03 July 2019

A Melbourne foundation-stone mystery


I recently had the enjoyable opportunity to make a presentation to the Victorian Lodge of Research. The presentation was titled A Melbourne masonic mystery: The University Chancellor, the uninvited Freemasons and the foundation stone…

I began by pointing to the value of the local Masonic Library, Archive and Museum. It is full of historical gold. It's a tremendous resource which can provide unique insights into Victoria's history - especially its social history and its family history.

The story itself is set in Melbourne 1854 - 165 years ago to the day.  

Amid the excitement and disorder of the Victorian gold rush, Melbourne's elite created ‘the University.’ Its foundation stone was laid on Monday 3 July 1854 by the newly arrived Lieutenant-Governor, Charles Hotham. The master of ceremonies was Justice Redmond Barry, resplendent in his immaculate chancellerian robes – and silk stockings.

Sir Redmond Barry as Chancellor, later in life.
Picture via Wikipedia.

Professor Richard Selleck in The Shop, says the ceremony began with a procession from the city to the muddy paddock north of the city where the University was to emerge. It was intended, he imagined, to follow a familiar pattern with a prominent role for Freemasons.   

Soon after the ceremony, ‘Hiram’ wrote to the Argus, the most read paper in the city. He complained that the Freemasons had in effect been uninvited. He asserted that this would not have happened if La Trobe had been Lieutenant-Governor. He wanted an explanation.

I had come across this controversy in preparing a review of Professor John Barnes’ book, La Trobe: traveller, writer, governor. I didn’t think anyone noticed the issue before and thought it was worth investigating. So, was Selleck correct or Hiram? The answer turned out to be neither, though Hiram was nearer the mark. And the event did signal some kind of change.

The case also illustrates that further research, building on the work of Victorian Masonic historian Peter Thornton, can still yield improved understandings of both Melbourne, its people and Freemasonry in that period. Thornton, who died in 2015, may well have read everything in the Archives and his books are a great pointer to what's there. However, finding those references now is a little harder.

Barry was a prime founder of the University placing his personal stamp on it. There would be no religious test at the University for the all-male students. Professors could not be in holy orders nor could they lecture on religious topics - anywhere. La Trobe supported the institution and provided funding for it.

As many Melbourne Freemasons know, Barry became a Freemason in Dublin. In Melbourne, he affiliated with Australia Felix Lodge of Hiram in the Irish Constitution when it began in April 1847, eight years after his arrival. He remained a quiet member.

La Trobe was not a Freemason, but he was certainly a friend of the Masonic bodies, the Churches and Barry himself. He saw them all as civilising forces.

Strangely, the story of the University’s foundation stone relies on understanding what happened for the foundation stone ceremony of the first Prince’s Bridge and 1846 and the subsequent celebrations when it was opened in 1850.  

But the solution to the conundrum needed more. It needed a review of some forgotten histories and digging in the archives. Two archives actually - The University of Melbourne and the Freemasons. The search uncovered the existence of correspondence between Barry and the masters of Melbourne’s four lodges in 1854 channelled though Robert Levick the now somewhat forgotten Masonic educator of that early period.

But, as is often the case, resolving one mystery left unanswered at least one more. 

The presentation will appear as a series here over the next few months and will also (with pictures and references) be included in the Lodge’s annual Transactions, now in its 32nd year.

The first Prince's Bridge as it looked in 1870, also later in its life. How is this structure relevant to the University foundation stone?  Courtesy Museums Victoria.

A Melbourne Masonic mystery part 1: The University Chancellor

14 June 2019

The DNA search for ancestors of 麥世鹏.

The aim is to find the home village of 麥世.


For those of you following this story for my first outline of ‘Mak’s life' and the quest to find his Chinese family, I’ll provide updates from time to time on progress.

We’ve now done two tests a YDNA and a ‘family finder’ both with FamilyTreeDNA .

The Y-DNA test has yielded one match.

