The Story of Hannah Dustin - Joan of Arc or Lizzie Bordon?
Posted: Wednesday, December 13, 2006
by Jim Stillman
As I have noted elsewhere, I grew up in Haverhill, Massachusetts, a mid-sized city on the Merrimack River in the north-eastern part of that state. Down the street from our home was a park in which stood a statue of a fierce looking woman, Hannah Dustin. For a time, there was a web site with a "Guest Book" for those wanting to post memories or inquiries about Haverhill. During the years it was in operation, there were hundreds if not thousands of entries posted by those claiming to be descendants of Hannah Dustin, a lady who made history in the seventeenth century when she killed a number of Indians who had taken her captive. I do not wish to make light of this woman, the subject of much folklore in the city of my youth, but an incredible number of people claim her as their ancestor.In any event, as I have stated, Hannah Dustin's statute exists. According to some reports, her statue in Haverhill and another in Boscawen, New Hampshire, (near Concord), New Hampshire, are the first monuments erected in the United States in honor of a woman.
So who was this lady and what did she do to earn such fame? The story of Hannah Dustin is taught to and known by every schoolchild in Haverhill, or perhaps throughout Essex county
According to the accepted story (legend?), in the words of Cotton Mather, in 1702, "On March 15, 1697, the salvages [sic] made a descent upon the skirts [sic] of Haverhill. . .", Hannah's husband, Thomas, was working in the fields near their home; Hannah, recovering from the birth of her twelfth child, was at home. Thomas managed to rescue seven of their children, but Hannah, with her daughter and a neighbor, Mary Neff, were captured and forced to march away from the settlement. The Indians were a branch of the Abenaki confederation and closely aligned with the French in Canada. It is assumed that their aim was to sell Hannah to the Canadians as a slave.
At the very outset of the trek, the Indians felt themselves burdened and held back by the infant. According to Hannah's account when she returned home, the baby was brutally murdered by dashing her head against a tree.
During the next few days, Hannah and Mary were pushed through about 100 miles of wilderness over rough trails - often through leftover snow, knee-deep mud and across icy brooks. Rocks tore up the women's feet, and as they weren't dressed warmly, they suffered badly from the cold.
Finally, they made it to an Indian camp on an island in the Merrimack river near what is now Boscawen, New Hampshire. This camp was shared by two Indian men with a small number of Indian women and children. They also had a captive English boy named Samuel Leonardson from near Worcester, Massachusetts. Samuel had already been held captive for eighteen months. Once at this island, the Indians decided to rest for a few days before going on the Canada. Samuel, who was fourteen, was considered part of the Indian family.. He had become acclimated to living with the Indians and, only later did he become homesick and anxious to return to his people. But at this time, Leonardson did not show any desire to leave the tribe, perhaps a manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome. The presence of the two women made him willing, if not anxious to leave.
At this point, the Indians assumed the women were both too tired and scared to be any threat, but instead Hannah and Mary plotted with Samuel to escape.
On March 30, 1697, Samuel got into a discussion with one of his captors, who may have have been called Bampico, how he had killed the English. "Strike ‘em there," said Bampico, touching his temple, and then proceeded to show the boy how to take a scalp. This information was communicated to the women, and they quickly agreed on the details of the plan.
The Indians were careless and did not secure the captives. The river was in flood, the woman tired and injured, and Samuel was considered "safe". That evening, Hannah did the usual cooking for the group, preparing a soup which may have contained an herb that would make the Indians sleep soundly. One theory is that the soup contained local poison mushrooms that induced amatoxin poisoning. This would have induced lethargy among the Indians, and, eventually, a horrid death. The first stage was sufficient.
Shortly after midnight on March 30-31, 1697, after the Indians were all unconscious, Hannah, Mary and Samuel collected some hatchets from around the camp, then attacked and killed 10 of the 12 sleeping Indians. Only one of the Indian women and a small Indian boy escaped.
Hannah and the others piled food and supplies in canoes and started to travel south on the Merrimack River to Haverhill. Shortly after leaving the camp, Hannah realized that some people may doubt her tale; she returned to the camp and scalped the dead Indians and took the scalps with her as evidence.
Continuing south the three survivors eventually arrived in Haverhill, where they were greeted as heroes and celebrities. Their story was quickly circulated throughout the colonies. People from far and near journeyed to Hannah's home in Haverhill to view the scalps, knives used to obtain them and the bloody cloth used to bring them south.
Between 1694 and December, 1696, Massachusetts had placed a bounty of £50 on Indian scalps. After the bounty law had been revoked, Thomas Dustin believing that the actions of his wife, neighbor and Samuel had been of the greatest value in killing enemies of the colony; he felt they deserved the bounty, a non-inconsiderable sum. In April, 1697, Thomas and the three others went to Boston where he filed a petition to the Governor and Council claiming the award.
On December 4, 1697, the General Court voted payment of a bounty of twenty-five pounds "unto Thomas Dunston [sic] of Haverhill , on behalf of Hannah his wife", and twelve pounds ten shillings each to Mary Neff and Samuel. This was approved on June 16, 1697, and the order in Council for the payment of the several allowances was passed Dec. 4, 1697. (Chapter 10, Province Laws, Mass. Archives.)
Thomas Dustin completed work on a "Garrison House" one of several built in Haverhill to protect the community from future Indian raids. This house remains standing today. Not too much is known or remembered about Hannah Dustin after 1697. She died around 1735 or 1736.
The story of Hannah Dustin remains a story of courage and survival. And not only because of her zillions of descendants.
This Article has been viewed 1,446 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (3 total)I think she is a racist murderer and the fact that she is held up as a hero is akin to a Nazi soldier being seen as such had Hitlerwon that war! I am ASHAMED to be from Essex county!I am not wholly supportive of Miss Hannah's scalping the kidnappers; that seems a mite gratuitous! On the other hand, we have to judge her by 17th century customs and beliefs. Meanwhile, don't be ashamed for being from Essex county. Although I have since moved, I still remember the fried clams.And the native americans who dashed the brains out of a newborn baby, and killed other helpless people, what would yo call them? Nice folks?
You have to remember that Hannah and Mary were not the only people that the Indians were kidnapping and selling as slaves. Also, try to imagine being in her shoes and seeing her new born baby's head smashed against a tree! What would you have done?
RACISM?! Oh, please... They murdered her newborn baby before her eyes, and were planning to murder her, as well. She, Mary and poor Samuel (who had been kidnapped from his family and kept captive for 2 years by these people) were 3 brave people who acted in self-defense. With all of the violence being waged on the colonists (defenseless women and children at that) by the Indians at this time, is it really any surprise they were hailed as heros? Two women and a child! They defeated the enemy. What does race have to do with it?
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.