Author Topic: Joseph SMITH Convict to Australia 2nd Fleet  (Read 12889 times)

Offline turramurra

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Joseph SMITH Convict to Australia 2nd Fleet
« Reply #9 on: Sunday 17 June 18 05:07 BST (UK) »
This is an answer and possible help to those people searching the Ancestry of convict Joseph SMITH who married Margaret Holmes at St Matthews Church Windsor  NSW Australia,1812.

Whilst there is complicated lineage from this union as both Joseph and Margaret had children prior to their marriage, there is a strong line from their son Joseph b.15th April in Richmond NSW ,died 20th September1856,married Mary Hannaway/Hannabus  in St James ,Pitt Town, daughter of John Hannaway and Ann Edwards.

Their son Joseph SMITH b.13th September, 1841 Pitt Town NSW married Jane LEWIS b.9th May in Green Swamp Mudgee daughter of William and Susannah Lewis born 1842.The marriage took place in 1866 at st James Mudgee NSW.
They had many children,
 
Ida and May b. 1866
Ella  Louise b.1867
Edward H.B.b.1869
Hilda Mary b.1871
Frank Lewis b.1872
Eveline Kate b.1874
Alice Elizabeth b.1876
Roland W Joseph b.1877 Reginald George b. 1879
Isabel Ada b.1882

I have been given various family research from descendants of some of these children,
Ella Louise
Hilda Mary (my great grandmother)
Alice Elizabeth

With some searchin,g the person trying to trace the ancestry of Frank Lewis may have some results from these contacts.
I will send a P.M. to those wishing to find family history.
Hope this is helpful,
Turramurra


HALSTEAD Essex, Australia,EVERETT Essex,  BIDDLE, Leicester and Rome Italy, GRUNOW, Adolph b1858 Berlin Germany
Soratapassenger on  ship to Australia 1800 , PICKUP Lanc, NICOL Sct, Joseph Smith and Margaret Holmes Convicts to Australia 2nd fleet and 3rd fleet

Offline Jennyb1

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 7
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Joseph SMITH Convict to Australia 2nd Fleet
« Reply #10 on: Thursday 03 September 20 02:22 BST (UK) »
For people who believe that Joseph Smith married to Margaret Holmes, had a daughter Elizabeth Smith with an Aboriginal woman Mary Darkinjung in 1799 (date from Elizabeths death date in 1846).  It has been proven that Elizabeth is not Josephs daughter.  Autosomal Ancestry DNA results of descendants of Elizabeth and John Bailey show no Melanesian or Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander in their Ethnicity results.  A few of her descendants have Aboriginal from other Known sources not linked to Elizabeth.  To conclusively find if Elizabeth was or was not Aboriginal, a mtDNA test was done at FTDNA on a direct female line from her daughter Margaret.  This test showed a common English haplogroup H1bb, thereby proving that Elizabeth had no Aboriginal Heritage.  We are now actively searching test results to find Elizabeth's true identity.

Offline Pi314

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 3
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Joseph SMITH Convict to Australia 2nd Fleet
« Reply #11 on: Friday 31 January 25 06:44 GMT (UK) »
Sorry but this needs to corrected before it goes further. There is a massive amount of dis-information and "pop-sci" terms posted here and whoever is doing it, please stop.  ???

First off, who are the family source/s? What company tested them? How many times were they tested? When were the tests conducted? Many questions here haven't been asked, the new information has been blindly accepted nor has any further information been supplied on the matter to clarify it.

Saying that you "have decendants of Elizabeth and John Bailey tested" without quoting who they are and how they are related along family lines, whether it's on the mother or fathers side of the family immediately brings up red flags on the matter. The sources need to be fully confirmed before conclusions are drawn. We can't just 'take your word for it'. Secondly, if you're going to expouse scientific terms in an effort to look vaguely credible in your assertions, you need documentation to sources in the findings, cite references as to how the testing was done, where it was done (country, laboratory, etc) and the results to the companies who tested them. Secondly, you don't test just ONE individual to get conlusive results on genetic lineage, that's not how things are done when testing as it flies in the face of the conduct of scientic inquiry. You test your subjects many times over at different laboratories, and those subjects MUST share that same lineage to clarify the results.

