Is Professor Bronwyn Carlson Mistaken About Her Maternal Aboriginal Ancestry?
“For as long as I can remember, my parents never missed an opportunity to accuse each other's family of being the one who had been ‘touched by the tar brush.’ My father would pass comments like, its your mother’s side that are the Abos. My mother would in turn accuse my father of being the ‘guilty' one…
I learnt at an early age that the colour of a person's skin carried meaning - it signified something. For me, knowing we were ‘touched by the tar brush’ meant we were not white. But in that era, not being recognisably black also meant I was not Aboriginal…
I remember as a young girl being asked if I was Aboriginal and replying that my maternal grandmother was. My answer was based on my lived understanding of Aboriginality as somehow signified by skin colour or look. Nana was dark and therefore could be called Aboriginal. But could I? All I knew was that our family were part-Aboriginal. It was not until I was much older that I was able to establish with certainty the facts of my mother’s ancestry from a long line of Aboriginal women who originate from South Australia.”
- Distinguished Professor Bronwyn Carlson, Head of Department of Indigenous Studies, Macquarie University, Sydney, The Politics of Identity - Who counts as Aboriginal today? (ASP/AIATSIS 2016) p1-2
Figure 1 - Professor Bronwyn Carlson, Source
Professor Bronwyn Carlson is considered to be one of Australia’s leading ‘Indigenous scholars’ and an academic expert on ‘the politics of Aboriginal identity.’
In 2013, her manuscript on Aboriginality won the highly respected and much acclaimed Stanner Award, and was later published by Aboriginal Studies Press as the book, The Politics of Identity - Who counts as Aboriginal today? (ASP/AIATSIS 2016).
Figure 1 - Source
Notwithstanding Professor Carlson’s claims today that she is, “an Aboriginal woman born on Dharawal Country” with “ancestors [who] come from South Australia”, and that, “on my mother’s side, we are Aboriginal from South Australia”, she has nevertheless written and spoken frequently about how, within her family, Aboriginality was “not so recognizable and not agreed to” [Listen to ABC radio excerpts here].
In her book, which her publisher describes as a,‘brave and personal contribution to the often vexed subject of Aboriginal identity’ [book cover], Professor Carlson explores this lack of familial consensus on whether the family really was Aboriginal.
She discusses the ‘conflicts’ entailed in asserting or proving one’s Aboriginal identity, as well as her own search for her Aboriginal ancestry, on numerous pages of her book, viz - pages 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 91, 135, 136, 143-6, 263 & 272.
Most surprisingly, for a Professor and an award winning scholar, she has offered as the only ‘evidence’ that she is Aboriginal some less than specific comments:
I remember as a young girl being asked if I was Aboriginal and replying that my maternal grandmother was. My answer was based on my lived understanding of Aboriginality as somehow signified by skin colour or look. Nana was dark and therefore could be called Aboriginal. But could I?
All I knew was that our family were part-Aboriginal. It was not until I was much older that I was able to establish with certainty the facts of my mother’s ancestry from a long line of Aboriginal women who originate from South Australia. (ibid., p1-2)
In her whole book, no real or documentary evidence has been provided as to how she, ‘was able to establish with certainty’ the ‘facts’ of her mother’s Aboriginality.
Rather, all that Professor Carlson has provided is one, rather vague, paragraph in her book. Here she relied upon some claimed, family oral history about the Aboriginality of her ‘Nana’s mother’, the so-called “Kit”, as relayed to Carlson by an unnamed great [sic grand - see Note 1 below] aunt and daughter of “Kit”:
Although I had grown up in changing times for Aboriginal people, I had been consistently schooled in entrenched colonial (although evolving) media images and representations of what it meant to be an Aboriginal or Indigenous person. Throughout my younger years, my mind was kept busy returning me to the issue of ‘colour' and ‘looks' as the markers of Aboriginal identity. My lack of such distinct physical markers was fundamental to my ambiguous status. Now, as an adult, I became interested in exploring the firmly planted, but rarely discussed, family assertion of being touched by the tar brush. I spoke with my relatives, including an old great-aunt [see Note 1], my Nana's sister, who has since passed away. I was told stories of Nana's mother, who was commonly referred to as Kit. Another aunt confirmed that indeed Nana Kit was Aboriginal but added that such things were not really spoken of in the family (ibid., p5).
Professor Carlson then admitted that this family ‘knowledge’ was not accepted by her whole family:
So, despite open confirmation of this knowledge, not all the family accepted that they were of Aboriginal descent. Even today, there are members of our extended family who still see Aboriginality as singularly a factor of colour or looks, and therefore don’t see themselves as being Aboriginal, or dont feel confdent with publicly identifying as Aboriginal. My cousin commented I was lucky that my hair and eyes are dark because that made it easier for me to identify as Aboriginal. I understand this as I was also conditioned to think that Aboriginality was something that only afforded to those who were dark-skinned or ‘looked' Aboriginal. I also understand that in many ways my generation had it far easier than than my Nana's or aunties’ difficult circumstances, when it came to identifying, accepting and acknowledging our Aboriginal lineage. Historical circumstances had conditioned previous generations of our family to avoid the attention of the authorities (ibid., p5-6).
At this stage of her narrative, Professor Carlson has solely focused on her family’s reliance on ‘appearance’ as being a measure of one’s Aboriginality. This is surprising given that contemporary, academic discourse quite rightly acknowledges that there are many people of Aboriginal ancestry - actual genetic descent - who are not of, what is generally regarded as, ‘traditional Aboriginal appearance’.
One would have thought that a scholar such as Professor Carlson could have quite quickly overcome the family’s concern by undertaking some simple, genealogical and archival research to obtain the necessary births, deaths and marriages certificates and other records to confirm the family’s ‘ancestry from a long line of Aboriginal women who originate from South Australia.‘
Professor Carlson perhaps did acknowledge this lack of real evidence on her part when she wrote, ‘I recognised that my search for information needed to extend past the family level', (p6). But then, nowhere else in her book, nor in her subsequent writings and interviews since the book’s publication, has Professor Carlson ever, as far as we are aware, published any detailed family tree, nor provided any documentation such as births, deaths and marriages certificates, nor any other corroborating evidence, that supports her claim that her mother’s family were of Aboriginal descent.
