AUS-Tasmania-L Archives

Archiver > AUS-Tasmania > 2001-11 > 1004669711


From: Garry A Wilson <>
Subject: [AUS-Tas] Re: Convict CDRom !!
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 13:55:11 +1100
References: <200111011601.fA1G1GV26909@lists2.rootsweb.com>


Louise and List

As you can see, errors like those you have found in the Convict CDRom can be annoying! Accuracy, whether it is in CDRoms, documents or even
sites and lists like this, is after all what we are all concerned about.

As for the Convict CDRom, in conjunction with another study, which a colleague and I are undertaking, I have been going through a lot of the
references to convicts on the CDRom (to date I have personally looked at all the convict women that I could find arriving up to 1819) and
yes I would say there are in fact hundreds of errors so far! And that is without checking the actual sources themselves yet. I hate to
think what sort of accuracy there might be at that level. At the index level however, there are errors in the dates ships arrived, the
names of the ships, missing links to aliases etc, not to mention some surprising spellings (which have yet to be seen to be believed!). In
many cases quite obvious errors. I am making due note of these. The actual numbers of errors so far could be determined from my data base
but I'm still working on that. When I complete my analysis I will be in an appropriate position, hopefully, to advise the persons
responsible for this debacle. Whether they chose to do anything about it, of course, is another matter.

Even more fundamental in my view however, is the problem that you mention under item three, which is probably the most annoying aspect of
the whole project. Whilst there is possibly an error as you point out in the particular individual (depends which sailing for the
Indefatigable he was on), the index is VERY limited in that it only allows searches on the ship which transported the convict to Tasmania.
Despite being prepared by volunteers in Victoria, I find this approach very parochial, based on the assumption that the only relevant
information is the shipping arrival to Tasmania alone. In the earlier days especially, many convicts were transported to Tasmania VIA NEW
SOUTH WALES. Hence two ships are in fact involved. Even those who came with Collins in 1803 left the Calcutta at Port Philip, and arrived
in Tasmania on the Ocean and Lady Nelson. These seem to be handled very inconsistently!

Now it just so happens that in most references to convicts elsewhere it is the primary transport ship to Australia which is in fact used to
identify the individual (not the secondary ship from say Sydney to Tasmania). Although the primary transport is usually noted in the
comments field for the CDRom, this is neither searchable, nor in fact prints out for you, when you select "print record" (somewhat
pathetically I might add). Two results follow. The first is that it is impossible to locate a convict under their primary transport ship
if sent to NSW first (which I find completely absurd) and secondly it has led to a lot of the errors because the ships have got mixed up
anyway. In other words, the job was not even done consistently. In my view, there should have been two clearly identifiable fields, one
for ships to NSW and another for ships to Tasmania, OR alternatively, one for the primary ship to Australia and one for the secondary ship
to Tasmania if you prefer. I think I personally would have preferred the latter approach, since that way the primary ship would be in the
same field irrespective of whether it came to Tasmania or NSW only).

And I think somebody should have taken the time to check for many of the obvious errors!

As for the Emu by the way, it was in fact used as a secondary ship in this way - so it was a "colonial" convict transport (like the
Kangaroo, Elizabeth Henrietta etc) despite what you said (albeit not from UK though).

One other comment is worth noting I believe.

Although again there are some inconsistencies, my research indicates that only those persons who ARRIVED as convicts are included in the
CDRom. This limitation should also be said of Tardif's otherwise fine work "Notorious Strumpets ...". The point here is that the CDRom is
an index to convict records which are held in the Tasmanian State Archives concerning convicts serving their sentence in Tasmania. There is
of course nothing wrong with that, provided you understand that that is what is covered. Therefore, (like Tardif), it does not cover the
many more persons who had been convicts either in NSW or especially in Norfolk Island, but whose sentences had expired before they came to
Tasmania. If they were still under sentence however when they arrived, they "should" have been included and hence you should be able to
find them on the CDRom. But as I said there are inconsistencies. On the other hand, if their sentences had expired (or they had been given
pardons etc), don't expect to find them on the CDRom, because logically there are no convict records in Tasmania on them, unless they
re-offended etc.

These ex-convicts, like other free persons arriving, are generally referred to as "settlers", a much more decent and respectable term than
ex-convicts! The government however from time to time was interested in the movements and status of these ex-convicts, so for example there
is an extant list derived from the 1811 Muster of the Population (the rest of which relating to Tasmania seems not to have survived as far I
can ascertain at this stage - if anybody can advise otherwise I would appreciate knowing). This surviving list identifies those who had
been convicts and who now resided in Hobart and Port Dalrymple as well as those who resided at Norfolk Island, presumably because most of
the population had already been removed from there to Tasmania in 1807/8 and most of the balance were destined for the same fate (this being
accomplished in 1813).

Regards

Garry


>
>
> Subject: [AUS-Tas] Tasmanian Convict CD
> Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 10:34:37 +1100
> From: terlin <>
> To:
>
> List
>
> I am wondering if there are any other regular users of this CDROM that have
> found errors. In the past month, I have found 4.
> 1. Surname transcribed incorrectly (the CD shows MAWER but the records very
> clearly show MARVER)
> 2. Christian name is shown as William when the records show Peter - no
> alias is recorded
> 3. Incorrect ship. The man is shown as coming on the "Emu", but in fact was
> on the "Indefatigable". No convict transport of the name "Emu"
> 4. Man entered under his alias, but no cross reference to his proper name
> which is on his Conduct Record and the Indent, thus there is no way that
> you would find him searching for his proper name which he used here in VDL.
>
> This latter error I found when I checked my own family convicts on the CD,
> having previously searched several years ago using the Convict Alphabetical
> Listings on microfilm. The alias was recorded and cross referenced on these.
>
> If I have come across 4 errors, then there must be many more and yes, I am
> contacting the Archives with these problems.
>
> Motto: Always check the primary sources, then check again !!!
>
> Louise
> Burnie
>

This thread: