Probably the most often asked question by visitors to this area is some variation of "Where is the mountain Battle Mountain is named after?" A good question... a legitimate question...but a question with no easy answer.
Of the basic four questions of Who, What, When and Where, there is general agreement on only one—the When. Everyone seems to agree that whatever it was, it occurred in 1857.
As to the Who, there are two separate and distinct stories, each with a different What and Where.
So, let’s start with what is known and generally not disputed, and go from there. If you are impatient and in a hurry , you can skip to the end of this pamphlet for the quick answer.
A LITTLE BACKGROUND
In 1862, William Talcott discovered silver in Pony Canyon, 93 miles south of present day Battle Mountain, and the rush was on. By the end of that year, Lander County had been formed and the town of Austin was on its way to becoming the third largest city west of the Mississippi—if only for a year or so.
That discovery of silver encouraged many prospectors to fan out from Austin in search of the next rich strike, and over the next decade or so, some 160 new mining districts were formed by Austin-based prospectors, from Calitornia to Idaho. One of these new finds occurred some 80 miles north of Austin in a range of mountains that formed the western flank of the Reese River Valley, just south of the Humboldt River. In what is now known as Philadelphia Canyon, rich copper ore was discovered in late 1865 and early 1866.
BATTLE MOUNTAIN MINING DISTRICT
In April of 1866, the prospectors decided to form a new mining district to encompass the entire range of mountains all the way north to the Humboldt River. They named the new district the Battle Mountain Mining District, for whatever reason (which we will explore a little later on).
The following year silver was discovered at the northern edge of the new district. The timing of the discovery could not have been better.
One of the major drawbacks to any mining district in Nevada was transportation—how to get supplies to the new mines and the settlements that sprang up around them, and the ore out to the markets. Rich ore is of little real value if you can’t afford to get it to the buyers.
But this was not to be a problem for the new silver mine because the new transcontinental railroad, the Central Pacific, had announced that its tracks would follow the Humboldt River, and would pass not four miles from the new mine; and, the rails would arrive there by the very next winter!
This was almost too good to be true. The mine owners immediately went to work to develop the mine, called the Little Giant—a common name for mines during this period, for that was the name of a commonly used blasting powder. Men and machinery were brought in by wagon. Soon there was a small settlement around the mine, called the Battle Mountain Mining camp, and other mines were developed. A five-stamp mill, powered by steam, was brought in from the Black Rock desert to crush the ore. Since wood was scarce in the area, the boiler burned sagebrush.
THE RAILROAD ARRIVES
In October of 1868 the track of the Central Pacific Railroad arrived. A small siding was built to serve the mines, but the main train station for the region was laid out fourteen miles further east, where a new road had been built by the people of Austin up to the railroad. This station was named Argenta by Charlie Crocker, the superintendent of the Central Pacific Railroad. Here a town was laid out and a hotel was built to serve the traveling public.
For a short time Argenta prospered, but as soon as the tracks reached the new railroad town of Elko, closer to the brand new gold rush at White Pine, Argenta faltered and died. No one bid on the lots in the town the railroad had laid out and only two frame buildings were ever built—the hotel and the general store.
THE TOWN OF BATTLE MOUNTAIN
Meanwhile, back at the Battle Mountain siding, a hotel had been built, and a stage line was providing regular service to the Battle Mountain mining camp, four miles to the south. Business was booming, partially because one of the owners of the Little Giant mine had discovered more silver in a canyon four miles further south. Here he laid out a new town which he named Galena.
As more and more freight and more and more people began using the siding at Battle Mountain, the railroad and the few merchants at Argenta began to think that Argenta was not such a good prospect after all. In the fall of 1869, the decision was made to abandon Argenta and shift the hotel and town to Battle Mountain. The railroad soon surveyed out a new townsite, and the hotel was moved.
For a short time, the railroad tried to call the new town Argenta, having totally abandoned the original Argenta, but "the town of Argenta at the Battle Mountain siding" just didn’t work and soon the name Argenta was abandoned altogether.
And so the present day town of Battle Mountain was born.
SO WHERE DID THE NAME COME FROM?
Now, back to the main question: Where did the name Battle Mountain come from? Well, back in April of 1866, when the Battle Mountain Mining District was being formed, one of the prospectors, a man by the name of Tannenhill, stopped in at the office of the Reese River Reveille, Austin’s (and the region’s) main newspaper, to show off the rich copper ore specimens that he had collected, and to brag about the new discovery.
In the course of his
conversation with the esteemed editor of the Reveille, Tannenhill
was asked point blank why they had called the new district the
Battle Mountain Mining District. Tannenhill replied that it was
in honor of a fight that he and 22 other emigrants had had with
the Indians in that area 9 years previously. Tannenhill went on
to say that the leader of the emigrants was a man named
"Captain Pierson" and that Pierson was currently
farming near Austin, along the Reese River. He gave no details as
to the nature of the fight with the Indians or where it occurred.
That might seem the end of the mystery, but nothing in history is that simple! Let’s backtrack to an earlier time.
THE TRAIL TO CALIFORNIA
In 1828, Peter Skene Ogden and his company of Hudson’s Bay fur trappers discovered the Humboldt River. In 1833, Joseph Walker led a group of American trappers to California, using the Humboldt as a pathway across Nevada; and so the great Overland Trail to California was born. It was not until 1841 that the first emigrants bound for California (as opposed to trappers and mountain men) followed the river, and by 1849 and the California Gold Rush, what had been a mere trickle turned into a torrent.