And most surprisingly of all, she has never named the tribe(s) or language group(s) of which her mother’s family supposedly belonged to in South Australia.
Professor Carlson’s Conclusion As to Why She Believes She is of Aboriginal Heritage
To summarise the above, Professor Bronwyn Carlson essentially believes she is Aboriginal because,
despite “the issue of ‘colour' and ‘looks' as the markers of Aboriginal identity, [m]y lack of such distinct physical markers was fundamental to my ambiguous status.” Due to my, “family assertion of being touched by the tar brush. I spoke with my relatives, including an old great-aunt, my Nana's sister, who has since passed away. I was told stories of Nana's mother, who was commonly referred to as Kit. Another aunt confirmed that indeed Nana Kit was Aboriginal… So, despite open confirmation of this knowledge…” (ibid., p5).
Professor Carlson is claiming that she is Aboriginal based on a so-called, “confirmation of knowledge” that she said she obtained by speaking to old relatives, who have since passed away. In other words, she is solely relying on hearsay from relatives like her old “great-aunt.”
In the modern world of digitised archives, the internet, and advanced scholarship techniques, the public have a right to expect more professionalism from our academics than just, “I know it to be true because my Nana and great-aunt told me so.”
What the Records Show
In this post, the detailed results of genealogical and archival research is presented, based on publicly available information which, we believe, will assist Professor Carlson in understanding the Aboriginal ancestry, or otherwise, of her mother’s family from South Australia.
Professor Carlson would appear to be unaware of this new research and information, which speaks directly to the very questions she has raised publicly herself in her book and in her other writings and interviews.
Firstly, it has been possible to prepare the relevant branches of an alleged maternal family tree for Professor Carlson that details the origins of her female ancestors from South Australia (Figure 2).
In particular, we identified an ancestor by the name of Catherine Jane Tait, born in South Australia in 1880 who was Professor Carlson’s great-grandmother - her ‘Nana’s mother.' Professor Carlson says she was ‘commonly referred to as Kit’. We could find no corroborating evidence in the records of this, but ‘Kit’ is said to be a diminutive of the name of Katherine/Catherine.
Figure 2 - A branch of the alleged maternal Family Tree of Professor Bronwyn Carlson showing the South Australian women claimed to be Aboriginal. [See Further Reading Section below for details on the methodology and results]
The alleged Family Tree branch in Figure 2 speaks directly to the questions Professor Carlson has raised in her own book about the confusion, lack of knowledge and lack of understanding that she and her family have displayed when assessing their own Aboriginality. The new research published here for the first time suggests that Professor Carlson is mistaken to believe that her South Australian female ancestors are of Aboriginal descent.
In fact, the public records indicate that all her ancestors in this branch of her alleged Family Tree were originally from Ireland, Scotland or England. Our research could find no evidence of any Aboriginal ancestry in this branch of Professor Carlson’s family as she believes.
This work is based on the publicly available records and has been undertaken in good faith. However, it cannot account for events which may result in Aboriginal ancestry entering into the family line such as via a private or unrecorded adoption of an Aboriginal child into the family, or a relationship out of wedlock between a family member and an Aboriginal person that produced a child of Aboriginal descent who was then incorporated into the family without record, or with a record that did not disclose the Aboriginality of that child. Nevertheless, no evidence could be found indicating that such a secret or unknown adoption or birth had taken place.
The completed alleged maternal Family Tree of Professor Carlson is shown in Figure 3.
Blue shading is used to indicate her ancestors who were convicts. The rest of her ancestors were descended from free- or assisted-immigrants from Ireland, Scotland or England. The yellow shading indicates the line of those female ancestors from South Australia who the Professor claims were Aboriginal - clearly the records do not support her claims.
Figure 3 - The alleged maternal Family Tree of Professor Bronwyn Carlson showing her convict ancestors in blue shading and her claimed line of female Aboriginal ancestors from South Australia in yellow shading. Download File.pdf here and File.jpg here
Response from Professor Carlson
Professor Bronwyn Carlson was contacted by email on 20 April 2024 and given an opportunity to comment on, and suggest amendments if appropriate to, our research into her family tree, prior to its publication, but no response was received.
A second attempt to contact the Professor by email was made on 11 June 2024 and this elicited a response on 19 June 2024 from the Aboriginal Access and Community Engagement Solicitor at the Illawarra Legal Centre in Wollongong, who advised that they were “assisting Bronwyn Carlson.” In their response, various ill-founded claims and, what some people might construe as, 'legal threats’ were made by the solicitor in response to our notification to Professor Carlson that we intended to publish the results of our research shortly, but that we were willing to give her the opportunity to respond and/or make any appropriate amendments that she might suggest.
We prepared another letter providing more information regarding our concerns that perhaps Professor Carlson was mistaken in the details of the claims that she had made with regard to her family’s alleged Aboriginal ancestry. This letter was emailed to both the Professor and her solicitor on 21 June 2024.
Within two hours of sending this email, we received a response from her solicitor stating, “As stated previously, please direct all correspondence to our client”, which we took to mean that the Illawarra Legal Centre was no longer “assisting” the Professor in this matter. In the one month since this last correspondence, we have heard no more from Professor Carlson and so we have progressed to publishing our research here now.
Further Reading
Methodology
The methodology that was used to research and create Professor Bronwyn Carlson’s alleged family tree involved sourcing genealogical information from the public information provided by Professor Carlson herself (in books, papers and interviews) as well as obtaining family tree information from other family members.
The public records that were consulted included the Births, Deaths and Marriages records, immigrant ship passenger lists, contemporary newspaper articles, gaol records and the voting rolls from which the names and addresses of family members could be obtained. Census records were also obtained for the years 1891 and 1901 relevant to the households of some of Professor Carlson’s ancestors.
Professor Carlson’s Parents and Maternal Grandparents
Professor Carlson claims that she is descended from a “long line of Aboriginal women who originate from South Australia.”
Thus, the aim of our research here was to independently confirm, or otherwise, Professor Carlson’s belief that this branch of her family tree is of Aboriginal descent. The research was started by accessing the 1962 Marriage Certificate of Professor Carlson’s parents which gives her father as, Noel John Lumby and her mother as, Sandra Gaile King.