This leads the descendant of a man who was adopted in the early part of the last century by a family with who gave him their surname. The fellow who did the test has passed away and his descendants don’t know anything about his adoptive family except that lived in Guangzhou and spoke Cantonese.

Now they know that somewhere they have a connection – and from that an Australian connection. Perhaps this fellow's father became an orphan in the conflicts around the 1911 revolution.

The family finder tests also showed one match.

In this family, there is also no knowledge of a surname. One side of the family comes from Guangzhou and the other from Hong Kong so may well have also originated in Guangzhou on the mainland. At the moment it is impossible to tell which side of the family the connection is.

One other distant connection was made more recently, though again the family have no knowledge of the 东 name. This third family currently live in Dongguan, China, and have apparently always lived there. A possible pointer to our man's origins.

Dongguan (东莞市) is a significant industrial city in Guangdong Province, China. It is in the Pearl River Delta bordering the provincial capital of Guangzhou. Dongguan's city administration is regarded as progressive in seeking foreign investment, ranking behind only Shenzhen, Shanghai and Suzhou in exports. It is also home to one of the world's largest shopping malls, the New South China Mall – nothing to do with New South Wales though… 

In Mak Sai Pang’s time Cantonese was widely spoken as well as Hakka. Today’s population mainly speak Mandarin. 

So, while we don’t know which city Mak Sai Pang came from, Dongguan is a candidate. However, further information on the family trees of the three matches mentioned would be needed. Finding closer DNA matches to people with certain 麥 ancestry is also necessary.

If you know someone with a (‘Mak’ or ‘Mai’) ancestry please encourage them to take a DNA test and document their family tree - and let me know the outcome.



turns out to be a widespread surname in Guangdong and is seldom found outside the province. It is not ranked among the 100 most common surnames in China and not even listed among the 507 surnames in 百家姓 of Surnames of the hundred families (which obviously contains five times as many surnames as the title implies). 

So, although there are still millions of possible 麥 family connections, the home base is somewhere in Guangdong. But which city?



Famous people with the surname


If you have any suggestion for famous people please let me know and we can run some mini-biographies.



24 April 2019

Are you a Mak 麥?


If you are, you may have a part to play in solving an Australian mystery!

How to write the surname.
Courtesy of Wiktionary.


The earliest documented Chinese migrant to Australia arrived 201 years ago. His name was Mak Sai Pang 麥世.

There are two important things we don’t know about him:

1 – Where exactly in China did he come from? and
2 – Where did he go later in his life?

Pretty important questions to find answers for.

A Qing Dynasty official ponders his ancestry.
Image via Wikipedia.


His significance was celebrated across two nations last year, but the mysteries still remain. However, if you’re also a Mak 麥 you may be able to help solve them. Perhaps you may also learn more about your own family along the way.

My article The mystery of Mak Sai Ying unpacks these issues and sets out where to go to from here. There are still some documentary trails to follow but even with these, we may still not be able to resolve the two questions outlined above.

These are, to be sure, family questions but they also have historical significance if they can help us understand more of this individual and his particular circumstances. The large mosaic which is Australian history is made up of many individual tiles.

The ‘Mak project’ aims to resolve the family history questions. As the documents so far have not resolved these, DNA testing could well help.

Results for the Y-DNA test (which traces the male line) are now in and have yielded one match. This leads to a man who was adopted in the early part of the last century by a different family in Guangzhou. His descendants now know that they have a Mak connection. But where exactly is this connection? How far back does it go?

The fact that this family lived in Guangzhou – provides some hope as that is certainly where it looks like 'our' Mak originated.

So, what next?

The first thing is to find more Mak males with ancestors who lived in Guangdong to do the YDNA test. This collective activity should give all participants some insights into their ancestry and in particular locate those who have the same male line ancestry as our mystery Mak.

Perhaps you’re a Mak who already knows where you people came from. Wouldn’t it be great to be connected with a significant Chinese Australian? 