It has been estimated that of the 250,000 people who went west between 1840 and 1860, more than 200,000 of them came along the Humboldt River; it was the greatest peacetime emigration in history.
By 1857 (the year the "battle of Battle Mountain" apparently happened), the trail was well established. In fact, that very year the United States government declared the Emigrant Trail a Federal Wagon Road, and appointed men to survey and oversee the road. The western portion of the road, from Honey Lake (on the California-Nevada border near present day Marysville) to the City of Rocks (on the Nevada-Idaho border, not far from present day Soda Springs) was assigned to John Kirk, from Placerville, California. During the month of August, 1857, Kirk and a team of 65 men were on the trail, surveying the route and assisting the weary emigrants they encountered on the trail. As he went, Kirk interviewed the travelers and kept a journal of what he saw and what he was told.
At the same time, the citizens of several California communities were acutely aware of the economic importance of getting the emigrants to settle in their particular town or area, and considerable competition developed to lure the wagons over the Sierras by one particular route as opposed to another—and thus into a given community. The competition was so fierce that California towns raised money by way of taxes to build or improve the various roads over the mountains. It grew so heated that Kirk was later forced to give up his superintendent’s position because some factions accused him of using his influence unfairly to steer the emigrants toward Placerville.
As a byproduct of this interest, the newspapers of California followed events along the emigrant trail with great interest, and the 1857 issues of the Sacramento Daily Union and San Francisco’s Alta California carried weekly, sometimes daily, reports of events along the route, and often would publish the names and home addresses of newly arrived travelers, as well as reports of their experiences along the way.
ATTACKS BY INDIANS
It is clear from all these records that 1857 was a bloody one for the travelers, at least in the area of what is now Battle Mountain. Just to the north of present day Battle Mountain is the Sheep Creek Mountain range. A small spur runs south from the steep bluffs, and ends right up against the river. The wagon road had to cross this rocky point to stay clear of the river, and because of the many volcanic stones that littered the way, it was called Stony Point. In 1857, it should have been called Bloody Point.
We know that in the course of less than one month, three groups were attacked by Indians near this point. During the attack on the second party, the Holloways, on August 10, five men and a child were killed, one man escaped. Mrs. Holloway was severely injured and was scalped alive while feigning death, and finally rescued by another wagon train that came upon the scene minutes after the attack.
These matters were reported by both Kirk and the newspapers in great detail, as were much more minor matters, such as the poor man traveling alone and on foot who was stripped of all his clothes by the Indians and had to walk 10 miles before he found a wagon train and could borrow clothing.
So how does all of this relate to the "Battle of Battle Mountain?" Simply that there is not one shred of evidence of any attack on a band of 23 emigrants under the command of Capt. Pierson, and containing a Mr. Tannenhill. If a single man being robbed of his clothes made the news, some battle involving a mountain and 23 emigrants should have been noted somewhere by someone. It was not.
And there is one more problem with Tannenhill’s story: the Battle Mountain Mining District and the mountains and hills contained therein are all on the south side of the Humboldt River, while the main trail to California then in use was on the north side. That seems to make the story less plausible. In defense of Tannenhill’s story, however, it is true that travel on the south side of the river, though generally dryer and more difficult, was not unheard of; and a battle on a less traveled portion of the route might have gone unreported. Was Tannenhill telling the truth, or was he trying to make himself sound important? Did he just not know why it was called Battle Mountain Mining District and made something up to satisfy the editor of the Reveille? We just don’t know.
THEORY NUMBER TWO
So much for the first story of where the name Battle Mountain came from; here is the second:
The
third of the three attacks that occurred at Stony Point was an
attack on John Kirk and a portion of his survey party. As Kirk
wrote in his journal, shortly after crossing Stony point on his
way east, the trail forked, one branch staying close to the
river, the other turning north and skirting the base of the
mountains. Kirk sent the majority of his party along the river
road while he and seven other men explored the route along the
base of the mountain. After traveling a short distance, they
spotted an Indian, and approached him, hoping that he could tell
them about the trail and local conditions. However, the Indian
kept retreating as they approached, until, a mile or so later,
they crested a small ridge and suddenly discovered 55 to 60 armed
and mounted Indians hidden in a gully. Only lightly armed, the
eight men fought a running retreat, struggling to rejoin the rest
of the survey party. The fight lasted about two hours, with
Kirk’s party shooting at the Indians, galloping off for a
ways, then stopping to fire on the pursuing red men.
In the end, the white men suffered three wounded and one killed—all horses. The Indian losses were not known. Today, the gully where the Indians hid prior to the attack is called Battle Creek. There was no mountain.
Could this well documented event be the basis for the name Battle Mountain? Could the word "mountain" in the original name "Battle Mountain Mining District" refer not to the battle but to the mining district, which was a mountain range?
And now you know as much as the rest of us.
THE QUICK AND EASY ANSWER
The name Battle Mountain first appeared in April of 1866 when the Battle Mountain Mining District was formed. One of the men involved in the new district told the local newspaper that the name came from a battle he and 22 other emigrants had with the Indians in 1857, but there is no confirming evidence or records to support the story. That same year a group of surveyors led by John Kirk fought a brief running skirmish with some Indians and many believe that that well documented event is the actual origin of the name.
Now go back and read the rest of the material!