This certificate also provides the researcher with the names of bride’s parents - William Leonard King and Evelyn Veronica King (nee Roach) who was Professor Carlson’s “dark Nana.” (Figure 4).
Figure 4 - Marriage Certificate of 1962 for Professor Bronwyn Carlson’s parents. Source:NSWBDM# 30590/1962
Professor Carlson’s Great Grandmother Catherine Tait - “Kit”
The Births, Deaths and Marriages records also yielded genealogical details on Evelyn Veronica King’s (nee Roach) parents, and particularly of her mother as the researcher is following the maternal line.
It was thus found that Evelyn’s mother was a Catherine Jane Tait, who Professor Carlson claims was a South Australian Aboriginal woman known as “Kit” (Figures 5, 6 & 7).
Figure 5 - Extracts of Birth and Marriage Certificates for Evelyn Roach indicating her husband’s name (William G L King) and her mother’s name Catherine J Roach
Figure 6 - Extract of 1982 Death Certificate for Evelyn Roach indicating her mother’s name as Catherine Jane
Figure 7 - Extract of Birth Certificate for Catherine Jane Tait showing her birth date and place, as well as her mother’s name as Margaret Nicholas [sic Nicholls/Nichols - see below].
With these, the researcher can start to build a picture of the life of Professor Carlson’s great grandmother, the claimed Aboriginal ancestor, Catherine Roach (nee Tait) the so-called “Kit”.
The records show that Catherine was born at Laura, Clare, South Australia in 1880, but by 1913 she was in Wollongong giving birth to her daughter Eevleen [Evelyn/Evelyne], Professor Carlson’s allegedly ‘dark Nana’.
The voting rolls provide some further insight into Catherine’s life by confirming that she and her husband are living at various addresses in Port Kembla, 10km from Wollongong for at least the next thirty years, until at least 1943.
Figure 8 - Extracts from the voting rolls of NSW confirming that Professor Carlson’s allegedly South Australian Aboriginal, great-grandmother, Catherine Jane Roach (nee Tait) was actually living far away ‘off-Country’ in the industrial steel town of Port Kembla.
Catherine was clearly allowed to enrol for voting, from at least 1913, so she was not under any state Aboriginal wardship that might have restricted her voting franchise. Similarly, none of the addresses listed in the above voting rolls appear to be in any way Aboriginal settlements, missions or special Aboriginal housing.
In fact, these addresses in the industrial streets of Port Kembla indicate that Catherine and her husband were most likely typical, lower working-class Australians living close by the industries where they could get work.
Their working-class house at 43 Hillview St was considered to be ‘temporary’ and of a cheap construction - built of half-weatherboard and half-canvas with an iron roof. Many parts of Australia were then suffering from a housing shortage that was developing through the war years and which would be greatly exacerbated after the war when immigration increased. Tragically, their ‘temporary’ half canvas house caught fire in 1944, killing John Roach and badly burning Catherine [See reports here].
Figure 9 - Said to be a photograph of the type of temporary half-weatherboard/canvas house that caught fire, killing John Roach and badly burning his wife Catherine. Source: Ancestry user PMT666 originally shared this on 30 Jul 2013 from “Shire of central illawarra housing report 1943”
Professor Carlson’s 2XGreat grandfather John William Tait
Professor Carlson’s great-grandmother Catherine Roach (nee Tait) had been born in rural South Australia in small town of Laura in 1880, only forty years after Europeans first came to the district, and only 8 years after the founding of the town in 1872. This is still within colonial times and a family history researcher would expect to start seeing some reference to Aboriginality, if not in Catherine’s life, then in the recorded lives of her parents or grandparents if indeed they were Aboriginal.
According to Catherine’s Marriage Certificate of 1900, her wedding took place in Broken Hill, NSW, which was the ‘usual residence’ of her and her new husband John Francis Roach. Catherine’s parent’s were recorded as being, John William Tait and Margaret Nichols (Figure 10) [Note that in the Marriage Certificate, the ‘Birthplace’ and ‘Usual Residence’ details have been inadvertently transposed into the wrong columns for both parties].
Figure 10 - Marriage Certificate of Professor Carlson’s great-grandmother, Catherine Jane Tait, who the Professor claims was known as “Kit” and was her family’s connection to its South Australian Aboriginality [see Carlson, B., The Politics of Identity - Who counts as Aboriginal today? (ASP/AIATSIS 2016) p1-2]
This certificate provides details of Catherine’s mother, Margaret Tait (nee Nichols), the next female ancestor in the Professor’s claim of a “long line of Aboriginal women who originate from South Australia.”
nb: the Birthplace and Usual Residence details have been inadvertently transposed into the wrong columns for both parties - ‘Birthplace’ column should be Adelaide for groom, and Laura for bride and both should have Broken Hill in the ‘Usual Residence’ column.
Professor Carlson claims that Catherine Roach (nee Tait) is of Aboriginal ancestry. This ancestry could only have been inherited from her father and/or her mother. Her father, John William Tait, whose name is found on Catherine’s Marriage Certificate, died in 1932 as per his Death Certificate, NSWBDM# 14284/1932 (Figure 11):
Date of Death: 1 July 1932
Place of Death: 119 Jodide Street, Broken Hill
Aged: 80 years
Place of Birth: Maybole, Ayrshire, Scotland
44 Years in Australia Length of residence in State not known
Place of Marriage: Laura, South Australia
Spouse: Margaret Ann Nicholls
Figure 11 - Death Certificate of 1932 for John William Tait, Professor Bronwyn Carlson’s 2XGreat grandfather.
This John William Tait is definitely Catherine’s father as the details of his death certificate align with her marriage certificate (see Figure 10), that is: he was living in Broken Hill and his wife was Margaret Ann Nicholls, Catherine’s mother; they were married in Laura, South Australia where Catherine was born, as per his and Margaret’s Marriage Certificate extract (Figure 12) .
