 2 ½ miles and dug pits under bank in sand. Women and children dug the pits while men fought off the soldiers until the pits were ready to get into. Sand was very soft to dig into…5 of us came up in rear, Little Bear, Spotted Horse, Big Bear, Bear Shield and myself. We started for the upper end of the pits. Red Owl call us up there but in little while Spotted Horse called out for us all to get out of this as soldiers were getting in good range of all of us. So several of us jumped out of the pit and made for lower pits… I have made map so that you can tell something about it. At these pits you can see where soldiers stood shooting at us all around us. I marked camps of One Eye, White Antelope, War Bonnet, Black Kettle, Sand Hill, Left hand, Arapaho camp of 7 lodges. I mark trails of Chivington’s (4) men… (Bent to Hyde, 4-30-1913).
“The fight at the pits lasted until 5 o’clock,” Bent said.
(Bent to Hyde, 4-30-1913)
Bent’s reference to the fight at the pits is over two miles up the creek from the top of the village. The Sand Creek event was spread out over several miles and the NPS site is much too small to be the right location.
Not even including the running battle areas, the village alone is too big for the NPS site. Bent said the Cheyenne Indian villages were 2-3 miles long (Bent to Hyde 5-3-1906). The area at the NPS site where they allege the Indians were camped and attacked is only about a half mile long.
Bent’s account of the village being 2-3 miles long lines up with where Chuck Bowen discovered village artifacts on the Bowen family ranch. Bowen discovered tipi sites, scattered, for about three miles. It wasn’t a continuous village of tipis right next to each other. There would have been space between each one, allowing the Indians to tether a horse by their tipis, and they would also camp near water sources. Sand Creek is not a running creek—Bent said the Indians called Sand Creek “Dry Creek.” There would have been small pools of water, fed by underground aquifers, scattered along the creek. The Indians would have placed their tipis near those small water sources, making for a spread out village for about three miles.
Before Bent corresponded with historians nearly 40 years after Sand Creek about his Cheyenne life and time as a Dog Soldier, one of his original letters was to Lt. Colonel Sam Tappan, who was president of the commission that led the hearings after Sand Creek. Tappan was known for his hatred of Colonel Chivington but was allowed to lead the hearings. Bent told Tappan about the rifle pits that had been dug at Sand Creek.
“The Cheyenne girl…her and her sister, father and mother were all in same hole with me and others. About 19 or 20 persons all together…We ran to the pit where Black Kettle and his party were. Black Kettle’s wife was left behind…near the village,” Bent said (Bent to Tappan, 2-23-1889).
Bent is establishing not only that each rifle pit was big enough for nearly 20 people, the village and battle areas were different locations. He also is establishing there were multiple pits. He mentioned upper and lower pits but didn’t say how far away the pits were from each other.
Bent said he and many other Indians ran 2 ½ miles above the village to the rifle pits. For that to happen, they had to have a head start, and he also likely means they ran their horses 2 ½ miles. And for a pit to hold 20 people, he also likely was referring to Indians digging into pits already dug. They wouldn’t have dug pits that big while soldiers were pursuing them on horseback.
The idea the soldiers surrounded the Indians and killed them as they awoke and came out of their tipis very early that morning is not accurate. Accounts from Bent and many others including Irving Howbert, Morse Coffin, William Breakenridge, James Carr, Major Anthony, all claim Sand Creek was a running battle. The artifact discovery Bowen made proves Sand Creek was objectively a running battle.
As quoted earlier, Bent said the fight at the pits lasted until about 5 p.m. Are we supposed to believe that little kids, women and elderly fought off soldiers for several hours? None of us were there—George Bent was there. Not only was he an eyewitness, he fought with the Cheyenne Indians. He would have no reason to make that claim if it weren’t true.
Another misconception is the claim the warriors were off hunting.
Soldier William Breakenridge said Sand Creek was the Indians hunting camp—he went on to Arizona after Sand Creek and became a deputy sheriff. One of the events he witnessed was the gunfight at the O.K. Corral. Read our blog here: (TombstoneSoldier). You can read more about the other soldier accounts mentioned above in our book.
Anyone who makes the claim that the warriors were off hunting hasn’t spent much time, if any, on that part of Sand Creek. Even today, it is a hunter’s paradise, with deer, antelope and other wildlife. And in 1864, there would have also been buffalo. It would have been a great location for warriors to hunt. The Bowen family has owned land on that part of Sand Creek since 1948–countless requests have been made over the years from hunters to shoot deer, antelope and more.
If you believe the warriors would have left a prime hunting location to hunt somewhere else, how do you suggest they would get their hunts back to the village? The claim the warriors were off hunting defies common sense and lacks critical thinking.
Bowen has over 400 pages of the typed versions of George Bent’s letters in his archives—the original handwritten letters were transcribed years ago at Yale. Copies of the typed versions were made available to Bowen by Craig Moore, former NPS Sand Creek ranger. Bent never claims the warriors were off hunting. However, he does mention warriors at Sand Creek, including himself, his brother Charley, Little Bear, Spotted Horse, Big Bear, Bear Shield, Red Owl and those who fought soldiers at the pits for several hours.
The real Sand Creek account is considerably different than the massacre narrative—it’s also far more captivating. It would take a significant fight between warriors and soldiers for the Sand Creek event to last as long as it did. There were also over 70 soldier casualties.
Soldiers were killed by warriors at Sand Creek—the first killed at Sand Creek was a soldier, George Pierce. About three miles up the creek from the village, Robert McFarland was killed in hand-to-hand combat with a warrior.
There are many misconceptions about Sand Creek and that is mainly due to Lt. Colonel Sam Tappan, John Smith and oral history claims that are far removed from eyewitness accounts. The story the artifacts tell is also generally dismissed and not considered. Bowen’s discovery of the Lost Sand Creek Site, which includes over 4,000 battle and village artifacts, is not told by the NPS at their site. When the NPS first got involved with Sand Creek in the late 90s, NPS Sand Creek leadership promised the Bowens recognition for their artifact discovery and that their discovery along with the running battle account would be told at the NPS Sand Creek site. Those promises were not kept. Read more about Tappan and John Smith in our book.
Artifacts do not lie. Their story needs to be known and told. We need to come to logical conclusions about Sand Creek based on all of the evidence, not an emotionally charged story that isn’t supported by any period artifacts or eyewitness accounts.
Truth matters. Truth wins.
Get a copy of our book to help us push out the truth.
Follow us on Facebook: BowenHistory
