By Mike Bowen, co-author, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site
We recently began a new blog series covering the claims that allege Sand Creek was a massacre. In the first three parts, we covered the following claims: the Indians were unarmed, they didn’t commit any atrocities or depredations before Sand Creek and they were camped in a small congested area below a bluff where they couldn’t see an approaching enemy. If you missed any of those blogs, read them here: (SandCreekUnarmed), (SandCreekDepredations). (SandCreekCamp).
Another claim that alleges Sand Creek was a massacre is the village consisted of only women, children, and elderly—the warriors were all off hunting, thus the Indians in the village were defenseless and unable to defend themselves against the soldiers.
Much of the problem with the massacre story is most of the information comes from oral history, which cannot be verified. Some information used to brand Sand Creek as a massacre comes from the book, The Life of George Bent, which some say was written by Bent. However, George didn’t write that book or any book—he wrote letters to historians while working as an Indian agent in Oklahoma about forty years after Sand Creek.
The massacre claim alleges the warriors were off hunting.
From our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site:
At the NPS site, visitors are told the Cheyenne and Arapaho camped below the bluff at the monument. No artifacts have been found to support this idea, yet the NPS forced their story to fit this location. The bluff serves as a backdrop for a better massacre story. The more dramatic, the better. This is an example of the massacre narrative:
The Indians, camped below the bluff on their reservation, can’t see the soldiers approaching. Early in the morning, when the Indians are still sound asleep, the soldiers make a surprise attack. The Indians don’t hear a sound of approaching soldiers, and neither do their dogs. There’s not a horse in the village to escape on—the herds are miles away. Indians are slaughtered as they come out of their tipis. The soldiers are close and can tell the age and sex of every Indian. The Indians were peaceful and unarmed. The warriors were away on a hunting trip—there only were women, children, and the elderly.
Signage at the NPS site states the Indians moved to their reservation in November but doesn’t cite anything. Major Anthony was asked during the hearings if he was present on the Indians’ reservation on Sand Creek. ‘It was not an Indian reserve. I was present at the time,’ Anthony said. Artifacts I found, show they were armed with guns as well as bows and arrows. The NPS tugs at your heartstrings and withholds a lot of information.
A lie told a thousand times is still a lie, but if you tell it enough times some people will believe it (We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site, chapter 11).
We know from eyewitness accounts and artifacts, the village wasn’t filled with only women, children and elderly.
“There were a great many men who fought us, I should think there were in the neighborhood of a hundred men who were fighting us” Major Anthony said (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
We know from the location Chuck Bowen found battle artifacts, the running battle locations covered several miles, so when Anthony is testifying to seeing about 100 warriors fighting the soldiers, that’s just in one place. The number of warriors in total likely exceeded the 100 Anthony saw.
“I witnessed the commencement of the battle of Sand creek, being the first man on the ground. Lieut. Wilson brought his battalion up on the left of the village, while Company H. of the 1st Cavalry of Colorado, came up in line directly in front and on the right of the village, where I then was. While Lieut. Wilson was coming up, I saw a man’s horse running away with him which I afterwards learned was George Pierce of Company F. 1st Cavalry of Colorado. His horse carried him through the lower end of the village, and suddenly I saw himself and horse fall together and shortly afterwards I saw George Pierce get upon his feet and run a short distance and stop and turn around when I saw the smoke rise from an Indian’s gun and also Geo. Pierce fall, immediately after which Wilson’s battalion commenced firing and then company H. 1st Cavalry of Colorado commenced firing,” Lieut. Alexander F. Safely, 1st Cavalry of Colorado testified ( Synopsis of the Sand Creek Investigation. Denver, Colorado, June, 1865, The Rocky Mountain News).
The massacre claim alleges the soldiers rode around the entire village and slaughtered the Indians as they awoke and came out of their tipis. That claim doesn’t match the account about George Pierce—it also doesn’t line up with the account from the artifacts. The alleged massacre location below the bluff at the National Park Service Sand Creek site is void of period artifacts.