Figure 12 - Extract of the Marriage Certificate for John [William] Tait and Margaret [Ann] Nicholls, who were Catherine Tait’s parents. [Note: it is not uncommon for the reported ages/dates of birth of people to vary between their birth, marriage and death certificates. John Tait was born in 1852 by his death certificate and 1855 by his marriage certificate. Genealogists usually accept a variance between records of up to 10 years].
Most importantly, John Tait’s Death Certificate records that he was born in Scotland, which was corroborated by locating the details of his immigration record into Australia in 1879 (Figure 13). Thus, John Tait, could not have been of Aboriginal ancestry.
Figure 13 - Extract of the Immigrant Passenger List showing John Tait as an arrival on the Luistania and being put up with board at the Temperance Hotel 1879. Source: full record
If her father was thus not Aboriginal, then the only way for Professor Carlson’s claim to be true that these South Australian women ancestors were of Aboriginal descent, would be if Catherine Tait’s mother, Margaret Ann Nicholls was of Aboriginal descent.
Professor Carlson’s 2XGreat grandmother Margaret Nicholls
Using the same methodology of searching the Births, Deaths and Marriages records for the name of the bride’s mother, Margaret Nichols/Nicholls (married name Tait) the following was found:
a Marriage Certificate (Figure 14) listing her father’s name as Edward Nicholls [note: up until the 1960s, marriage certificates issued in South Australia did not show the mother’s name of those getting married;
a Death Certificate (Figure 15) for a Margaret Ann Tait in Broken Hill in 1890 - death by typhoid fever. The informant is her husband, John Tait, who lists her father incorrectly as William [sic Edward] and her mother correctly as Susan, but with incorrectly spelled surname Callagher [sic Kelleher]
a Burial Certificate (Figure 16) for Margaret Ann Tait in Broken Hill on 7 April 1890.
Figure 14 - Extract of a Marriage Certificate for Margaret Nicholls and John Tait
Figure 15 - Death Certificate for a Margaret Ann Tait in 1890 at Broken Hill [Father - William [sic Edward] Nicholls and Mother - Susan Callagher [Kelleher]
Figure 16 - Extract of a Burial Certificate for Margaret Ann Tait
No actual birth certificate could be found for a Margaret Nichols/Nicholls. However, her 1879 marriage certificate lists her father as Edward Nicholls, and her 1890 death certificate lists her mother as ‘Susan Callagher [Kelleher]’.
By following the genealogy of Margaret Nicholls’s parents, Edward Nicholls and Susan Callagher/Kelleher, it should be possible to shed light on the Aboriginal ancestry, or otherwise, of Margaret - if either Edward or Susan can be shown to have been Aboriginal, then Professor Carlson would be correct to believe that she has gained Aboriginal ancestry via this branch of her family tree.
Professor Carlson’s 3XGreat grandmother Susan Nicholls
A South Australian marriage certificate, dated 1856, confirms that an Eduard [sic Edward] Nicholls had married a Susan Kaleher [sic Kelleher] (Figure 17).
Figure 17 - Extract of the Marriage Certificate for Eduard [sic Edward] Nicholls and Susan Kaleher [sic Kelleher]
The genealogy of Susan Kelleher has been very well documented by some family descendants (See Figure 20) and a newspaper feature was published in 2016 on parts of her life which included her photograph (Figure 19). She had been a 19-year-old Irish immigrant who was one of the ‘Brides of the Nashwauk’, a ship that had left Liverpool carrying, ‘162 young women sent to the new colony of South Australia in 1855 to hook up with the single wild-eyed men desperate for female companionship’ (Figure 18).
Figure 18 - Extract of a newspaper feature on the ‘Brides of the Nashwauk’ of whom Professor Carlson’s 3XGreat grandmother, Susan Kelleher was one. Source: SA Advertiser 20 March 2016. Full article here.
Figure 19 - Said to be a photograph of Susan Kelleher later in life (from the newspaper article in Figure 18)
Figure 20 - Said to be a summary of the early years of Susan Kelleher’s life, as published by Ancestry.com user Gail Johnson [originally shared this on 22 Mar 2020] with the comments, “This is a record of family history written by Jean Turner 1921-2007 (Susan's great-grand daughter) Information gathered by research and memories of relatives.” (Source: Ancestry.com and Seeking Susan website)
Additionally, details of the early life of Susan Kelleher, as well as of her sister Bridget, have been published in two local history books, What Really Happened to the Nashwauk? Moana, South Australia 1855 (see Figure 21) and Marie Ann Steiner’s, Servants Depots in Colonial South Australia (see Figures 22 & 23).
Figure 21 - Excerpt of the Passenger List from What Really Happened to the Nashwauk? Moana, South Australia 1855, Part Two – The Passengers, p. 40 (pdf p.13) [Source: here]
Figure 22 - Excerpt of Details of Susan & Bridget Kelleher. Source: Marie Ann Steiner, Servants Depots in Colonial South Australia, pp139, Google Books
Figure 23 - Additional confirmation of Susan Kelleher’s wedding to Edward Nicholls, based on the records of the Sevenhills Marriage Register. Source: Marie Ann Steiner, Servants Depots in Colonial South Australia, pp51-2, Google Books
Corroborating evidence that Susan Kelleher arrived in the colony of South Australia in 1855 was found in the Passenger Arrival Lists of the Nashwauk (Figure 24).
Figure 24 - Excerpts from the 1855 Passenger List Arrivals of the Nashwauk voyage to South Australia. (Source: SA Archives here).
The above evidence confirms that Susan Kelleher was an Irish immigrant and could not have been Aboriginal.
Thus, the last ancestor of Professor Carlson who could possibly have added Aboriginality into this line of South Australian women is Susan Kelleher’s husband, Edward Nicholls. He was the father of Margaret Nicholls and grandfather of Catherine [“Kit”] Tait, the woman who Professor Carlson claims was Aboriginal.
But was Edward a full-blood or part-Aboriginal man, or just another European?
Professor Carlson’s 3XGreat grandfather Edward Nicholls
No official birth or baptismal certificate could be located for Edward Nicholls. However, all the other descendants of Edward today, who include ‘Edward Nicholls’ in their own family trees on Ancestry.com (more than 20 of them), all say that he was born in the United Kingdom (or England, Ireland or Britain).
