By Mike Bowen, Co-author, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site
It’s commonly believed that history is written by the victors.
But how much of that is true?
What we’ve learned studying Sand Creek and other historic battles like The Battle of Glorieta Pass, history has actually been written by historians, and sometimes re-written by historians, specifically George Hyde, concerning Sand Creek.
We recently did some research on Glorieta and it was nearly impossible to find anything written by an eyewitness. The books available were written by historians, and there are historians who do great work, but we always use information about historical events from the people who experienced them—we want to make sure the information we’re studying has been verified.
There’s a scene in an episode of Gunsmoke where Festus was explaining why he crossed a creek riding a cow—he was questioned why he hadn’t learned to read so he could come prepared with facts to explain everything. He responded to the affect of, how do you know the person who done the writing done the writing right? (Watch the clip below. The blog continues below the video).
That line perfectly sums up a lot of what’s been written or told about Sand Creek—Much of it was written or told by people who were not there. However, it’s been accepted.
We know from the correspondence between George Bent and historian George Hyde, Bent told him he could do whatever he wanted with the information he shared with him, as he would know best how to write it for his book (Bent to Hyde, 2-20-1905). Bent saying that gave Hyde the green light to say whatever he wanted.
Some have believed the book, The Life of George Bent, was written by Bent. It’s always best to verify first. That book is credited as being written by Hyde, written from Bent’s letters, but in reality, it’s loosely inspired by his letters. It’s likely the manuscript started out as Hyde writing a fluff piece based on Bent’s letters, and then the manuscript saw even more changes from the editor and publisher. The book was published about 50 years after Bent died, so he had no involvement in it being published or proofing it for accuracy.
It’s possible Hyde was simply writing a book he thought would be an interesting read and not aware of how it would affect history. See more in our blog about that here: HydeBook.
It’s actually difficult to find historical accounts written by a victor—it seems more like a narrative than reality. History is almost always written by a historian.
One of the main reasons the Bible is trusted as being accurate is it was written by eyewitnesses, instead of by people who didn’t experience the events. Most of the New Testament was written by the Apostle Paul, a primary source, and not by someone else years later.
For something to be reliable, shouldn’t it come from a reliable source? That question sounds like an oxymoron, but when the only source for historical events is from someone that didn’t experience said event, it’s difficult to verify for accuracy, especially without original source material.
When information changes hands, information changes.
With Sand Creek, fortunately, there is original source material. Unfortunately, much of it is discarded without being examined for accuracy and truthfulness. That original source material comes from soldiers who fought at Sand Creek.
How would we know if anything the soldiers said is true?
There is one objective way to determine if what they said was accurate.
Some soldiers provided land descriptions, and Chuck and Sheri Bowen used this information when they were studying accounts, looking for places to search for artifacts on the Bowen family ranch. Chuck searched places on the ranch that matched with his metal detector. Soldier Irving Howbert provided the best clues—Howbert’s descriptions provided Bowen a starting point to begin searching. Howbert said the soldiers reached the top of a ridge and way off in the distance, about 2-3 miles up the creek, they saw a large Indian village. The bluff at the NPS Sand Creek site fits the description of the ridge Howbert wrote about. Just as Howbert described, Bowen discovered village and battle artifacts on the Bowen family ranch, starting nearly two miles up the creek from the bluff.
The measuring stick to determine accuracy from an eyewitness is the artifacts—it’s the one thing that cannot lie.
Howbert’s documentation was so spot on, it led to the discovery of what we call the Lost Sand Creek Site, the real location of Black Kettle’s village and battle areas. He didn’t just write about land descriptions, he also wrote about what happened at Sand Creek. Accounts like his are generally discarded without any consideration, simply because he said Sand Creek was a battle. People will instantly put up a wall and won’t look into his account because it’s telling the opposite of what they’ve been told about the event. The locations where artifacts were found matches Howbert’s descriptions, so we need to carefully examine everything he said about the event as well.
The soldier’s account went beyond calling Sand Creek a battle—he called it a running battle. He said the engagement went along and near the creek for over three miles. He also said the village was over two miles long. The massacre claim says the Indians were attacked as they awoke and came out of their tipis very early that morning, before the sun came up. The Lost Sand Creek Site discovery disproves the massacre theory. We know from the artifacts the battle started on the opposite side of the creek from the village and there was very little fighting in the village.
If the massacre claim was true, the area below the bluff where it’s alleged the Indians were camped and attacked would have been littered with period artifacts. That area is actually void of period artifacts.
