adicheo

duston

10 min read

This article by Dennis H. argues that the Hannah Duston story, a famous captivity narrative, is largely fabricated and serves as propaganda. The author details the commonly accepted version of the story: Hannah Duston, after enduring a harsh captivity with Abenaki Indians where her infant was murdered, sought revenge by killing and scalping ten of her captors with the help of Mary Neff and Samuel Lenorson, then escaping by canoe.

However, Dennis H. scrutinizes the background of the Duston and Emerson families, suggesting they were not exemplary Puritans and had questionable associations, including a sister accused of infanticide and a cousin accused of witchcraft during the Salem hoax. The article questions the plausibility of the raid on Haverhill on March 15, 1697, the details of Hannah’s escape, and the motivations behind the widespread retelling of the narrative.

The author highlights the financial incentives for such stories, pointing to scalp bounties offered by New France and Massachusetts. Governor William Phips of Massachusetts had offered rewards for scalps, though the program had recently ended. Thomas Duston was awarded 25 pounds by the Massachusetts General Court, and Mary Neff and Samuel Lenorson were to split 25 pounds. This money likely contributed to the purchase of a new family home.

The article then examines other captivity narratives, such as those of Mary Rowlandson, John Williams, and Hannah Bradley, suggesting a pattern of embellishment and potential manipulation by influential figures like Cotton Mather and his father, Increase Mather. The Mather family appears to have had a vested interest in promoting these narratives, possibly for religious instruction and to instill fear, thereby making the populace more manageable. The author also speculates on the deliberate alteration of details, such as depicting Samuel Lennardson as a woman in an illustration by Junius Brutus Stearns, to enhance the propaganda value.

Finally, Dennis H. critiques the numerous retellings and commemorations of the Hannah Duston story, including statues and a school named in her honor. He concludes that the factual basis for the extensive narrative is weak, consisting primarily of Hannah Duston’s own account to Cotton Mather, brief diary entries by Samuel Sewall, and a petition by Thomas Duston. The author suggests that these narratives serve to demonize Native Americans and questions the ongoing perpetuation of the story.

List of Subjects, Names, References, Locations, Companies, etc.:

Graph View