Yesterday wasn’t the first time I’d stopped at the Park ‘n’ Ride off Route 93 in Penacook, NH to cross the old railroad trestle onto the island where an all-but-forgotten monument to Hannah Dustin stands. But given that I’d never taken photographs of said monument–and given the fact that I’d driven to nearby Concord, NH to meet with a student who’s doing a senior capstone project on captivity narratives by Asian American descendents of Korean comfort women–it made sense to pay a second visit to old stone Hannah.
In a previous lifetime, I wrote a paper about American Indian captivity narratives: stories written by white settlers who had been taken hostage during Indian raids, were later redeemed from captivity, and subsequently told their stories of capture and redemption. Hannah Dustin, however, never wrote a captivity narrative, which is a shame since her story is so vivid.
According to historical accounts, Dustin and her neighbor Mary Neff were taken captive by Abenaki Indians during a 1697 raid on Haverill, MA. Dustin had recently given birth, and during the forced march from Haverill, her Abenaki captors killed her infant by smashing its skull against a tree. After her forced removal from Haverill to an island in the Merrimack River near what is now Penacook, NH, Dustin conspired with Neff and Samuel Lennardson, a white teenager who was also being held hostage, to kill their captors. Lennardson nonchalantly asked one of his captors to show him how he would kill and scalp a man, then Dustin applied this knowledge after the Abenaki family they were traveling with had fallen asleep.
It is here that Dustin’s story gets complicated. Popular versions of Dustin’s story–such as the text on the highway marker on the road to Penacook, NH–simply say that Dustin, a victim of an Indian raid, killed ten Indians before escaping to freedom: a clear act of self-defense. Of the ten Indians that Dustin and her compatriots killed, however, only two were grown men: also killed were two women and six children.
If Dustin and her fellows were acting only in self-defense, why was it necessary to kill children? Presumably, the captives didn’t want survivors to flee and fetch other Abenakis; as chance would have it, one badly injured woman and an Abenaki child did indeed escape to tell the tale. But if Dustin and her fellow captives were motivated purely by self-preservation, why did Dustin stop after they’d begun their escape down the Merrimack River, return to the Abenakis they’d killed, and scalp their dead bodies?
The larger-than-life statue of Hannah Dustin in Penacook, NH shows her carrying an axe in one hand and a cluster of scalps in the other. Presumably, Dustin returned to scalp her captors as “proof” of her and her co-captives’ story…but why? What did Dustin want to prove, and to whom? Did she think her husband and neighbors in Haverill, MA wouldn’t believe that she, a woman, had escaped from captivity by her own hands? Did she feel a need to prove where she, a woman, had been during the several weeks she’d been away from her family? Or did Hannah Dustin, a woman who had seen her newborn infant murdered at the hands of people she considered “savages,” feel a need to show bloody proof of the horrors of guerilla warfare? Revenge is a dish best served cold and bloody, and Hannah Dustin’s “bouquet” of Indian scalps shows just how brutal an otherwise mild-mannered mother of twelve can be when things turn ugly.
As a woman, I can’t say I blame Hannah Dustin for taking vengeance into her own hands, but as a human being I’m still troubled by those bloody scalps. Yesterday as I walked under partly cloudy skies from the Park ‘n’ Ride to the isolated spot where Dustin’s monument stands, I was mindful of the headline on the newspaper I’d picked up from my porch before leaving Keene: “Woman victim of sex attack.” If it’s no longer safe for women to walk the night-time streets of Small Town, NH without protective male escort, what was I doing walking in an isolated spot along the side of the road to Penacook, NH without a dog, bodyguard, or axe of my own?
Had some savage leapt from the bushes intending to do me harm as I walked under partly cloudy skies yesterday, would you have blamed me for defending myself by any means available? At the same time, having vanquished and even killed my attacker, would you raise an eyebrow had I gone one step further, returning to that attacker to glean trophies as “proof” from his subjugated body?
I don’t know if Hannah Dustin was a “hero” as her historical marker proclaims…but she’s definitely a survivor, and I suppose that deserves its own kind of commemoration. It’s a cold, cruel, and bloody world out there, and sometimes only the ugliest bouquet, clutched to one’s breast like a handbag, can serve as proof to that sad, inevitable fact.
- Click here for more photos of New Hampshire’s Hannah Dustin monument.