The next DNA test is the ‘family finder’ the results of which will help find Mak’s cousins whether male or female. The test is about to the done for our Mak descendant and will yield some more connections, perhaps with distant cousins in Canada, Malaysia or the UK and even China.

If you’re a Mak man (also pronounced ‘Mai’ in standard Chinese) and would like to take part in the Y-DNA test, please look at FamilyTreeDNA. You can sign up for the Y-DNA test and if you also join the Chinese project at the same time, you may get a discount.

Females who have Mak ancestry can still take part via their 'family finder' test.

Let me know if you have any questions and please share any thoughts on Mak origins.

The ancient version of the surname.
Courtesy of Wiktionary.
Can you see a happy face?




26 March 2019

Baptists in Early North America Volume 3 - Newport, Rhode Island, Seventh Day Baptists

I read Janet Thorngate’s book in one day and thoroughly enjoyed it - and the escape from the 21st Century. If you have an interest in the denomination or the period, you’ll find it a delightful and very informative journey.




Having come across them first over 35 years ago, the Seventh Day Baptists are like old friends - who I didn’t know as well as I should have. The opportunity to exchange a few thoughts with Dr Thorngate was a great opportunity and is reflected below in this response to the book. 

Baptists in Early North America—Newport, Rhode Island, Seventh Day Baptists is volume 3 of a series about Baptist history in early North America. The Seventh Day Baptists are a unique identity within the Baptist world and they are the least well-known grouping. This book will help dispell that relative invisibility by illustrating their historical credentials.

The series itself provides a significant contribution to religious and Baptist scholarship, recovering never-before-published original records and manuscripts for students, scholars, and genealogists.

The story of the Newport Seventh Day Baptists begins in 1664 when some members of Newport’s first Baptist church began meeting for worship on the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday). The documents which are the core of the book follow them through the first 137 years of their life as the Newport Seventh Day Baptist (SDB) Church.

The transcriptions of the church’s first three record books (1692–1808) are preceded by extensive excerpts from the manuscripts and letters of Samuel Hubbard, one of the founding members. These document the origins in John Clarke’s Newport Baptist church and the influences from Sabbath keeping Baptists in mid-seventeenth century England (also old friends).

The record follows the covenant community, nurtured in colonial Rhode Island’s unique religious freedom, from Newport’s pioneer period through its Golden Age as a major colonial seaport and its devastation during the Revolutionary War.

Scattered membership could be found east and south into Plymouth Colony and Martha’s Vineyard and west to Westerly and Hopkinton, Rhode Island, and New London, Connecticut. The members were a surprisingly diverse group from Native Americans, African-American ‘servants’ to Rhode Island Governors and wealthy merchants.

Governor Samuel Ward (1725-1776),
image cropped from Rootsweb via Wikipedia.

Although I have some ancestors who were in the region at the time none that I know of where members of the congregation. I was entertained to discover, however, that I am a 14th cousin of Governor Samuel Ward (1725-1776) who was a member of the church. Our common ancestor is further back in time.

The congregation had involvement with other Baptists in founding Rhode Island College (now Brown University). and through the Second Great Awakening, then joined with other congregations to form the Seventh Day Baptist General Conference in 1802.

I was particularly interested in the reference to the English Sabbatarians in the detailed historical introduction and got a much better sense of the cross Atlantic support which the Newport seventh day Baptists and their English cousins gave each other.

Dr Peter Chamberlen was one of many who offered support. He was a prominent and often provocative character who was ‘protected’ from imprisonment in England because he was regarded by the Royals as an excellent doctor. Like other Sabbath-keeping churches of the period (including the Rhode Island churches), his congregation did not produce a written statement of beliefs; they were aiming to ‘grow in grace and knowledge’ and didn’t wish to assume that they ‘had it all’. However, he did promote the ‘formula’ of ‘keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus’. These two concepts are exemplified by Sabbath keeping and believer’s baptism - the hallmarks of SDBs. 

