By Mike Bowen, co-author, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site
Was Black Kettle’s village at Sand Creek bombarded with cannon fire?
Most of the information that has been passed down about that event originates from people who were not present at Sand Creek on November 29, 1864.
There are two key components that provide the necessary information to gain truth about that event: Firsthand accounts and artifacts. It’s imperative to not just know about the artifacts found at the Lost Sand Creek Site, but where they were found.
Read this blog to see where these fragments were found and how they provide clarity to the Sand Creek battle. See a map showing the area near the end of the blog.
Three hearings held following the Sand Creek battle were used as a political attack against Colonel John Chivington which resulted in many referring to the event as a massacre. Colorado Territory settlers, Governor John Evans, along with most eyewitnesses including soldiers and George Bent defended Sand Creek as a hard-fought battle.
It has also been claimed the soldiers stormed a peaceful sleeping village and slaughtered the Indians as they awoke and came out of their tipis early that morning. The artifacts and the location they were found debunk this idea. Chuck Bowen found over 4,000 battle and village artifacts at what is called the Lost Sand Creek Site. The village and battle areas are two different locations. Very little fighting actually took place in the village. According to eyewitnesses such as Morse Coffin, a soldier at Sand Creek, the village was deserted when the soldiers arrived.
The area below the bluff, at the alleged massacre location, is void of period artifacts. If that was the location where the Indians were camped and attacked, it would have been littered with bullets, cannonball shell fragments, village artifacts, plus much more. However, none of those items have been found there. Those items weren’t picked up over the years, either, but were actually found starting about two miles up the creek from there on the Bowen family ranch, the location of the Lost Sand Creek Site.
We learn from multiple eyewitness accounts the Indians were fleeing the village when the soldiers arrived—the first event that morning would have been firing the cannons as they are only effective when a large number of the enemy is clustered together. The eyewitness account of an Indian warrior, Little Bear, corroborates the idea the Indians fled. George Bent shared his account in a letter to historian George Hyde. Little Bear said that he got up very early that morning, went across the creek and went up on a hill to get his horse. He looked south toward the lodgepole trail and saw a long black line. He knew it was soldiers on horseback, miles away, coming to fight the Indians (Bent to Hyde 4-14-1906).
Bowen found many tipi sites, verifying he indeed found the village area, and he found them from discovering fire pits which had small pieces of a metal in them. They were discovered with a metal detector. The village site is about three miles long, stretching along the creek. At a different location, Chuck made another massive discovery.
The following is from our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site: (Read the full account in chapter seven).
‘June 1999
Lower end of our ranch
The area Gail pointed to those weeks before was littered with 12-Pounder Mountain Howitzer shell fragments, .69 caliber lead balls, arrowheads, cone tinklers, percussion caps, bullets, rings, knives, bracelets, eagle buttons, a hide scraper made from an octagon musket barrel, and the leather sole of a shoe.
Could this be the place I found that shell fragment two years before? I had no memory of finding it there. Each time I found one with the threads, I compared the fragments. None fit. I found enough other matching pieces that one cannonball was almost complete—the fragments fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.
I call this area the cannonball field. This was the only place I found cannonball artifacts. I didn’t find any in the village area on the north bank of the creek. Some of the stories say the village was pummeled by cannon fire. The artifacts do not substantiate that idea. Cannons are only effective when there’s a large number of the enemy in one area. The Indians saw the soldiers approaching from a great distance and scattered, giving the soldiers a short window of time to effectively use the cannons. Morse Coffin said the soldiers found the village deserted. It seems plausible cannons fired there early that morning on a group of Indians that fled south across the creek from the village—likely the first event of the fight’ (We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site).
Major Anthony, Commanding Officer of Fort Lyon, and Colonel Chivington, provided information on the number of cannons at Sand Creek.
From chapter eight of We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site:
‘I had four 12-pound mountain howitzers, manned by detachments from cavalry companies,’ Chivington testified at one of the hearings. Major Scott J. Anthony agreed. ‘We had four pieces.’ They were called Mountain Howitzers, because they were small cannons that could be dismantled, loaded onto mules, and taken over narrow mountain trails. At Sand Creek, the cannons weren’t dismantled but were attached to the limber which held the ammunition—pulled by horses or mules and looked much like the chassis of a horse-drawn wagon.
During this fast ride, (of perhaps an hour,) the Artillery were, if not in the advance, certainly near the head of the column, and, going at the rate we were, they made an awful din and clatter, which must have been heard for several miles away, as the morning was clear, cool and calm. On we went, rattle-ty-clatter, every little while packages of grub and other valuables being lost from saddles, but no halting or caring for trifles now. The Indians must have been warned of our approach, by the noise made by the artillery and that of nearly 700 galloping horses. It could scarcely be otherwise, said Morse Coffin with the Colorado 3rd (Coffin, Morse H., The Battle of Sand Creek page 18-19).