May 15, 2007 at 6:56 pm
> …what was I doing walking in an isolated spot along the side of the road…
You have every right to walk wherever you want but it’s still a valid question. Because it’s a violent world I recommend all women, particularly those that would be out on their own, carry a gun. NH makes this much easier than if you lived here in California where a carry permit is almost impossible to get for us lowly citizens.
May 15, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Might she have taken the scalps for a bounty? Financial reward would be a reason to go back.
I read your essay about captivity stories some time ago. It’s very interesting, and it got me reading captivity accounts from the Southern Appalachians. Thanks for expanding my horizons.
May 15, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Dustin did indeed end up collecting a bounty…but it’s not clear that she knew about and/or was motivated by the bounty at the time of the killings. Instead, early accounts say she went back and took the scalps as proof, whatever that means.
Rusty, I support the right to bear arms, but I’m basically lazy. Carrying a camera is about as bogged-down as I want to get: I can’t imagine toting a gun, too. But I support the right of those who do choose to protect themselves in that way as long as they’re responsible gun-owners.
May 16, 2007 at 8:54 am
What a beautiful essay: absorption (awareness) of negativity/violence neutralized by art and compassion for all involved.
May 18, 2007 at 12:26 pm
If someone murdered my child, and I had them in my power, I suspect I’d do things more ghastly than scalping them after their deaths. Some of the ghastly things would happen before their deaths (I’d get medieval on their asses). Certainly, it would not make me a hero, but I’d never turn down a medal for it, or a statue. People who slaughter children are not worthy of any respect, consideration, or freedom from horrible retribution. If people can’t find another way to express themselves, let ‘em take it up with any deity they may meet after death.
In short, I find no fault with the scalping in this tale.
May 18, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Fascinating. It’s always difficult to get inside the heads of pre-modern people. For the Indians, scalping represented a form of soul capture. The scalps were thought to possess strong power that could be used for good or ill. Who’s to say that Hannah didn’t have similar beliefs? Perhaps she thought that this would help protect her from future attacks. I’m not saying rage wasn’t a main motive, just that there might have been other things going into it.
May 18, 2007 at 11:20 pm
What a story! I wonder how other women of that time, having seen their baby killed in such a manner, would have reacted… what percentage would do the same?
Sep 14, 2007 at 8:19 am
I think whoever wrote this is mean. I am a direct decedent from Hannah Dustin. I think she did a great thing. They killed her child. If I were her I would have killed the indians to.
Sep 14, 2007 at 9:18 am
Mean? As I noted in the post itself, I can completely understand where Dustin might have been coming from, but I’m still troubled by what she did. I wonder if she, too, was troubled, later, by what had happened: historical accounts don’t record the emotional aftermath of the attack.
If saying that Hannah Dustin’s story is troubling, with no clear “moral” about what constitutes “heroic” behavior, then yes, I’m mean. I’m sorry you took offense by my suggestion that a roadside marker makes a complex story too simple. War is hell, and people in times of war do hellish things. I think that fact is the “meanest” thing of all.
Feb 20, 2008 at 4:40 pm
One other point I would like to make is that the British invented scalping and first used it in their conquest of Northern Ireland.
Feb 20, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Hannah is my 8th great-grandma but I also have American Indian ancestry. Hannah’s husband was quit violent. Hannah’s sister possibly murdered her new born infants. In turn Hannah’s sister was executed by Cotton Mothers and Hannah herself was kidnapped by Akenabi.
Not surprisingly I can empathize somewhat with all parties concerned. I believe Hannah needed proof that she killed the Akenabi so she could collect her bounty.
Killing the children was very wrong in my opinion. I am surprised by a previous comment that basically says it was ok for Hannah to murder 6 children because one of her 12 children was murdered. This on the grounds that child killers deserve no sympathy… HUH?
Now Hannah was living on recently stolen land as were all Europeans on this continent. The Akenabi were protesting that. But it was the rich upper class that encouraged the poor working class to go live on the frontier as a buffer against the Indians.
Hannah’s family was kicked out of town and forced to live on the fringes and that surly contributed to them getting attacked.
These were violent times and racism was even more overt back then. Everyone in the story acted as would be expected to act in historical context of the time.
I would like to see Hannah’s monuments changed to reflect a less Eurocentric view of the events!