The record books provide some compelling insights into the lives of the New England Sabbatarians and their times and illustrate the changes in congregational preoccupations over the period.

Thorngate’s thorough work identifies the individuals in the original documents spelling out their relationships to paint pictures which help us see the real people.

There is obviously still a rich vein of original material from this period on either side of the Atlantic to be mined. 

Although not a focus of the book, the formation of the SDB denomination is something accomplished immediately after the period that this book covers. It was the process whereby different church groups considered joining and some chose not to. I’m intrigued by the possibility that the times may have produced independent Sabbatarian groups as well.

In England, there never really was an SDB denomination formed and at this stage, there is no evidence that any separatists became independent Sabbatarian groups in America after the Rogerenes. This group broke from the SDBs in Connecticut in the 1680s, lasting into the 19th century but they ceased to be Sabbatarian by about 1700 (see Thorngate’s introduction page lxxii-lxxiii).

However, the earliest Pennsylvania and New Jersey SDB churches were not ‘daughter churches’ of the Rhode Island bodies (having totally separate origins) but early on sought fellowship with each other, somewhat formalized through their many loosely organized yearly meetings.

When the conference was forming, the main issues discouraging union were, as is often the case, governance issues, not theological questions, but the churches which ultimately chose not to join were all short-lived. For the next 200 years, churches formed that called themselves Seventh Day Baptist (some independently, some 'daughters') and there are lists of them identifying which joined and which didn’t join the General Conference (for example in Seventh Day Baptists in Europe and America, volume 2) but none became independent Sabbatarian groups.

The later 19th century origins of Seventh-day Adventists and Church of God Seventh-Day groups have separate histories. It seems that no-one yet has carefully researched the relationships between SDBs and the emerging 19th century Sabbath-keeping Church of God groups. There may have been an SDB ‘association of churches’ in the American Midwest in areas which some participating churches were or eventually became ‘Church of God’ congregations. Many American churches took part in a regional association but never joined the SDB Conference. Internationally there has often been cross-fertilisation of Sabbatarian groups - often described differently by believers and historians.

But to return to the book and its direct concerns...

Ronald Angelo Johnson, PhD, of the Department of History at Texas State University, is better placed to judge the work academically. His review in Baptist History and Heritage, Summer 2018, shows he was clearly impressed: ‘The study exhibits an incomparable grasp of denominational historiography…’. His conclusion?

‘The distinctive life of the Seventh Day Baptist Church, the volume’s diverse collection of records, and Thorngate’s impressively details footnotes will inform future histories of the church and the city…’

A powerful recommendation.

Baptists in Early North America Volume 3 - Newport, Rhode Island, Seventh Day Baptists is published by Mercer University Press.


Janet Thorngate


Janet Thorngate author of
Baptists in Early North America Volume 3 -
Newport, Rhode Island, Seventh Day Baptists
.

Janet Thorngate is chairman of the Seventh Day Baptist Council on History (formerly the Seventh Day Baptist Historical Society) and former librarian of the Seventh Day Baptist Historical Library and Archives.

She has degrees in English and History from Salem College and West Virginia University (MA) and has taught Church History at the Seventh Day Baptist School of Ministry and English at Salem International University and West Virginia University.


28 February 2019

Alonzo Marion Poe grows up

Alonzo Marion Poe awoke early on Tuesday 6 May 1845. ‘Marion’ was a naive 19-year-old eager for adventure with nothing keeping him in Missouri. 

He was about to mature in a hurry. 

John Lemmon had not been in Missouri long when he met Marion. ‘Old Lemmon’ had recently left New York after he and some of his family were ‘attacked with lung fever’.

‘The doctor told us: "Don't you stay here another winter…Go to Oregon…" So, I sold my house and made my way here with my family and friends.’ 