Matrilieal lineage also needs to be confirmed in each of the descendant/s you make claims to, in order to make sure it isn't broken on their end as this will also muddy results. Some family's may have only had male children, severing this lineage in their descendants. As we are dealing with someone who is from 7 generations back, knowing the results of descendants who make up less than 1-2% of their total ancestry is mathematically impossible from the point of view of current Genetic science. The passing of DNA is random from each parent (50% genetic material from each mother and father per child) and lineage from one family tree can be entirely missed or mistaken for 'noise', e.g. the "Romani Gypsy" ancestry claim regarding Elizabeth Bailey. This result may be infact inherited from the claimed tested descendants other family lineages (not Elizabeth Bailey), it may be from interference with the DNA sample or, more likely, accidental contamination of the DNA sample submitted by the person who submitted it or the person handling the specimen.

https://support.ancestry.com.au/s/article/Unexpected-Ethnicity-Results

https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/essentially-yours-the-protection-of-human-genetic-information-in-australia-alrc-report-96/10-genetic-testing/reliability-of-genetic-testing/

Another question. Who is the company or companies that claim they have reliable testing for 'Aboriginality'? Valid question here. Because unfortunately for everyone else concerned on the matter, DNA testing on 'Aboriginality' doesn't actually exist. If they did, this would've made headline news. DNA testing companies do not currently have reliable reference single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNP, data from Indigenous Australians. The pool of Indigenous Australians who have been reliably DNA tested is vastly too small (ANU has only 7000 biosamples: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06831-w) against the tens of millions of DNA samples from the greater world population in every continent to extract trusted, standout data that can identify an individual as being possessed of "Aboriginality", much less 1% of it.

https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/essentially-yours-the-protection-of-human-genetic-information-in-australia-alrc-report-96/36-kinship-and-identity/genetic-testing-and-aboriginality/

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/kimberley-mornings/dna-tests/10904796

https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/no-dna-test-exists-for-aboriginality-scientists/cu9bksqqw

As the matter of Indigenous Australian DNA testing has not evolved further since the publication of these articles, we can safely consider that they are relevant and current.

DNA testing is also well known for producing different results from different companies from the same individuals.

https://www.livescience.com/63997-dna-ancestry-test-results-explained.html

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/family-dna-ancestry-tests-review-comparison

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/1/28/18194560/ancestry-dna-23-me-myheritage-science-explainer

https://www.bioforensics.com/dna-testing-issues/

A google search on the subject can yield greter results on this point.


Offline Pi314

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 3
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Joseph SMITH Convict to Australia 2nd Fleet
« Reply #12 on: Friday 31 January 25 06:45 GMT (UK) »
Lastly, Australia was a continent holding well over 600 indigenous nations whose people spread out to all part of the continent and evolved into distinct nation groups for tens of thousands of years, right before european settlement. Estimates of the population count at the time of settlement in 1788 range from 300,0000 to over 1 Million. Indigenous Australians are considered have gone through a population 'bottleneck', having moved through and tracing of their early migration from Africa, over into the Middle East, possibly India and South Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indigenous_Australians

Such would develop a greater number of genetic and ethnic markers for each Indigenous nation well beyond the Melanesian markers. You would have quite a number of different indigenous groups making their way into the entire indigenous makeup as they made their way through africa and asia before settling in Australia. This would suggest that early Indigenous Australians would have a very diverse DNA makeup.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20231214/Study-uncovers-unique-genetic-diversity-in-Australian-Indigenous-populations.aspx

You're talking many different geographic regions along the way and many Australian Indigenous peoples having a diverse DNA structure to other Australian Indigenous peoples - over an estimated 50-60,000yr time period.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819516/

But in between, you have a greater spreading out of each group from the north to south. Given that no two indigenous persons from different indigenous nations are exactly alike, knowing who could be directly descended from the Darkinjung on the indigenous side is virtually impossible to trace, either from a descendant or an adjacent indigenous nation who may have dealt with the Darkinjung. How can we know who dealt with the Darkinjung? Not to mention, the Darkinjung are essentially an extinct people. They were either killed off or taken away from their lands.