Bowen found his artifacts with a metal detector—they weren’t surface finds, and most of them were buried about 2-3 inches deep. The same would have been true at the NPS site—the bluff area has been meticulously searched with metal detectors many times ending with the same result, no artifacts. In May of ‘99, the NPS conducted a thorough search below and near the bluff, which also extended over a mile up the creek. Before that search, Bowen met with NPS Sand Creek leadership and played them a video explaining his discovery, where he found artifacts, and where he thought more artifacts could be found on the other side of the fence from the Bowen property. Bowen was right. About a mile up the creek from the alleged massacre site, the NPS found about 400 artifacts including 174 unfired musket balls all in the same hole. Nearly half of their finds was a dropped bag of unfired bullets, not used in the engagement. It’s possible that area was part of the Arapaho camp, and the musket balls were in a sack left behind by an Indian after they fled the village. If you believe the Indians were unarmed, they not only had bows and arrows, they also had guns, per George Bent. Read about that here: IndiansArmed.
It is a myth that the Indians were attacked in the village. There can’t be an alleged massacre location without artifacts. It’s not a matter of scavengers picking them up over the years. People would have come forward with their finds, and the idea all of the artifacts were picked up is absurd. It’s a matter of the alleged location at the NPS site being the wrong spot.
There weren’t even any homesteaders out there until about 1911, and it’s important to note this is covering a large area—there’s over seven miles of Sand Creek that goes through the Bowen ranch.
As mentioned earlier, Bowen’s artifacts were found with a metal detector. Even if scavengers had attempted to pick up the artifacts, they wouldn’t have been successful. Bowen found over 4,000 battle and village artifacts, and nearly all of them were buried about 2-3 inches deep. The artifacts weren’t picked up over the years—they were buried right under the surface waiting to be found.
The artifacts provide an objective measuring stick.
It’s also important to note, the Bowen family ranch, where the Lost Sand Creek Site is located, has been in the Bowen family since 1948. That’s a significant amount of time that scavengers wouldn’t have been out there.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the NPS site was privately owned, and skilled archaeologists searched that area below the bluff many times. Each search came up empty. One of those archaeologists was Fred Werner, who was accompanied by a colleague, Larry Finnell, on several trips. Finnell was a skilled archaeologist who found hundreds of artifacts at the Summit Springs site near Sterling. Read about their Sand Creek searches in our book. People kept going out to the bluff area to look for artifacts because they believed they were there below that bluff. Warner and others weren’t under the belief that the artifacts had been picked up by scavengers.
Even if scavengers had searched the area, with the amount of items Bowen found buried with his metal detector, it’s highly unlikely scavengers picked anything up laying on the surface. The only item we’re aware of being found was the Starr Revolver, found in 1891 by Buster Albright and Gillette Fluke. They found it while riding their horses along Sand Creek, working as cowboys. It was found 10 miles north of Chivington, and also 10 miles north of Chivington, Bowen made a massive Sand Creek discovery. Read more about this in chapters seven and eight of We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
One misconception about Sand Creek artifacts is the idea that since someone found stone arrowheads within a several mile radius of the Lost Sand Creek Site, they found Sand Creek artifacts. By the 1860s, the Cheyenne were actually using metal for their arrowheads, either from water barrel hoops or they traded for them.
Artifacts provide us the information necessary to know what’s said about Sand Creek is accurate. Those that claim the engagement took place in a small congested area below the bluff are regurgitating inaccurate information that is easily debunked. The alleged massacre location was never verified by an eyewitness—it was never verified by physical evidence. The bluff claim is made sometime after the hearings. George Bent never mentions a bluff in his letters. The bluff claim stems from the Hyde/Bent map which depicts a creek bend that looks identical to the bend at the NPS site and Colonel Chivington saying the Indians were camped on the south branch of Sand Creek. This is explained further in our book.
The bluff makes the perfect backdrop for a dramatic story. It creates the idea the Indians were camped under the bluff and couldn’t see the soldiers coming. It makes them look defenseless. However, that’s not reality. The Indians were actually camped where they could and did see the soldiers coming—George Bent said they saw them, and the artifacts prove the Indians fled. The artifacts tell a clear story of a battle that started on the opposite side of the creek from the village and extended up and near the creek for over three miles. There was very little fighting or action in the village.
If the only information we’re seeing about history is from people who didn’t experience it, we’re not learning historical accuracy. In fact, we’re not actually learning—we’re being told what to believe and are forming an opinion based on emotions.
We need to form conclusions based on the facts, and the massacre claim doesn’t stem from facts, it stems from a heartstrings story now told with the intent of making people ashamed of their country and white American ancestors. George Bent called Sand Creek a fight and a battle (Bent to Tappan 4-16-1889, Bent to Hyde, 1-12-1906). He was there, living in Black Kettle’s village as a Cheyenne Dog Soldier. The massacre moniker was created by Lt. Colonel Sam Tappan, who became jealous of Colonel Chivington, who passed in promotion, without any prior military experience. Read more about that here: TappanChivington.
History is being erased, and seeking truth is being canceled.
Knowledge is power.
Seeking and telling the truth should be a priority.
Make sure to learn about the discovery of the Lost Sand Creek Site. Click on the Buy The Book tab in the top right or click on the link: WeFoundTheLostSandCreekSite.
Give us a follow on Facebook: BowenHistory
Learn more about us and watch our videos on YouTube: TheLostSandCreek.
