Modderdrift No. 106 Ptn 1

The farm's own history, the grant, the original survey, sits on that page.

Farm number: No. 106
Portion: 1
District: Prince Albert
Modern surveyed area: 378.7 ha

Why this farm is here

A piece of a farm already in this model. 29 km from Klaarstroom.

parcel Cut out of Modderdrift No. 106
border Shares a boundary with Farm 222 Farm 222
lead An open question in this record is about this ground What superseded Modderdrift Portion 4?

Before this ground was cut out

This is the history of Modderdrift No. 106, the farm this ground was cut from, on a date the record does not give. It is shown here because this ground was that farm, and separately from what follows because before the cut the record says the farm's name and not which part of it. Not everything below necessarily happened on this piece.

1833-08 document SG diagram 371/1833 D/G Bf.W.Q. 5-45
1833~ ownership Casper van Zyl (1781-1863) (1781–1863) loan farm · survey · confidence medium
1874-07 document SG diagram 1978/1875 (877/1875 struck) P.A.2-21
undated boundary subdivision: becomes Modderdrift No. 106 Ptn 1
undated boundary subdivision: becomes Modderdrift No. 106 Ptn 4
undated boundary subdivision: becomes Trakasdrif (Modderdrift No. 106 Remainder)

What the record holds, in order

undated boundary change subdivision: from Modderdrift No. 106

Also bordered by, as the modern cadastre draws it

Ground that touches this farm on the Surveyor-General's current polygons and that none of the diagrams held here names. Derived from the geometry, not read off a document.

Cadastre

Surveyor-General diagram index for this parcel

Surveyor-General diagram index for the whole farm, where the original survey of this ground sits.

Research notes

[1 Aug 2026] IN THE MODEL FROM THE CADASTRE PULL ONLY, no document of its own. Added because Modderdrift No. 106's parent has no usable whole-farm polygon (see PAR-000099) and these three ARE the farm: together they come to 8,062.7 ha against the 1874 resurvey's 8,050.5 ha. Same treatment as the Rondabel portions. [TO VERIFY] its name and holders, from the Modderdrift deduction tables and the CSG diagram index. [2 Aug 2026, CORRECTED SAME DAY] An earlier note on these rows said about 5,070 ha had LEFT farm 106. That was wrong, and the diagram DOC-0154, the 1874 resurvey by J.W. du T. MelvillM, gives the farm as 9,399 morgen 70 square roods = 8,050.6 ha. RE/106 (2,614.0) + Ptn 1 (378.8) + Ptn 4 (5,069.9) = 8,062.7 ha - a 0.15% fit. THE THREE PIECES ARE THE FARM. Portion 4 carries WSTATUS='H' in the cadastre, so it is not a CURRENT parcel, but its geometry is the correct historical geometry and on a history site that is the geometry worth drawing. It is now pinned deliberately and marked geo_match='pinned-superseded'.

[13 Aug 2026] Renamed to the one form this model uses for every portion - the portion's own name, then the parent farm, its number and the portion in brackets - so that a name is legible in a list, a search result and a map popup without the reader having to know which farm number is which. It read "Modderdrift Portion 1 (No. 106 Ptn 1)" before. Nothing about the ground changed.

The research behind this page, kept separate from it: dated working notes, open questions, and what is not yet settled.

Open questions

What superseded Modderdrift Portion 4? priority 2 · LEAD-0063
Modderdrift No. 106's Portion 4, 5,069.9 ha, carries WSTATUS='H' in the cadastre - superseded. Its geometry is right: RE + Ptn 1 + Ptn 4 reconstruct the 1874 resurvey (9,399 morgen 70 sq roods = 8,050.6 ha) to 0.15%. So the question is not where the ground went - it is what replaced Portion 4 as the current parcel over that ground, and when.

What would settle it The deduction list on the VERSO of DOC-0154 - the diagram says so itself: 'For list of deductions see back of diagram'. Frans holds the front; the back is the sheet that answers this.

What the record is missing

Nobody is on record as ever having held this third order · B8 never-held
Modderdrift No. 106 Ptn 1 is in the model and drawn on the map, and carries no ownership record of any kind, not a grant, not a transfer, not an occupation.

What would settle it The Surveyor-General's diagram for the farm number names the grantee and the date; the deed reference on it opens the transfer chain.

Found by breaks.py reading the model against itself, not written by hand, each one is a shape of missing record, not a fault in the data. The whole set is on the questions page.