The documentary evidence that is available very strongly supports this conclusion - that Edward White was not Aboriginal, but rather an immigrant from the United Kingdom.
Edward Nicholls’s Death Certificate (Figure 25) puts his birth year at 1834 and his Marriage Certificate puts his birth year at 1835 (See Figure 17 above). Given that the first settlers only arrived in South Australia in 1836, he could not have been a South Australian part-Aboriginal, the child of a relationship between a male or female settler and an Aboriginal woman or man respectively, as he was born in 1834 or 1835, a year or two prior to the colony of South Australia being founded.
Neither could Edward Nicholls have been a full-blooded South Australian Aboriginal man, given that: there is no mention of this in any record that researchers or modern-day descendants have found so far; he has been recorded as being a Catholic (See extract in Figure 26); and it is very unlikely that his wife Susan Kellaher, would have married a full-blooded Aboriginal man given that she was an Irish girl brought as one of the “Bride’s of the Nashwauk”, especially to be married off with one of the single, settler men in the colony.
The life of Susan Kelleher is very well researched and documented [see above] and no mention has ever been made of her marrying an Aboriginal man, nor could our researchers find anywhere that any of her three children that she had with Edward Nicholls had ever been described as being ‘Aborigines’ or ‘half-castes.’
Figure 25 - Extract of the Death Certificate for Edward Nicholls
Figure 26 - Extract from the Records on Genealogy South Australia - ‘Biographical Index of South Australians’ Database
Showing Edward Nicolls [sic] being recorded as having “Religion Catholic”
Further corroborating evidence that Edward Nicholls was born in the United Kingdom comes from an entry in the ‘assisted passenger lists’ for immigrants that left Plymouth, England on the ship Nile on 11 November 1854 (Figure 27). This listing has an entry - “Nichols [sic] Edward”. He was single, as there were no other passengers named Nichols [or Nicholls] on that voyage of the Nile, which arrived in Adelaide in 1855. This is one year prior to an Eduard [sic] Nicholls marrying a Susan Kaleher [sic] in Adelaide in 1856 (Figure 17).
There is also an Edward Nichols listed arriving on the ship Calpurnia in 1849 but this is unlikely to be our man of interest as he would have been only 15 at the time (our Edward Nicholls was born in 1834 or 1835). This is believed to be too young an age to have been accepted as an assisted, single immigrant. Similarly, there are two other immigrants named Edward Nicholls listed (Figure 27), but they arrive in 1876, after our Edward’s death in 1860 (Figure 25).
Figure 27 - Extract from the “Official Assisted Passenger Lists” for South Australia showing the immigrants named Edward Nicholls who had arrived. [nb. An interesting point is the numbering system used to record the number of immigrant ships that were arriving to populate the new colony - for example, the Nile 55/5 means it was the fifth ship to arrive chronologically in the year 1855. Scanning the “N” records here shows that there were at least 30 ship arrivals in 1855 (see Nancarrow Francis 55/30). Assuming 160 immigrants per ship gives at least 30x160= 4800 immigrants into SA in 1855, when the total state population was ca85,000. This is a very large annual increase of 5.6%. Although some [many?] of these immigrants might have moved interstate or ‘up-country’ it nevertheless must have created a constant sense in Adelaide of ‘growth’. Indeed as the official story relates today: “By 1855, pastoral leases were opening up vast tracts of the South East, and extended north into the southern Flinders Ranges and sections of Eyre and Yorke Peninsulas. In 1865 South Australia had half of Australia’s area of wheat cropping, and although yields were lower than in other colonies, in good seasons 50% of the Australian harvest came from South Australia. Wool made a few South Australians very wealthy. In the 1860s some pastoralists secured large freehold estates on choice grazing lands in the Mid North and the South East.” Source: SA Archives
The departure record of Edward Nicholls leaving Plymouth in 1854 and arriving in the colony of South Australia in 1855 is shown in Figure 28
Figure 28 - Extract of the Nile Passenger departure list showing ‘Nichols Edwd, single 19’ Source: At p4 – top of second column – Archives South Australia
Evidence for the Lack of Aboriginality in the South Australian Female Line of Professor Bronwyn Carlson
In the following sections, detailed evidence is provided that supports the contention that none of the ancestors of Professor Carlson from these female South Australians are Aboriginal. It is contended that Professor Carlson is mistaken if she believes that she has Aboriginal ancestry via this branch of her family tree.
After the Death of Edward Nicholls
When Edward Nicholls died in 1860 [variously claimed due to pneumonia or bronchitis], at the age of 26, he left Susan a widow with three children Catherine Ann (3yrs), Mary Ann (2yrs) and Margaret (3months - who was Professor Carlson’s 2xGreat grandmother).
In the following years, Susan lived with her children in the Armagh region of SA, where she had bought a plot of land (Figures 29A&B).
Figures 29A - Google Map locations in the life of Susan Nicholls and her daughter Margaret (Professor Carlson’s 3XGreat grandmother and 2XGgreat grandmother respectively).
Clare - Town of Susan and Edward Nicholls marriage (1856); Sevenhill & Watervale - Edward and Susan were said to have had their child in these places (See Figure 20) (1857); Bungaree Station - where Edward Nicholls died (1860); Armagh where Susan bought a plot of land - see Memorial in Figure 30 below (1861); Armagh School - Margaret Nicholls (8yrs) and her sister Catherine (12yrs) in attendance. Operated by Mr Crossby for European children (see Figure 31) (1869).
Figure 29B - Laura is 80km north of Clare in South Australia
Figure 30 - Memorial of Susan Nicholls recording her land purchase in 1861 in Armagh, SA. Source: Original in SA Archives here [GRS_12154_1_280_book179-vol1 folio 205]
Figure 31 - Armagh School operated under licence by Mr Crossby. These schools required at least 20 European children to get the government stipend. This is not to say that there could be no Aboriginal children in attendance, but it is more than likely this was a school for European children only. Source: Reference and here
Four years after Edward’s death, Susan remarried in 1864 to Timothy Rowan (Figure 32), with whom she is said to have had a further five children (Figure 33).
Figure 32 - Extract of the Marriage Certificate for Timothy Rowin [sic Rowan] to Susan Nicholls.