https://paulbuddehistory.com/bucketty/the-darkinjung/

Locating the remains of a full blooded Darkinjung person with DNA that was specific to their people would involve having to source numerous burial sites on their traditional lands and finding the intact remains of an indigenous person that contains any trace amount of DNA from those remains. That's a big IF of whether they can, mind you, that all depends on how well they are preserved. The lands and sites of the Darkinjung are well known.

https://www.darkinjung.com.au/

I can guarantee the Darkinjung LALC will not agree to any Archeological dig on these sites all in the name of genetic testing of bone remains, regardless of the moral, legal and ethical dilemma of that even being considered. Which excludes that avenue from being explored altogether.

I also doubt the owner of the grave site of where Elizabeth Bailey is interred wouldn't want her grave to be dug up for this reason either. I'm sure many of her descendants wouldn't want it disturbed for this reason too.

In conclusion, there's not enough biosample data taken from the greater Australian Indigenous population to gather conclusive results over finding specific markers that makes one "Aboriginal" or not, therefore the matter on that issue is unresolved and wholly unsubstatiated. Given that the total number of people who claim Aboriginality is around 984,000 at the time of writing this, an estimate of about half that number would be full-blooded. That's still too small a sample size in comparison to the rest of the world to find a unique marker of "Aboriginality", that's not including their diverse genetic makeup to begin with.

The important point here is that this singular DNA test of this one unknown individual should NOT be relied upon as confirmation that Elizabeth was not the child of Mary. This is a gross mis-step in locating the facts in the matter and, frankly, as a scientist I find this quite embarrassing.

The only way for this matter to be cleared up reliably is to locate a birth certificate for Elizabeth Bailey, nee. Smith. Documentation on this should state who the birth mother and father is and give us conclusive results. Keep in mind though, Indigenous Australians who gave birth, especially those who lived on traditional lands, had no access to being issued a birth certificate by the Crown right after settlement. This was common practise for many children of indigenous parentage not being issued one right up until the early part of the 20th century, as they were seen as 'fauna' and not officially recognised as part of the population until after the 1967 referendum.

https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/1967-referendum



Offline Pi314

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 3
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Joseph SMITH Convict to Australia 2nd Fleet
« Reply #13 on: Friday 31 January 25 06:45 GMT (UK) »
Most Indigenous children were born on traditional lands right at settlement times and long after. If we assume Mary is the mother, she would've most likely have wanted birth to occur close to home, given that was how she was raised at that time and in spite of the lineage of the father. She wouldn't have, nor if it was available, have wanted to receive access to any medical care by a doctor at the time so this may perfectly explain why Elizabeth Bailey is seemingly, so far, not possessed of a birth certificate. None have been located at the online Births, Deaths and Marriage records so far.

Also keep in mind that if she was half caucasian, it would make it somewhat easier for her to blend in with the population than that of an indigenous person at that time as it appears she carried her fathers surname before marriage. On the other hand, if both her parents were other people, be they convicts or settlers, technically it should be easy to locate a birth certificate for her, as even convicts who gave birth during transportation to Australia were also issued birth certificates by on-ship doctors.

https://femaleconvicts.org.au/convict-ships/born-at-sea

All we have to confirm her existence so far is a grave stone, citing her age from the time of death (1846), and a news paper article of her death.

To confirm Elizabeth Baileys parents we need written proof via verifiable documentation. In other words, a birth certificate. Locate one that correlates with her birth year, 1799 and that states who her parents were, then the matter will be put to rest. As it stands, there is no reliable evidence to the contrary regarding Joseph and Mary as Elizabeths parents, therefore it's the best information we have so far and the matter remains inconclusive.

It's important to note, information about Mary being the mother of Elizabeth isn't something that was plucked out of the ether, somebody knows something regarding the origin of where that came from. Rumours of this type sometimes come from credible sources and we need to find who originated that bit of information.

In the meantime, please remove any and all information you have edited on Elizabeth Bailey's parentage on all Ancestry related websites regarding the results of the DNA testing of the unknown individual until this is resolved with evidence of verifiable, written documentation.