George Pierce of Company F, 1st Colorado Cavalry, was the first killed in the engagement at Sand Creek. How could a soldier be the first killed if all of the Indians were unarmed and were only feeble women, children and elderly? Are we supposed to believe a little kid did that? Or a senior citizen? Or a defenseless woman? In fact, the Indian women were far from weak and defenseless.
“They (Indian women) did the hard work in the camp such as putting up and taking down the tipis. They fleshed and tanned buffalo hides with a mixture of buffalo brains, bone marrow, liver, and Soapweed. In some cases, they scraped the hair from the buffalo hides. The women also butchered the animals and made the meals, (Bent to Hyde 4-17-1905) (Bent to Hyde, 10-27-1913) (Bent to Hyde, 10-15-1904),” (We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site, chapter 11).”
It’s not an opinion the women did much of the hard work—that information comes from an eyewitness. And according to Bent, Cheyenne women burned the body of a young Shoshone Indian boy for revenge (Bent to Hyde, 2-20-1905). Not only were the Cheyenne women not weak and defenseless, they were likely combatants in the fight at Sand Creek. “Two Indian boys at the Little Big Horn, ran to where they were killing soldiers. When they got there they seen naked bodies of soldiers laying all around. They were all cut up. Some heads cut off and entrails scattered, hands and feet cut off. These two say squaws of both Cheyennes and Siouxs done this butchering,” George Bent said (Bent to Hyde, 9-11-1905).”
There were over 70 soldier casualties at Sand Creek. Chuck found what is likely the spot where soldier, Robert McFarland, was killed by a warrior. Fellow soldier Morse Coffin wrote about the skirmish.
“While proceeding thus, Phillips and McF. being near each other, discovered a buffalo robe lying in the grass, and as they approached it one of them expressed his belief that it covered an Indian.
When within perhaps twenty or thirty feet of it, McFarland turned his horse and dismounted on the side next to it. Instantly an Indian raised from under it with a yell, and bounding and jumping about so lively that, though both fired their carbines at him, neither hit him, while he let fly the arrows from an immense bow.
Mac dodged behind his horse, and the latter was quickly disabled by receiving a number of arrows. Mac soon received an arrow in his side, when he rushed at the Indian (who I think had approached very near in the meantime, and dealt him a blow with his gun, a Smith and Wesson) which broke the stock in splinters, but did no apparent harm to the Indian.
Then they seem to have clinched, and Lockhart thinks the Indian jammed an arrow in Mac’s heart with his hand, which may or may not be a fact, as it not known to a certainty. Lockhart thinks the arrow in the side was not what killed him.
Any way it appears that Mac no sooner closed with the warrior, than (then) he fell back and made some exclamation, like ‘boys, I’m killed,’ or ‘Oh God, boys I’m killed, or similar to this, and died…,” Morse Coffin wrote (Coffin, Morse H., The Battle of Sand Creek, page 26-27).
George Bent was a Cheyenne Dog Soldier (warrior), and he was in the village at Sand Creek on November 29, 1864. He wrote about the event in letters to historians. The idea the warriors were all off hunting, or any of them were off hunting, is simply to force the narrative the Indians at Sand Creek were unable to defend themselves. We also need to apply some common sense. Warriors wouldn’t go very far away from a village to hunt. How would they get their hunts back? George Bent wrote about a time when the Cheyenne were camped on Powder River and warriors were out hunting and quickly returned to camp when they saw soldiers approaching. They would stay close enough to their village to be able to fight, if needed.
“Indians that were hunting came running into camp and reported soldiers were coming. Village cryer, Bull Bear, rode around in camps saying soldiers were coming,” George Bent said (Bent to Hyde, 9-21-1905).
“Some Siouxs that were out hunting buffalo seen soldiers going towards Beaver Creek and came back to the village and reported what they had seen,” George Bent said (Bent to Hyde, 12-11-1905).