Figure 33 - Extract from Ancestry.com and Seeking Susan website created by modern-day descendants of Susan Kelleher.
Seven years after her marriage to Timothy Rowen, things appeared to be not going well in Susan’s household. As reported in the Northern Argus on 24 November 1871:
Timothy Rowan was charged with assaulting his wife, Susan Rowan, at Armagh, and throwing her out of the house; also with saying that he would be hanged for her. She now applied for him to be bound over to keep the peace; she wished also to be separated from him. The bench ordered the defendant to find sureties for his good behavior [sic] for six months-himself in £5, and two sureties for £5 each’. (Source)
However, worse was to come.
On Thursday 11 February 1875, Timothy Rewin [sic Rowan] appeared in the Police Court at Clare before Messrs. J. G. Pitcher and A. Young, J.Ps., charged with feloniously assaulting Margaret Nicholls [Professor Carlson’s 2XGreat-grandmother], at Armagh, on the prior Sunday, 7 February. As reported in the Northern Argus (Clare, SA), 16 February 1875, p. 3:
Margaret Nicholls, daughter of Susan Rewin [Rowan], and step-daughter of the prisoner, deposed that she would be 14 years of age, on the 5th of August next. She resided at Armagh with her mother. The prisoner was at home last Sunday. Was baking bread in the kitchen when he came in. He shut the door and said that he wanted her for a minute. He then caught her round the waist, and carried her to the bedroom and laid her on the bed. (The witness then stated in detail the nature of the offence committed.)
Screamed when prisoner took hold of her in the kitchen, but not very loud. Was told to "shut up." Her sister who is six years of age was outside. After she got away from prisoner, he told her not to tell any one and he would give her some money. It was about 4 o'clock on Sunday afternoon, when he committed the assault. Her mother was at Sevenhills, and she was left in charge of the children.
The prisoner usually worked at Hill River, but did not come home every night. Mother returned on Monday evening, but did not tell her what had taken place. Was frightened to tell her mother in case she would do something to her. Told her mother on Tuesday evening. Prisoner remained at the house till sundown on Sunday. Did not see him after that until to-day. Prisoner was not drunk. Was not willing for prisoner to do anything to her, and screamed a second time.
Eliza Rewin [Margaret’s step-sister]—Did not know her age. Was at home on Sunday last with her sister. Mother was at Sevenhills, and father was at home on Sunday afternoon. The prisoner was her father, and he told her to go after some goats. Was outside and heard Maggie scream once. Went to school but did not know anything more than letters.
Margaret Nicholls, recalled, stated that the last witness [Eliza] was 6 years of age.
John W. D. Bain—Was a duly qualified medical practitioner and resided at Clare. Examined the witness Margaret Nicholls, and found no marks of violence on her person. (The doctor here stated in detail the result of his examination.)
Thos. Solly, police-trooper, stationed at Clare—Arrested the prisoner at Hill River, on February 10, on a charge of rape. Cautioned him in the usual manner. The prisoner said, " Good Lord, is that true?" but told him that he knew nothing of the affair. The prisoner said he was the worse of drink on Saturday night, and did not go home until Sunday morning. He further said that his wife and step-daughter were conspiring against him, and he supposed he would have to suffer. He had left six months' rations of tea, sugar, and flour, in the house. He hoped that he would be put where he would not see his wife and step-daughter any more.
The prisoner in reply to the Bench stated that he had nothing to say on the matter. He was therefore committed to take his trial at the Supreme Court, Adelaide.
There was no mention in this detailed newspaper account that either Margaret Nicholls or her mother Susan were Aboriginal.
One month later, on 17 March 1875, the criminal case against Timothy Rowen for rape was heard in Adelaide’s Supreme Court before His Honor the Chief Justice (Sir R. D. Hanson) and Juries.
As reported in the Evening Journal (Adelaide, SA), 18 March 1875, p2 [concluded from yesterday]:
Timothy Rouen [sic Rowan], aged 46, was indicted for carnally knowing and abusing his stepdaughter, Margaret Nicholls, a girl under the age of 14 years, at Armagh, on February 7 last. Mr. Boucaut defended the prisoner. The medical testimony conflicted with the statement of the prosecutrix, and His Honor therefore directed an acquittal, and the prisoner was discharged.
The point of reproducing these court transcripts here is to show that there was never any reference to Margaret Nicholls, or Susan Rowan, being Aboriginal.
Fast-forwarding a few years, we find that Margaret Nicholls (Professor Carlson’s 2xGreat grandmother) had married in 1879, four years after the rape trial, to John Tait in Laura, SA (Figure 14). Together they had 5 children, namely:
Catherine Jane Tait – born 25 Jul 1880 - Professor Carlson’s great grandmother “Kit”
Elizabeth [Lizzie] Ann Tait – b. 10 Jul 1882
John Edward Tait – b. 29 Aug 1884 - who died at 18months
Agnes Melinda Tait – b. 12 Oct 1886 - who died at age 6
Margaret Ellen Tait – b. 19 May 1889
It is said that all of their children were born at Laura in SA (comm. Ancestry.com member), but by around 1890 we find them in Broken Hill where Margaret Tait (nee Nicholls) dies at age 30 (Figures 15 & 16) leaving her husband John as sole carer for the three surviving children – Catherine Jane (aged 9) , Lizzie (aged 7) and Margaret Ellen (ca.1 ) although they most likely did not all live with him as we discuss below.
The Census of 1891
The census of 1891 recorded the name of the main householder and the total number of Males and Females at each household address visited. More importantly however, are the two additional columns in the census records that tabulate the number of Chinese and Aborigines (as Males & Females) included in the Total number of persons residing at each household.
If Professor Carlson is correct, and she does come ‘from a long line of Aboriginal women who originate from South Australia‘, then these very women, Susan Rowan/Nicholls [nee Kelleher] and Catherine Jane Tait (Kit) would be expected to have been counted in the 1891 census as “Aborigines - Females” and duly tabulated in the “Aborigines” column on the census form. [nb. Margaret Tait nee Nicholls had died in the year prior]
Extracts from the 1891 census do not support Professor Carlson’s claims - all the relevant Tait and Rowen households have no record of any Aborigines (or Chinese) residing at the relevant addresses during the census period (Figures 34 and 35).