Lemmon thought for a moment then looking earnestly at Marion said, ‘I need someone to help look after the cattle, negotiate with the Indians and provide some muscle.’ Marion confirmed that he knew about cattle and said, ‘We often see the Sioux here’. Marion’s unpaid co-workers were Lemmon’s son and three of his son-in-law’s relatives. Marion always enjoyed chatting with them, though sometimes found them over-earnest.

Lemmon was aiming for the fertile Willamette Valley, south of the Columbia River. That is where almost everyone went, indeed the previous year, five families Marion knew had set off with the same objective.

‘Oregon Trail’ from The Ox Team or the Old Oregon Trail 1852-1906 by Ezra Meeker,
The University of Texas at Austin via Wikipedia.


Easily bored, Marion enjoyed shooting toads, snakes, squirrels, birds and rabbits, so his supply of ammunition was usually low or exhausted. 

This habit was about to change.

One morning Lemmon beckoned Marion to follow him. ‘Last night one of our cows fell behind the herd with its calf.’

They chatted as they rode, Marion on his spirited horse with its new-smelling saddle and Lemmon on his old faithful. ‘Do you think we’re safe?’, Lemmon asked. Marion remarked casually, ‘We’re only a few days out Missouri in a large group. We won’t have any serious trouble’.

They found the cow and Lemmon gave it a whack with his small ‘black snake’ whip, an ideal tool for managing cattle. The pair were ambling back to the wagons when they noticed a small group of Indians behind them.

Marion rode out to chat, confident in his ability to charm. As they spoke one of the Indians held his horse’s bridle while two others slipped his feet off the stirrups. Marion was too frightened to speak. And he had no bullets.

The Indians were ready to pull him off his horse, but the sharp-eyed Lemmon was watching. He galloped towards Marion, giving a well-placed crack with his whip across the Indian’s hands. He immediately let go of the bridle.

Lemmon gave Marion’s horse a whack saying in a firm voice, ‘Hold on to the saddle!’ The horse bounded, and the startled Indians stepped back. Lemmon kept up a barrage so the Indians had no time to draw their bows.

Campfire stories still included the Indians, but now Marion's comrades laughed when they told how Mr Lemmon rescued him from death. Everyone enjoyed the new mood for the rest of the journey.

The group reached Oregon mid-September and Marion set out by himself to find his friends. 

They would find him a more mature man. 

Postscript:
Poe's Missouri friends had moved north of the Columbia River to avoid the reach of new laws preventing coloured persons from owning land and so protect one of their number - George Bush. The move probably made Poe more of a pioneer than he may have intended to be. 


Breaking up Camp at Sunrise, by Alfred Jacob Miller, via Wikipedia.

Main source:
Details of the journey are found in Sara J. Cummins, Autobiography and Reminiscences, La Grande Printing Company, La Grande, Oregon, 1914. 

Further reading:




14 February 2019

The Mystery of Mak Sai Ying: What’s in a name?

Governor Macquarie proclaimed 29 January 1818 a public holiday in the newly named continent of 'Australia' to celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the landing of the first fleet.

In China, the year of the Yellow Earth-Tiger began on 5 February.  

Three weeks later, the Laurel arrived at Port Jackson, Sydney, with a cargo of teas and manufactured goods from India and China. She had left Bengal in August 1817, stayed in the busy port of Guangzhou (‘Canton’) for most of October and November and then called at Malacca and Port Dalrymple (Tasmania) on the way.

Onboard was a young Chinese man in his twenties, a native of Canton, who would later become known as John Shying. But on his arrival, he was known as something like ‘Mark O’Pong’. One of the mysteries is working out what his original name may have been,

The ship’s third officer was George Blaxland, a relative of the more prominent merchant and land-owner John Blaxland. George befriended the man who then became a houseguest at Blaxland’s Newington Estate in Paramatta. He stayed there for about three years and worked as a carpenter.