The lifestyles of the Cheyenne and Sioux were nearly identical, according to Bent. “Sioux and Cheyennes have been living together for over 100 years” Bent said (Bent to Hyde, 8-16-1911). The letters cited above are examples to show how far Indians would go away from their camp to hunt, which wasn’t very far. They were close enough to run back and warn the village about an approaching enemy. There isn’t any evidence to substantiate the claim the warriors were off hunting and not present at Sand Creek. The National Park Service makes these claims but never cites their source or sources. If someone were writing a paper for a college class and failed to cite their sources, they would fail. We get our information directly from eyewitnesses such as George Bent and soldiers.
It is also well documented that the engagement at Sand Creek lasted several hours. If the soldiers merely surrounded the congested village and killed the Indians as they awoke and came out of their tipis, the event would have been over soon after it began.
“Quite a party of Indians took position under the bank, in the bed of the creek, and returned fire upon us. We fought them about seven hours, I should think, there being firing on both sides,” Major Anthony said (Report on the Conduct of the War, 38 Congress, 2nd session, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1865).
The massacre story alleges the Indians at Sand Creek were only defenseless women, children and elderly, and like the other massacre claims, the root source is oral history.
One of the problems with oral history is it’s accepted and never questioned—the oral history accounts claiming Sand Creek was a massacre are not corroborated. It’s the artifacts that shouldn’t be questioned—they cannot lie. They tell a clear and concise story of a village that stretched for about 2-3 miles and running battle areas starting on the opposite side of the creek from the village. The running battle areas stretched for several miles and in multiple directions. Click on the Artifacts tab at the top of the page to see some photos of artifacts. There are also over 100 photos of artifacts and maps in our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek. Many of the photos show multiple artifacts in a single photo.
The oral history accounts have been changing for nearly 160 years.
“Some of the oral histories said Indians were hiding in rock caves along Sand Creek. Small problem, there aren’t any rock caves along Sand Creek. There are no rocks at all, it’s all sand. Others said babies were hidden in the big cottonwood trees. The eyewitnesses said there weren’t any big cottonwood trees, maybe some small ones. George Bent didn’t mention trees at all. Some said the Indian village was near Estes Park, in Rocky Mountain National Park, while others placed it north of Kit Carson. These two locations are over 200 miles apart. At least Kit Carson was close…only about twenty miles from the real site. Oral histories lack in detail and sometimes contradict. One story said there were two Black Kettles—the Chief and his brother (National Park Service Site Location Study, Sand Creek Massacre Project, Volume 1, 2000, 2000, page 205) Another said there were three Black Kettles—the Chief, his nephew, and a cousin (National Park Service Site Location Study, Sand Creek Massacre Project, Volume 1, 2000, page 215). These oral histories have become folklore” (We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site, chapter 11).
The oral history accounts used as examples above are all over the board, and they were compiled by the National Park Service Sand Creek team about 1999/2000 and published in their Sand Creek Site Location Study in 2000.
We know without any doubt the Indians were not camped anywhere near Kit Carson—the village and battle locations were found about 20 miles from there. And Estes Park? That’s over 200 miles from the Lost Sand Creek Site. It’s unclear how those oral history accounts came to be, but it’s clear they’re not correct.
Oral history accounts are too similar to the telephone game. One person starts a story and passes it to the next person, who then passes the information on to another. By the time it gets to the last person, the information is hardly recognizable from how it began. Oral histories can easily be molded into what people want them to be—there’s no accountability.
Unverifiable oral history should not be used to form opinions and beliefs about Sand Creek—It’s the tangible evidence we should be using. No period artifacts have ever been found at the alleged massacre location below the bluff at the NPS Sand Creek site.
The artifacts, and specifically where they were found, hold everything else fully accountable. It’s the artifacts that either substantiate or debunk a soldier’s account or an oral history account. The running battle account from soldier Irving Howbert is corroborated by the physical evidence. The oral history accounts claiming Sand Creek was a massacre are debunked by the artifacts which show the event to be a running battle. The Bowens found over 4,000 battle and village artifacts on the Bowen family ranch, at the Lost Sand Creek Site, starting about two miles up the creek from the NPS bluff.
The idea the village was filled with only women, children and elderly is debunked.