Figure 34 - Extract Of the 1891 Census record for John William Tait’s household [Professor Carlson’s 2XGreat grandfather]. No Aborigines are listed.
The ‘Female’ is likely to be his daughter Catherine Jane (Kit) aged 11. His other daughter, Elizabeth is possibly living with her grandmother Susan Rowan (See Figure 35 below and comments regarding Susan’s will leaving all to Elizabeth below). Margaret Ellen, the youngest child is less than 2 years old and maybe being looked after by her grandmother Susan as well, or otherwise in another’s care.
The census-taker didn’t record any children in the columns provided, instead just giving a total number of males and females living at the address [See full page source] . Source: See Full Page Entry #73 top left of page here
Figure 35 - Extract of the 1891 Census record for Susan Rowan’s household [Professor Carlson’s 3XGreat grandmother]. No Aborigines are listed.
The Females are likely to be Susan and her grand-daughter, Elizabeth, and possibly her other grand-daughter, the 2-year-old Margaret Ellen, as well.
Eight years after the 1891 census, a newspaper report appears in which John Tait has been fined 10 shillings for ‘not sending his child[ren] to school for the required number of days.’ No mention is made here that they were Aboriginal children (Figure 36).
Figure 36 - Record of the fining of John Tait for not sending his child[ren] to school for the required number of days. This fine would have been for daughter Margaret Ellen who was 11 years old. By 1898, his other daughter Catherine Jane (Kit) is 18 years old and already a mother in her own right (see below) and Lizzie, who is 16, was living with her grandmother. Source: Barrier Miner (Broken Hill) 9 April 1898, p.1
Broken Hill ca1880s-1910s
In the years from the late 1880s to the early 1900s, the period in which Professor Carlson claims her ancestral ‘long line of Aboriginal women who originate from South Australia‘ are living, are anything but what one imagines as a ‘traditional’ or ‘early-colonial’ Aboriginal life. These female ancestors of the Professor are not living ‘on Country’ far away from the colonists, nor are they being recorded as living in Aboriginal camps, missions or reserves. Instead, Professor Carlson’s 3xGreat-grandmother, Susan Rowan/Nicholls [nee Kelleher], was a land-owner in South Australia (See transcript of 1861 land purchase here and original here) prior to moving to Broken Hill with her girls.
The Family in Broken Hill
Life is tough for the family in this mining town, which was only founded a few years before in 1885.
Figure 37 - The Township of Broken Hill in the early 1900s (Wikipedia)
Susan’s daughter, Margaret Tait [nee Nicholls] dies in Broken Hill in 1890 of typhoid fever (see Death Certificate Figure 15) leaving three children, including Catherine Jane Tait, Professor Carlson’s claimed Aboriginal ancestor “Kit”.
Young Catherine starts life hard. When her mother Margaret dies in 1890, Catherine was only 9-years-old and within a few years she is a mother herself. Her first child Elsie, was born in 1895 when Catherine was only 14 or 15-years old (Figure 38).
Figure 38 - Extract of the Birth Record for Elsie Tait in Broken Hill to Catherine J[ane] Tait
Catherine becomes a mother again in 1898, at the age 17 or 18, when a son, John W H Tait is born (Figure 39).
Figure 39 - Extract of the Birth Record for John W H Tait in Broken Hill to Catherine J[ane] Tait
It is unknown what happened to her daughter Elsie, however John died in infancy 1899.
Catherine goes on to marry John Francis Roach in Broken Hill in 1900 (see Figure 14 above). They ultimately have a daughter Evelyn in 1913, who is the ‘dark Nana’, the grandmother that carries on the family line down to Professor Bronwyn Carlson.
Catherine’s younger sister, Margaret Ellen, was only a baby when her mother Margaret Nicholls died and her life story indicates just how tough it could be in a ‘mining-boom town’ like Broken Hill at the turn of the 19th century.
On 26 April 1904, at the age of 14, Margaret Ellen, was charged with vagrancy. Her details were entered into the Gaol Entrance book at Broken Hill - see [2nd line item #81, Figures 40] - where her “trade” was recorded as “prostitute.”
Figures 40A&B - Extract NSW Gaols Entrance Book for Margaret Ellen May Taid [sic Tait]
The Gaol record column, “Color [sic] of” , indicates that Margaret had “Ginger” hair and “Grey” eyes (Figure 40B).
The “Remarks” column, which was used to record any other physical descriptions of the prisoners, including their ethnicity, shows “Nil” (Figure 40B). This is supportive evidence that Margaret Ellen Tait, Professor Carlson’s great-aunt [Note 1 below] was not obviously of Aboriginal ethnicity. This is supported by the evidence that, in the Gaol Entrance book, two rows down from Margaret’s record, on the 27th April, a prisoner named Marcus Lucas was recorded as having “black hair”, “black eyes” and, in the remarks column, that he was “American Negro” (Figures 41A&B).
Figures 41A&B - Extract from NSW Gaols Entrance Book for Marcus Lucas “American Negro” - in the same Gaol record book as Margaret Ellen May Taid [sic Tait]
It is not being claimed here that the absence in the records of any mention of an Aboriginal ethnicity for Margaret Ellen Tait, her sister Catherine Jane Tait, or their mother Margaret Nicholls, or indeed their grandmother Susan Rowan is proof that they were not from a “long line of Aboriginal women” as claimed by Professor Carlson [viz: it is still agreed that, ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ ].
Rather, as researchers, we are saying that if these women were Aboriginal - of full- or part-descent - then the records somewhere would be expected to reflect that ethnicity, just like they do for the “American Negro” Marcus Lucas, imprisoned along with Margaret Ellen Tait (Figures 41).
Indeed, if we look at the family records of contemporary Aboriginal people we do find many references to their ancestry. For example, public commentator Stan Grant is a descendant of a man called Frances Angus “Frank” Foster [b. 1872 Kiama, NSW – d. 1941 Berry, NSW (?)].
Frank Foster’s ancestry is well known to his descendants, Stan Grant (Figure 42) and Shallan Foster (Figure 43).
