By Mike Bowen, co-author, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site
Did the Indians camp below a bluff at Sand Creek? Would that be a sensible place for a winter camp?
One of the biggest problems with the Sand Creek massacre claim is the alleged massacre location.
If the Indians at Sand Creek were indeed camped below the bluff at what is now the National Park Service Sand Creek site, they would have been exposed to the cold north winds, and snow could have buried the village.
From our book:
The NPS keeps visitors processing information on an emotional level and steers them away from factually based evidence and common sense. They fail to tell the visitors that several thousand artifacts were found beginning two miles up the creek from the monument and continuing for over seven more miles. The Indians moved to Sand Creek in the middle of November, and with winter approaching, it’s unlikely they would place their camp on the north side of a twenty-foot bluff leaving the village exposed to the cold north winds.
A northerly wind accompanied by lots of snow could have buried the entire village. Chinook winds coming over this bluff would go over the village in the hollow below. The bluff would also block the warmth of the sun, low in the southern sky—snow would take a long time to melt. Even the cows gather on the south side of a windbreak before a winter storm. The idea Indians camped on the north side of this bluff defies common sense.
The village artifacts and fire pits I found show the tipis were on the north side of the creek on a bank about four feet high. This bank and the area below absorbed the warmth of the sun, making it a good place for their daily tasks. At this location, Chinook winds would go into the village instead of over it. This would be the sensible place for a winter camp.
From this location, you could see several miles to the south, which isn’t possible had they been camped below the bluffs. The Indians saw the soldiers approaching several miles away. Artifacts and eyewitnesses substantiate they were not attacked as they slept but as they fled up the creek.
We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site
Alleging that the Indians camped below that bluff is suggesting they were not bright people. The opposite is true. They were nomadic, understood the elements and knew where to set up a winter camp. They would set up camp where they could maximize the warmth of the sun and be able to see an enemy approaching. And from where they were actually camped, they saw the soldiers approaching from over two miles away.
That area below the bluff is also much too small for Black Kettle’s village. George Bent said the Indian villages were always 2-3 miles long. The bend below the bluff where the NPS says Black Kettle’s village was located is only about ¼ of a mile long.
An Indian village like that of Black Kettle’s required lots of space. The Indians would need extra space between tipis for water sources and tethering a horse (Bent to Hyde 12-21-1905).
The massacre story needs a dramatic backdrop. The bluff works perfectly to create a visual of how defenseless the Indians would be if they were camped there.
No physical evidence has been found at the alleged massacre location. No bullets. No cannonball shell fragments. No soldier artifacts. No village artifacts. The Indians were not camped there. This is easily proven by the location where village artifacts were found, starting over two miles up the creek on the Bowen family ranch.
The real location also changes the Sand Creek story.
For those that believe it was a massacre, please offer a definition of the word massacre. Some say the soldiers mutilated the dead after the battle. Why can’t the soldiers be named? If it could be proven that some soldiers mutilated dead Indians, it would be a very small number. And any Indians that were hit by cannon fire would have been ripped apart. That could account for most of the reports of soldiers saying they saw Indians cut up.
For all the reports that claimed soldiers cut up dead Indians, there’s also a lot of reports of soldiers finding white scalps in the tipis (Dr. Caleb Birdsal testimony – See We Found the Lost Sand Creek, page 265). That certainly doesn’t sound like a defenseless or peaceful village. That sounds like the trophies from the wagon train raids George Bent talked about. Bent wrote to historians about scalp dances. See chapter four of our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
Over 4,000 battle and village artifacts were found at the Lost Sand Creek Site. Very little action took place in the village—most of the fighting took place on the other side of the creek from the village. There were also over 70 soldier casualties. For that to happen it couldn’t be a village filled with only women, children and elderly. There were warriors in the camp. George Bent was one of them, and he never claims they were off hunting. He wrote to historians about his time at Sand Creek and Cheyenne life, including, going on wagon train raids, taking white captives, scalping their white enemies, and killing white settlers during the summer of 1864. See chapter four of our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
It’s not just the artifacts that were found, but it’s where they were found that shows Sand Creek was a running battle. Over 100 photos of artifacts and maps are in our book explaining many of the artifacts Chuck Bowen found at the Lost Sand Creek Site and where he found them.
None of us were there November 29, 1864 at Sand Creek. We don’t have a dog in this fight—we’re just sharing the story of the artifacts and eyewitness accounts and how they change the massacre story. We have a responsibility to tell the truth—people have a right to know.
It’s irresponsible to dismiss the accounts of soldiers because of not liking what they have to say. Emotion doesn’t make something true or not true. The running battle account from soldier Irving Howbert has been corroborated by artifacts. The oral history massacre claim has never been corroborated by artifacts. Read about Howbert in chapter six of our book, We Found the Lost Sand Creek Site.
Truth isn’t based on how we feel. We come to conclusions on how we feel based on the truth. The Sand Creek massacre claim has been told to intentionally illicit an emotional response rather than have people come to logical conclusions based on the physical evidence.
History is muddy—it is often not black and white. And the 1864 Sand Creek event has a lot of layers. According to the dictionary, a massacre is the indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people—the evidence from the artifacts and primary sources show there was a hard fought battle on both sides.
We’re also transparent about the few soldiers that committed horrific acts like shooting and killing an Indian toddler. But it’s difficult to name the event after the actions of a few when most of what happened at Sand Creek was a fight between Dog Soldiers (warriors) and soldiers.
It’s also difficult to verify information such as claims that soldiers mutilated dead Indians when the rest of the massacre claims are easily debunked such as where they were camped or that the Indians couldn’t see approaching soldiers. Another point easily debunked is that the Indians were unarmed. They were indeed armed. For an example, see the Robert McFarland account in our book, on pages 70-74.
The alleged massacre location is not a sensible place for a winter camp. It only works for the backdrop of an emotional story, folklore, that is now used to make people hate this country and be ashamed of their American ancestors, all for the sake of making white people look bad.
We encourage you to learn the truth about the Sand Creek event and the discovery of the real location of Black Kettle’s village and battle locations. The truth is eye opening.
Click the Buy the Book tab at the top of the page. Check out chapter 14 to see over 80 photos of artifacts. Many of the photos show multiple artifacts. There are over 100 photos of artifacts and maps throughout the book.
Truth matters. Truth wins.
