Swartskraal (Rhemhoogte No. 125 Ptn 6)

6/125 on the cadastre · on record 1971–1977 · show on the map

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

Farm number: No. 125
Portion: 6
Also recorded as: SwartskraalSRC-436, 2023 valuation rollZwartkraal / Zwartskraalthe spelling of the nearby ground is an open question in this project and is not settled by a rates roll
On the cadastre: 6/125, portionregistered as RHEMHOOGTE
District: Prince Albert
Extent, as the diagram states it: 4728,2437 hektaar
Modern surveyed area: 4779.8 ha

The historic extent and the modern surveyed area are two separate measurements and are not presented here as confirming each other. The first is what a surveyor wrote on a diagram, usually in morgen. The second is what the modern cadastre draws.

Why this farm is here

A piece of a farm already in this model. 18 km from Klaarstroom.

parcel Cut out of Rhemhoogte No. 125
parcel Cut out of Swartskraal (Rhemhoogte No. 125 Ptn 5)
parcel Consolidated into: Rhemhoogte No. 125 Ptn 8
document A document in the collection describes this ground DOC-0179

What the record holds, in order

1971 boundary change subdivision: from Swartskraal (Rhemhoogte No. 125 Ptn 5)
November 1971–December 1971 document SG diagram 11001/1971
7837/72
1977 boundary change consolidation: becomes Rhemhoogte No. 125 Ptn 8

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.

Documents

catalogued, no scan held

Surveyor-General diagram, 11001/1971, November 1971–December 1971
10TSXB01 125 part 6.jpg

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

[3 Aug 2026, SRC-213] Cut from Gedeelte 5 (PAR-000143) in 1971, transferred T/A 7837/72. In 1977 it was consolidated with Gedeelte 7 to make Gedeelte 8 (PAR-000142). THE ARITHMETIC PUTS A SIZE ON GEDEELTE 7, which we have not seen: Ged 8 is 4732,8912 ha and this is 4728,2437, so Gedeelte 7 is about 4,6 ha - a sliver, not a farm. That is consistent with its being surveyed on its own sheet (Kaart 1550/77) purely to be absorbed.

*** [4 Aug 2026, LEAD-0084 RESOLVED] THE MATCHER WAS NEVER AT FAULT. *** The polygon for this parcel carries WSTATUS='H' - SUPERSEDED. match_cadastre.py indexes superseded features by their LPI ONLY and keeps them out of the name and farm-number indexes, so nothing automatic can land on one. That is deliberate and documented in the loader: a superseded polygon is reachable by an explicit PIN and by nothing else, because a pin is somebody saying "I know, use this one". For a history site a superseded shape is often the only correct geometry there is - Modderdrift Portion 4 is the precedent. PINNED HERE, on the same evidence Modderdrift was: the extents agree - 4 728,2 ha teen 4 781,2 ha, 1,1%. The pin survives future runs of the matcher by design.

[13 Aug 2026, SRC-436] NAMED FROM THE 2023 VALUATION ROLL, which gives this portion as "Swartskraal" (4728.2440 ha). This row previously read "Rhemhoogte Portion 6 (No. 125 Ptn 6)", which was a farm-and-portion label rather than a name. The roll is a rates document and good evidence for what the ground is called now; it says nothing about what it was called when the portion was cut.

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

Open questions

Four portions have a polygon in geo/ that match_cadastre.py still will not pick up priority 2 · LEAD-0084
Why does the matcher miss PAR-000023, PAR-000058, PAR-000069 and PAR-000144 when their exact PRCL_KEYs are present?

What would settle it Printing the matcher's computed key beside the cadastre key for one of these four.

What the record is missing

Nobody is on record as ever having held this third order · B8 never-held
Swartskraal (Rhemhoogte No. 125 Ptn 6) 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.