With a minimal amount of research effort, one can find numerous references to Frank Foster’s Aboriginality.
For example, Foster was in trouble with the law - being sent to Wollongong gaol in 1897 (Figure 44) - only a few years before Margaret Ellen Tait was entering Broken Hill gaol in 1904 (Figures 40). However, significantly, Frank Foster’s gaol entry record states that he was a “Half Caste”, clearly a reference to his recognised and community accepted and understood Aboriginality.
Professor Carlson’s ancestor Margaret Ellen Tait lacks this recognition in her gaol entry record. If she was of Aboriginal descent one would expect this to be referred to in the “remarks” column of her gaol entry form. (Figures 40).
Figure 42 - Stan Grant at his great-grandfather’s information board at La Perouse museum. Source: ABC
Figure 43 - Shallan Foster at her 2XGreat-grandfather’s information board at La Perouse museum. Source: ABC
Figure 44 - Extract of 1897 Gaol Entry Record for Frank Foster
Additionally, Frank Foster’s Aboriginality is clearly recognised and mentioned in a number of newspaper records of the day (Figures 45 and 46 ), whereas, as we have seen above, none of the newspaper records presented in this post of Professor Carlson’s ancestors ever mention them as being Aboriginal.
Figure 45 - Newspaper report of Frank Foster (aboriginal) in Wollongong Police Court 1899 Source: Illawarra Mercury (Wollongong), 27 June 1899, p3
Figure 46 - Newspaper record of Frank Foster, an aborigine, sentenced in court 1896. Source: The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 August 1896, p5
More importantly perhaps are the census records of 1901. Stan Grant’s Aboriginal ancestor, Frank Foster, is clearly enumerated in the Port Kembla census as being an “Aborigine” (Figure 47 - line 3, #45)
Figure 47 - Extract of the Census of 1901 in Port Kembla showing two things [on the third line #45] - firstly, that Aboriginal people, like Stan Grant’s great-grandfather Frank Foster in this extract were indeed “counted” in the census; and secondly, that when they were recognised as being “Aborigines” they were enumerated in the separate column on the census form for that purpose, just like they are today by the modern ABS Census.
By comparison, the 1891 census records in Broken Hill indicate that none of Professor Carlson’s ancestors as being listed as “Aborigines” (See Figures 34 & 35 above). Similarly, the household census record of 1901 in Broken Hill of Professor Carlson’s ancestor, John Tait (father to Catherine Jane & Margaret Ellen) shows four females being resident, but none are recognised as being “Aborigines.” Although the names of these four women are unknown, it is possible/likely that Catherine and/or Margaret Ellen is/are amongst them and none are aborigines (Figure 48).
Figure 48 - Extract of the Census of 1901 in Broken Hill for John Tait’s household (Professor Carlson’s 2XGreat-grandfather). It records four women resident but none are recognised as “Aborigines.”
Despite the common misconception promulgated by ABC presenters and politicians, who should know better, that ‘Aborigines were not counted in the census’, they definitely were, as an original form from the 1921 census record for Broken Hill testifies to (Figure 49).
Figure 49 - Evidence that Aborigines were indeed “counted in the census”. These are the records of the 1921 census in the Broken Hill district. Source: National Archives of Australia
Aftermath
But then, like it does for all of us, life moved on for Professor Carlson’s so-called “Aboriginal women” ancestors.
Margaret Ellen appears to have been rescued from a life of prostitution and, in 1905 at the age of 16, she marries Edward John Cawse. The sisters, both Catherine Jane and Margaret Ellen, with their respective husbands, are said to have moved to the Illawarra/Wollongong area [date unknown]. Their father, John William Tait, remained in Broken Hill.
Catherine’s father-in-law John Roach (senior) is already living in Port Kembla, which may explain why Catherine and her husband moved there. His household appears in the census of 1901 (Figure 50). John Roach senior died in port Kembla in 1907.
Figure 50 - Extract of the Census of 1901 in Port Kembla showing John Roach’s household at #514 with two men and two women resident, but none are recognised as “Aborigines.”
By 1913, Catherine and her husband John Francis Roach were on the voting roll in Port Kembla (Figure 8 above). Their daughter Evelyn Veronica Roach was born in Wollongong in 1913 and through Evelyn the female line continues down to Professor Bronwyn Carlson’s own birth in Wollongong [see p4] in the 1960s [listen at 00.30]. Professor Carlson praises her grandmother, the ‘dark Nana’, Evelyn Roach as a major force in encouraging her own education while the young Bronwyn lived with her in Wollongong.
Conclusion
Despite the extensive research into Professor Bronwyn Carlson’s maternal family tree, as detailed above, it has not been possible to independently corroborate the Professor’s claim that she has, ‘ancestry from a long line of Aboriginal women who originate from South Australia.‘
Our research would indicate that Professor Bronwyn Carlson is mistaken in her belief and claims that she is of Aboriginal ancestry by her mother’s line. All her maternal ancestors appear to have come from Ireland, Scotland or England as convicts and free/assisted immigrants.
Notes
Note 1 - The official great-aunt definition in the Collins Dictionary is the sister of a person’s grandparent. So, one’s great-aunt, is the sibling of one’s grandmother or grandfather. Professor Carlson uses this definition so we have maintained that in her quoted comments.
However, genealogists consider that what most people call their great-aunt is actually their grand-aunt. Genealogists prefer to use great-aunt for the sister of one’s great-grandparents. That is the terminology we use in this post. Margaret Ellen Tait is the sister (sibling) to Catherine Tait, who was Professor Carlson’s great-grandmother. Thus, we describe Margaret Ellen as the great-aunt of Professor Carlson. (Source)
Note 2 - Susan left everything in her will to her grand-daughter Lizzie only on the condition if she stayed away from her father and sisters. This suggests that Susan might have believed that for Lizzie to succeed in life she needed to ‘get away from the family’ and its problems?
Figure 51 - Transcription of the will of Susan Rowan, leaving all her estate to her grand-daughter Elizabeth Ann Tait, sister to Catherine [Professor Carlson’s great grandmother “Kit”] provided Elizabeth break off all relations with her sister and father. Source: Full will document here