The difference between the massacre claim where the Indians were allegedly killed as they came out of their tipis and a running battle is the Indians fought back and put up a good fight. Sand Creek was a running battle between soldiers and warriors, showing the village was not filled with only women, children and elderly. There were over 70 soldier casualties. Warriors killed soldiers.
Sand Creek soldier Morse Coffin sums his thoughts on the event:
“This battle is usually (especially in the east) referred to as the ‘Sand Creek Massacre,’ or Chivington’s Massacre; and as such has it gone forth to the world, and as such is it likely to be handed down to posterity. I think this is unjust. It merits no such infamous brand. If this was a massacre, and not a battle, in the ordinary sense of the word, then am I at a loss to know just what constitutes a battle, and I wish to be absent from all battles. Many who were in this fight had seen service, and been in battles elsewhere; and these called this a battle, and very much of a one too.
For this affair the commander of the expedition has been censured, lied about, and cursed generally beyond all reason. I am no special admirer of Col. Chivington, nor can I justify all that was done at Sand Creek; but I have a strong desire to see justice done him, as well as all others who have been and are under the ban of condemnation on account of the mistaken idea abroad in regard to the battle. In this connection I must record my contempt for the work of the ‘Committee on the Conduct of the War’ (led by Lt. Colonel Tappan, Chivington’s known enemy), Morse Coffin said (Coffin, Morse H., The Battle of Sand Creek page 38).”
For reasons not known, Coffin wasn’t the biggest fan of Colonel Chivington, but he vehemently opposed the branding of Sand Creek as a massacre and wanted Chivington to get fair treatment. Coffin also called out the one-sided hearings that were led by Chivington’s known enemy, Lt. Colonel Sam Tappan. Chivington was even denied witnesses. There wasn’t anything objective about the hearings and their conclusions are biased. What happened to Chivington is nearly identical to the law fare we see today. It’s clear why there was never a trial—there was no evidence to convict him of anything. The hearings were created to destroy Chivington through the court of public opinion. Tappan was jealous and enraged that Chivington was promoted straight to Colonel from Major, when Tappan, who was Lt. Colonel, was next in line for the promotion. See our blog about Tappan here: TappanChivington.
Coffin knew how the Sand Creek story would be told and passed down, and he was correct. But the story needs to be corrected. He knew the truth and documented it. See our videos from his account here: Coffin1, Coffin2, Coffin3.
If the hearings were about getting to the truth, there would have been no need to silence the defendant. Tappan couldn’t allow for Chivington’s key witnesses to testify—it would have been detrimental to his claims. It’s logical one of those key witnesses would have been Morse Coffin. Irving Howbert is another logical choice.
The village and battle artifacts, the physical evidence, are also detrimental to the massacre claim. They have also been silenced. The National Park Service doesn’t want this massive discovery of over 4,000 artifacts found at the Lost Sand Creek Site to be known. And as we stated, the discovery is detrimental to labeling Sand Creek a massacre. The artifacts do not lie. One of the main reasons today in branding the event a massacre is due to the attempt to destroy patriotism—the white soldier has to look as bad as possible. The goal is for when people visit the NPS Sand Creek site, to leave feeling ashamed of their white American ancestors. It’s all about feelings, tugging at people’s heartstrings. But it’s important to note, the alleged massacre location is not only void of physical evidence, it was never verified by an eyewitness.
The Lost Sand Creek Site is verified by eyewitnesses and artifacts. The accounts from soldiers like Irving Howbert clearly detail the Bowen family ranch when they describe what the land looked like. Howbert’s running battle account is detailed in our book.
We cannot stay silent and allow this event to be lied about when we know the truth. We’re asking you to also not stay silent. Learn the truth about Sand Creek and share the truth. You can read about the discovery of the real Sand Creek location and how that changes the massacre story in We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site. Click on the Buy The Book tab in the top right corner of the page. You can also click on the link here: WeFoundTheLostSandCreekSite.
Knowledge is power. Truth matters. Truth wins.
Give us a follow on Facebook at BowenHistory and share our post!
Follow us on X: thelostsandcreek
Subscribe on YouTube: thelostsandcreek
