By Mike Bowen, co-author, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
Do you know the item in the photo?
During Chuck Bowen’s discovery of the Lost Sand Creek Site on the Bowen family ranch, he found ten areas he documented as Sand Creek event locations. One of those event sites was skirmish areas. Read more about these 10 event locations in We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
Bowen discovered a skirmish area between a soldier and a warrior. According to the description of the encounter and location by Sand Creek soldier Morse Coffin, it’s believed the soldier was Robert McFarland—he was killed in hand-to-hand combat with a warrior (Coffin, Morse H., The Battle of Sand Creek, page 26-27).
At the skirmish site, Bowen found a mixture of items from the warrior and soldier.
From our book:
“In that skirmish area, I found a large number of artifacts in a small area suggesting a fight between an Indian and a soldier. There were Indian items such as…” (Read the full list for the warrior items and soldier items on page 189, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site).
The item pictured is a canteen stopper and was no doubt used by a soldier at Sand Creek. Chuck found a handful of them, including one at the skirmish area. Items like that weren’t found by themselves, they were found near other soldier items—It’s an 1860s piece. The NPS Sand Creek lead archaeologist in ‘99 identified a canteen stopper chain Bowen found. Check out the video of the NPS archaeologist identifying the chain and other Sand Creek artifacts here: NPSArchaeologist. The canteen stopper chain is identified at the 6 minute 18 second mark.
There weren’t any homesteaders at what became the Bowen ranch until about 1911, so any idea of the canteen stopper being from a homesteader or someone else doesn’t work. And as mentioned above, the stopper was found near other soldier items.
That skirmish area was also found over three miles up the creek from the top of the village site, which Chuck discovered on the Bowen ranch—The skirmish area discovery is proof that Sand Creek was indeed a running battle. The massacre claim alleges the soldiers rode around the village and killed the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians as they awoke and came out of their tipis—No physical evidence has ever been found at the alleged massacre location below the bluff at the National Park Service Sand Creek site.
Sand Creek did not take place in a small area—It started on the opposite side of the creek from the village, nearly two miles up the creek from the NPS bluff, and continued up and near the creek for over three miles. This conclusion is substantiated by the over 4,000 battle and village artifacts Bowen discovered at the Lost Sand Creek Site.
There can’t be a massacre location without physical evidence. It’s perplexing the massacre theory is accepted. The artifacts are what tell the truth. The 4,000+ battle and village artifacts Bowen found overwhelmingly support the running battle claim made by soldier Irving Howbert.
The Indians fled the village, some went miles up the creek after Little Bear spotted the soldiers several miles away, towards the south, as a long black line on the horizon. They didn’t flee on foot—They would have been on horseback. Indians on foot couldn’t have outrun soldiers on a horse. Per the testimony of David Louderback, many Indians escaped and were not part of the engagement. If they had been on foot, that would not have been the case. Louderback was a soldier who accompanied Indian trader and interpreter, John Smith. They arrived at Sand Creek on November 27.
From Louderback’s testimony:
“Did any of the Indians escape?” the commission said.
“Yes; a large number of the Indians got away,” David Louderback said (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
Louderback said the village and battle areas were two separate locations.
“After putting on my overcoat and boots, I got a saddle and put on my horse, and went back up to where they were fighting. The fighting was pretty much over, and I came back down to the village,” Louderback said (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
Louderback didn’t see much of the engagement, as he spent most of his time in the village, but he knew where some of the fighting took place. He stayed in the village to stay out of the way.
The discovery of the Lost Sand Creek Site doesn’t place a massacre somewhere else—it shows a different location and that Sand Creek was a running battle. It also shows very little fighting or action in the village. The running battle claim is corroborated by the artifacts and eyewitness accounts including Louderback, Howbert and George Bent.
Read about Bent’s experience at Sand Creek in our book—Learn about the discovery of the real location of Black Kettle’s village and running battle areas and how that brings truth and clarity to the 1864 Sand Creek battle.
Many of the artifacts Bowen found at the Lost Sand Creek Site are documented in our book, with photos and descriptions. There are also maps detailing where artifacts were found, showing how far up the the creek the real village location and running battle areas are from the NPS bluff.
We are all about truth, and the truth needs to be known.
Don’t allow a fabricated emotional story cloud your judgment of what is the truth.
Truth matters. Truth wins.
Click on the Buy The Book tab in the top right or click on the link below:
Give us a follow on Facebook: BowenHistory