Mak’s host. John Blaxland painting by Richard Read

The Blaxland family may well have known ‘Mak’ before the voyage began, as they were merchants at a time of vibrant trade between Australia, India, China, Indonesia and Malacca.

In 1820 he obtained 30 acres of land under the name ‘Mark O'Pong' and was ‘anxious to become an agriculturalist’. He then obtained work with the Macarthur family at Elizabeth Farm also in Paramatta. The Farm’s day-book records him as 'Matchiping' - definitely a mangled pronunciation also.

 
Elizabeth Farm today. The building was renovated in the 1820s.
Plenty of work for Mak. Via Wikipedia 

Mak acquired other land and became Australia’s first Chinese hotel licensee as his prosperity increased.

In 1823, using the name John Shying, he married Sarah Thompson and by 1830 she had borne him three sons. He signed his marriage certificate with an ‘x’, usually indicating that the person signing was illiterate, even though he could have signed in Chinese had he been permitted. He would later claim that he changed his name at the time of marriage from Mark O’Pong ‘as is my country way’.

The origin of the name John Shying is not hard to imagine, even though it sounds nothing like Mark O’Pong. He would have been called ‘John’ by many people who may have found an attempt to pronounce his Chinese name impossible. ‘Shying’, seems to parallel a Chinese given name he used in 1842 for his second marriage when he is recorded in English as ‘John Shying’ but signed his name in Chinese as ‘Mak Sai Ying’ 麥世英. Although it comes first ‘Mak’ was his surname or family name and Sai-Ying although it came last was his given name. The pronunciation is Cantonese which he is presumed to have spoken because that’s where he was born.

Mak Sai Ying's signature
from his 1842 wedding.

However, I have jumped ahead of the chronology…

For some reason in October 1831 with a young wife and four young boys aged 8, 5, 3 and 18 months, he decided to return to China. His reasons are not known. Presumably, he had some kind of obligation – the death of his father, perhaps another family or an irresistible business opportunity…

The point is, his decision was not a whim. He considered what he was doing and made provision for the care of his family through a power of attorney with trustees to manage his affairs. On this occasion, he signed with characters that would sound ‘Mak Sai Pang’ – 麥世鹏. This may well be nearer to his original name and not too far from ‘Mark O’Pong’. Mak as his family name seems a consistent use, as is his middle name Sai (which he might have held in common with any brothers), while the last name is his personal name. There are occasions where he apparently used the name John Pong Shying (which would cover all bases) and, depending on the hearers, there are various spellings for Shying.

Mak Sai Pang signature from the 1831 power of attorney.
The final character seems elongated.

Almost immediately, Sarah Shying in the absence of her husband requested that the deeds to her husband’s land be made over to her indicating that her husband was a native of China and not naturalized. Sounds like she wasn't expecting/wanting him back anytime soon!

The Attorney General responded quickly and with as much sympathy as was legally possible. Naturally, he couldn’t grant the title to a married woman and unfortunately, as her husband was not naturalised he couldn’t own land either. A solution would be for it to be held by trustees for her use and the trustees could dispose of the property to her children – they were all males so it could be passed to them when they were old enough.

Unfortunately, Sarah died in March 1836. John Shying returned to New South Wales, possibly aboard the Orwell which arrived 12 July the same year. If this was his ship, he would have disembarked expecting to find his wife alive. We know that Captain Living ‘brought him down from China to join his family’ and he also noted that ‘he is a very civil, industrious, sober man’ who shows a ‘consistent character among the Europeans who know him in Canton’. No shipping records list him by any of his known names, although occasionally carriage of ‘a Chinaman’ is noted. He may also have been regarded as crew – meaning he could get a lift back and perhaps do some work.

Captain Living’s remarks and Mak's apparent prior friendship with the Blaxlands paints a picture of a man involved with international trading in some way and in regular engagement with Europeans.