(The blog continues below the video).
The 12-Pounder Mountain Howitzers fired three different types of projectiles— case shot, shell, and canister. Thecase shot was a round, hollow cast iron ball filled with .69 caliber lead balls and a black powder charge. The shell was similar to case shot, but the cast iron was thicker, and it did not have the lead balls. Both had the Bormann fuse that could be set to explode from one to five seconds after leaving the cannon barrel. The canister resembled a tin can and was filled with 148 .69 caliber lead balls. It looked like a giant shotgun shell.
The blog continues below the photo.
Each of these projectiles had a wooden sabot with a wool bag filled with black powder attached. The projectile was placed in the barrel of the cannon and pushed to the back with a ramrod. There was a small hole in the back of the barrel that aligned with the powder bag, and a sharp tool was pushed into the hole piercing the bag. The tube of the friction primer was placed into the hole and then into the powder bag. A long cord with a hook at one end was attached to the loop of the friction primer. It was much like striking a match when the cord was pulled. The friction primer was lit, which ignited the powder bag, and fired the cannon. These projectiles fired great distances. The maximum range of the case shot was 800 yards, the shell was 1,000 yards and the canister was 250 yards. The initial velocities of all three projectiles were about 1,000 feet per second.
I only found cannon projectile artifacts in one area, which was across the creek from the village, about 2 ½ miles up the creek from the monument” (We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site).
Chuck documented the cannonball shell fragments, as well as his other artifact finds, with the GPS coordinates and a photo. Those coordinates were uploaded into satellite imagery and the location of these artifacts show how early the firing of cannons would have been in the engagement at Sand Creek. It is proof it was the first event. Soldiers didn’t pursue the Indians until after they were done firing the cannons. The soldiers wouldn’t shoot cannons while other soldiers were chasing fleeing Indians, and thus, into cannon fire. Also, shell fragments can fly a significant distance after exploding. Chuck found matching pieces that were found over 100 yards from each other. Some have even claimed the cannons were shot from the top of the bluff or from hills. Both are easily debunked. Shooting downward would cause the cannon to push backwards and not fire correctly. The absence of shell fragments at the alleged massacre location is proof the soldiers did not shoot any cannons from the bluff or toward the area below the bluff. It’s not that only a few shell fragments were found at the alleged massacre location, no shell fragments were found there. And by the location the shells were found, it shows the cannons weren’t positioned on any hills, and there weren’t any hills to fire from.
(The blog continues below the video).
The one thing that cannot lie is the artifacts—the location of the physical evidence is the most important in knowing what happened at Sand Creek, where and in what order. As cited above, the cannonball shell fragments were found about 2 ½ miles up the creek from the bluff, so it’s not possible for any cannons to have been fired from there. Also, the soldiers would have positioned the cannons on flat ground.
As mentioned above, the maximum range of the case shot was 800 yards, the shell was 1,000 yards and the canister was 250 yards. The distance of firing was much too short for soldiers to have fired cannons from the top of the bluff with the location of the shell fragments at 2 ½ miles up the creek from there.
Another reason the Indians would have fled is due to the fact they would have not just seen the soldiers from miles away, but they would have heard the soldiers as well. Morse Coffin documented how loud 700 galloping horses and the noise of four cannons being pulled would have been. There was no sneak attack. The Indians saw and heard the soldiers and fled the village.
Soldiers firing cannons wasn’t just the first event, but it was a short event. They had a small window to fire upon fleeing Indians.
It has also been claimed that women and children were intentionally targeted at Sand Creek.
“The cannons were fired about a ½ mile from the target, and from that distance, especially that early in the morning, it would be nearly impossible to tell the Indians’ ages and sexes. Even in the present day, some similar situations result in noncombatants killed, referred to as collateral damage. This happened at Sand Creek” (We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site).
The cannonball field area and running battle areas provide the clarity that shows the cannons were fired first, then soldiers chased after fleeing Indians, fighting many warriors per multiple soldier accounts including Morse Coffin, Lant Williams and Irving Howbert. George Bent even said there were warriors at Sand Creek. Per battle artifacts the Indians scattered in multiple directions from the village.
We don’t have a dog in this fight—we are about sharing history based on physical evidence and eyewitness accounts, which corroborate each other. The story of the artifacts has been silenced, minimized and lied about.
Truth is what matters most. Knowledge is power. Truth wins.
Read the full accounts cited in this blog in our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site. The truth is eye opening.
Click the Buy the Book tab in the top right of the page.
