" ao' 1685 den 21 dito (October) Maria een beiarde, een slavin van de company" [5]
Marriage
Date: Circa 1686
Note: Maria Matyssen may be the individual who was baptized on 21 October 1685 Nederduitsch Gereformeerde Kerk, de Caep de Goede Hoop. She would have been married in 1686 or earlier, and in order to do that would have had to have been baptised. This is the only baptism we have found thus far, that fits this profile criteria. NGK G1 1/1, Nederduitsch Gereformeerde Kerk, Kerken Boek (Bapt.): ao' 1685 den 21 dito (October) Maria een beiarde, een slavin van de company, 1665-1695Note: The question was raised : 'Was the couple married by Van_Dyk-1154' Taking her Baptism into account and the fact that no reference on the first child baptised dd 15 September 1686 being "onegt" was made, we can be fairly sure that the answer would be Yes even though we have no marriage record to confirm [6]
Separation
Date: before 16 June 1691.
Note: in the inventory of Johannes estate, it was recorded that he was van sijn huijsvrouw Maria Matthijsse hebben gesepareerd It appears that, before 1685, Maria Matyssen was a slave owned by Burghert Pieterz van Dyk, most likely before her assumed marriage to Johannes Ryckman. It is also not unlikely that following her separation from her husband, she returned to the home of Pietersz because Maria's estate was inventoried by Burghert Pieterz van Dyk on 29 November 1697. [7]Testator(s): Maria Matthysz: Eli 29 November 1697 Inventaris der goederen nagelaten bij Maria Matthysz Eli, eertijds huijsvrouw van Johannes Rigman geweesen baasthuijnier soo als deselve door Burchert Pietersz vrijhoutkapper (wiens meijt sij is geweest:) aan de Weeskamer sijn overgelevert, bestaande in als volgd namentlijk ..."[8]
Death
Date: Maria Matyssen passed away about Nov 1697 [1][2] / before 25 Apr 1696 [9] / 1688. [4]
NGK G1 1/1, Original Register Nederduitsch Gereformeerde Kerk, Private collection obtained from Noordewal NG Kerk Argief, Stellenbosch. Also now available online at Family Search Catelog Record Baptism Added by van Heerden-335 Aug, 2020.
Tanap (http://databases.tanap.net/) Testator(s): Johannes Eigman van Weij 16 Juni 1691 Verkoping der goederen toebehoorende de 2 kinderen van Johannes Eigman van Weij gewesene baasthuijnier sijn:de een soontjen, en een dogtertjen; welke, Eigman door den E: Agb: Raad van Justitie, van sijn huijsvrouw Maria Matthijsse hebben gesepareerd;." Added by van Heerden-335 Aug, 2020.
”The Genealogical Society of South Africa: eGSSA branch, South African Records Transcribed. A selection of historical records transcriptions. (http://databases.tanap.net/mooc/) Inventories of the Orphan Chamber Cape Town Archives Repository, South Africa. Seen and entered by Ronel Olivier Jan 17, 2016.
Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com
DNA Connections
It may be possible to confirm family relationships with Maria Matyssen by comparing test results with other carriers of her mitochondrial DNA.
Mitochondrial DNA test-takers in the direct maternal line:
I came across a parental listing for her on Geneanet suggesting her father is Matthijs Eli Matyssen b.1640 Weyerbusch, Germany and mother is listed as Maaij Claesje van Angola b.1645 Angola. Unlikely as dates do not fit in with her birth date.
Die geboorteplek is nie voorsien van 'n bron nie. Wey was haar man se plek van herkoms (en is in Duitsland, nie terselfdertyd ook in Nederland nie). Dit kan nie aangeneem word dat sy van dieselfde plek afkomstig was nie.
I agree the Birthplace is disputable and no birth place could be found in the slave records. On 21 October 1685 Maria Matyssen was enslaved and owned by the VOC (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie) at the Cape In her estate done by Burchert Pietersz it is stated wiens meijt sij is geweest
The explanation regarding the marriage date and subsequent separation was added to the Bios for more clarity
I see you agree with Delia Robertson from FFY that "meijt" in this case refers to a slave, rather than a servant? My doubt probably stems from ignorance, but I have not come across the word used to refer to a slave in any other records of the time. Perhaps you have and can point it out? Why do you assume that, if she was a slave, she was owned by the V.O.C. and not by a vryburger?
I find it curious, since her children's baptisms were recorded with those of the vryburgers, without any mention being made to her status as a slave. (Any children she had would've had slave status conferred to them as well, I believe.)
Thanks for the additions you made. I notice the place of birth is still listed as "Duitsland [1] Wey, Netherlands".
'Meijt' also refers to 'young maiden' ... even to this day in Dutch it refers to a young girl, not so much a servant or a slave. I will try and integrate this bio some more.
I agree Meijt can also be a young girl, but the baptismal record, we presume is hers, refer to her as a slave
Also that record was at her death and a 40 year old woman would not be called a young girl don't you think?
Thank you for the integration of the profile.