Mak Sai Pang’s busy international workplace? Canton view by Louis Lebreton c. 1850 via Pinterest

After his return, John Shying wrote to Governor Sir Richard Bourke, indicating he'd been in China for the past five years, to have another shot at getting formal title to his land. He mentions that he'd left his affairs in the care of two trustees but had forgotten to write 'a memorandum' before his departure. He indicates he's brought money back with him (presumably unusual) and refers to being deceived by a Mr O'Brien. The letter was presumably written by a scribe but the signature in English is ‘John Shying’ and may be in a different hand.

His request was knocked back by the Governor on the basis of ‘regulations of October 1826 and 1827’.

As mentioned above we know that he married again in 1842. His new wife was Bridget Gillorley though unfortunately she died within four months.

In October 1844 John Shying evidently made a will. The will itself has not been found but it is mentioned in a later deed of 1854 to give effect to the intentions of the will before his actual death – as John Shying the elder seems to be a signatory of the deed. Again he seems to be looking after the financial welfare of his family.

Soon after that, he disappears.

There is no record of his death in or departure from the Colony.

John Sheen’s gravestone.
Picture and grave-clean by Chris Pigott

However, a fellow named John Sheen appears in 1846 and marries Margaret McGovern in Sydney. Sheen is a few years older than Shying and while he is described as a very old resident of the Colony, there is no other record of him. For his marriage Sheen claims he was born in ‘Chinese India’ - wherever that might be. When Sheen dies in 1880 his undertakers are two of John Shying’s sons.

Members of both the Shying and Sheen families have hoped that evidence will confirm that the two men are the same. It would solve two mysteries; where did Shying go and where did Sheen come from. Documentation has no far not helped and other historians have left it as a family riddle.

This looks like a case for genetic genealogy!

As it turns out, some family historians in 2001 did try a DNA test. The test was conducted by the then-new Department of Forensic Medicine in Sydney. Three samples were collected and two tested, one from the male line in each family. The results clearly indicate that the two men sampled did not have the same male-line ancestors.

This evidence, however, opens up more questions than it answers.

The Shying family have stories of a brother so this provides some hope. Further DNA testing may enable the families to establish a point of origin for their respective male lines and identify other connections. (One of the Sheen women apparently believed she was a Shying.) These tests may suggest places to look for further documentary evidence – perhaps the California goldfields, perhaps a particular village in Guangzhou.

In the meantime, there are more Mak mysteries to solve and further dusty windows into Australia’s multicultural past to clean…


Another view of Mak's busy home.
[Un-named] Artist in China, View of Guangzhou (Canton), about 1800. Watercolour and gouache on paper 24 1/2 x 47 inches (62.23 x 119.38 cm). Peabody Essex Museum purchased with funds donated anonymously, 1975. E79708. Courtesy of Peabody Essex Museum.


Some other sites about Mak Sai Ying


A native of Canton’, Signals Magazine, Issue 123, pages 25-36, Australian National Maritime Museum.

Mak Sai Ying Aka John Shying - Parramatta Heritage Centre 

Pigott-Gorrie Blogspot


What you can do


If you have any Chinese ancestry with a male line surname of Mak (麥) write down what you know of family stories and take pictures of any relevant heirlooms. Tell your family about them. This is worth doing whatever your ancestral surnames are.

Check out Kate Bagnall’s Finding your Chinese roots.

Take part in a genetic DNA program. There’s only one prominent company, Family Tree DNA, which does a test for the male line (Y-DNA) – as well as the more common ‘cousin finder’. They have a project dedicated to Chinese family history.

You may wish to help fund DNA tests. Two tests have so far been conducted and results published in later posts. Let me know if you’d like details.

In Melbourne Australia, you might like to join The Chinese Australian Family History Group of Victoria (CAFHOV). There may be something similar near where you live and CAFHOV have some suggestions. Let me know of others.

There’s still more work to do before we can find where he ended up, but we can track many of his numerous Australian descendants. Two of the several collaborative efforts are FamilySearch and FindAGrave. Any additions, comments or corrections you might have would be great.