Indeed Ronel, the difference between Old Dutch {meijt} and modern Dutch {meid} (and the modern Dutch versus modern Afrikaans {meit = bediende}). All very confusing - a (this conversation has been had elsewhere as well) a 'beiarde' could also have been a 30 year old [' of age '], not necessarily a very old person. Thanks for all your research into this person (Anri - in this project we collate data - the "Wey" in "the Netherlands" was imported from a user based site 'My Heritage' and even though it is a tertiary 'source' - if one could even call it that - we do not remove data from other contributors even if deigned incorrect; it is by careful weighing and comparison of data that we make careful assumptions and draw conclusions as Ronel has explained.)
You Q : Perhaps you have and can point it out? Why do you assume that, if she was a slave, she was owned by the V.O.C. and not by a vryburger?
Follow the Baptismal Link and see the baptismal record transcription were she was referred to as
een slavin van de company
A far as my knowledge goes a slave could only be set free after baptism and were not allowed to marry as slaves The fact that her children were born free is a strong indication that she was set free before her marriage and this was also our viewpoint at the time of investigation
We (Me, Delia, Richard and Corne) had a lengthy discussion on this and this is the information we can offer.
It is not set in stone but for now the only conclusion we could make. We used sources to make our case but should you find any contradicting information it would be wonderful to add and debate so more clarity could be reached.
Ales for now it is all we have and the information was added to enhance any further research.
My only interest comes from my research into hereditary diseases amongst Afrikaner families, and I used my knowledge of genetics in the Olivier familie to help with this profile. Her daughter was married to a Olivier and although we have no proof for lack of test subjects it is almost 90% sure that her mother did not come from Wey as stated here, but again I can not prove or disprove this, therefor I can not change it.
Wey was added since it was where her Johannes Richmann/Rijckman was from. This I am certain of, but I will contact the person who added it to double check. The burden of proof lies with this person. Otherwise I could add Höngen, Germany or Bangalore, India, and you wouldn't be able to change it without proving me wrong first. There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that she is from Wey.
The link to the baptism is very interesting. Why do you think this specific entry applies to her, and not any of the other slaves named Maria at the time?
Matyssen-1 and Eli-13 appear to represent the same person because: Same data (names, spouse, child) El-13 has to be the target profile to merge into even though it has the higher number ...
edited by Jan North
Die geboorteplek is nie voorsien van 'n bron nie. Wey was haar man se plek van herkoms (en is in Duitsland, nie terselfdertyd ook in Nederland nie). Dit kan nie aangeneem word dat sy van dieselfde plek afkomstig was nie.
Die paartjie is ook nie in 1685 getroud nie: http://www.eggsa.org/sarecords/index.php/church-registers/cape-town-marriages-1665-to-1695/88-cape-town-marriages-1685 Tot 'n rekord van 'n huwelik gevind is, kan mens nie 'n huwelik aanneem nie - baie paartjies in die tyd het nie getrou nie.
The explanation regarding the marriage date and subsequent separation was added to the Bios for more clarity
I see you agree with Delia Robertson from FFY that "meijt" in this case refers to a slave, rather than a servant? My doubt probably stems from ignorance, but I have not come across the word used to refer to a slave in any other records of the time. Perhaps you have and can point it out? Why do you assume that, if she was a slave, she was owned by the V.O.C. and not by a vryburger?
I find it curious, since her children's baptisms were recorded with those of the vryburgers, without any mention being made to her status as a slave. (Any children she had would've had slave status conferred to them as well, I believe.)
Thanks for the additions you made. I notice the place of birth is still listed as "Duitsland [1] Wey, Netherlands".
edited by Anrie van Dyk
Also that record was at her death and a 40 year old woman would not be called a young girl don't you think? Thank you for the integration of the profile.
You Q : Perhaps you have and can point it out? Why do you assume that, if she was a slave, she was owned by the V.O.C. and not by a vryburger?
Follow the Baptismal Link and see the baptismal record transcription were she was referred to as
een slavin van de company
A far as my knowledge goes a slave could only be set free after baptism and were not allowed to marry as slaves The fact that her children were born free is a strong indication that she was set free before her marriage and this was also our viewpoint at the time of investigation
We (Me, Delia, Richard and Corne) had a lengthy discussion on this and this is the information we can offer. It is not set in stone but for now the only conclusion we could make. We used sources to make our case but should you find any contradicting information it would be wonderful to add and debate so more clarity could be reached.
Ales for now it is all we have and the information was added to enhance any further research.
My only interest comes from my research into hereditary diseases amongst Afrikaner families, and I used my knowledge of genetics in the Olivier familie to help with this profile. Her daughter was married to a Olivier and although we have no proof for lack of test subjects it is almost 90% sure that her mother did not come from Wey as stated here, but again I can not prove or disprove this, therefor I can not change it.
Wey was added since it was where her Johannes Richmann/Rijckman was from. This I am certain of, but I will contact the person who added it to double check. The burden of proof lies with this person. Otherwise I could add Höngen, Germany or Bangalore, India, and you wouldn't be able to change it without proving me wrong first. There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that she is from Wey.
The link to the baptism is very interesting. Why do you think this specific entry applies to her, and not any of the other slaves named Maria at the time?