Matjesfontein No. 601

Farm number: No. 601
Extent, as the diagram states it: Grazing Ground 8778 Morgen 189 Square Roods; Government Ground 5784 Morgen 193 Square Roods

This parcel has no matched survey polygon, so it cannot be drawn on the map. That is a gap in the cadastre match, not an absence from the record.

Why this farm is here

Here because an open question in this record is about it; who held it is not yet established. Not yet placed on the map.

document A document in the collection describes this ground DOC-0288
lead An open question in this record is about this ground The Hantam ground has no basemap under it

What the record holds, in order

1823 document SG diagram 124/1823
Clw. Q. 1-37

Bordered by, as the diagram names them

NW waste government ground
NE Wid. Johs Louw J.G. Son (government ground requested for)
E E. A. Nel A son (government ground requested for)
SE Sybrand Straus J.M. Son (government ground requested for)
S Johannes Matts Straus K. Senior (ground requested for)
W David Josephus Straus J.M. Son (government ground requested for)

Documents

SG diagram, 124/1823, 1823
10054381 601.jpg

Research notes

[11 Aug 2026, SRC-387] ENTERED AS A CANDIDATE, NOT AS FAMILY GROUND. This is the nearest of the seven Calvinia farms called Matjesfontein to the ground this family actually held - 14.9 km from Oude Muur - and LEAD-0151 asks whether one of them is the farm PER-000762 was born on in 1863. NOTHING ON THE DIAGRAM CONNECTS IT TO THIS FAMILY. The boundary annotations name three Strausses, a Nel and a Louw widow, and no van der Merwe. That is evidence but not a disproof: the sheet describes the 1820s and 1830s and the birth is forty years later. THE DIAGRAM ALSO WARNS AGAINST ITSELF. A road leaving the south-west corner is labelled "Road to the place Matjes fontein of J. M. Straus", so a SECOND Matjesfontein lay within a few kilometres of this one and was not this one. Two more of the fountain notes point at a third, "Naresie Matjesfontein". The name was local currency here. Centroid from the CSG cadastre, not from the diagram.

[16 Aug 2026, MED-000104] STILL A CANDIDATE, AND NOW WITH A REASON BEYOND DISTANCE. The Calvinia museum panel places a Matjes Fonteijn just north of Lokenburg, in the south-west of the district where this family held Oude Muur, Tygerhoek and Lokenburg. This farm is the nearest of the seven Calvinia Matjesfonteins to Oude Muur at 14.9 km. Whether it is the one on the panel is NOT established - the panel carries no numbers and there were at least three Matjesfonteins within a few kilometres of each other here, which the diagram itself says. LEAD-0151.

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

Open questions

The Hantam ground has no basemap under it priority 3 · LEAD-0167
The Calvinia farms are on the map as polygons but sit over blank canvas, and the four Northern Cape cemeteries have no pins at all. What is missing, and is it worth fetching?

What would settle it A re-cut basemap covering the Hantam, and a sourced coordinate for each town cemetery.

What the record is missing

“E. A. Nel A son (government ground requested for)” held ground next door and we have no tenure for them first order · B4 unheld-owner
A boundary description for Matjesfontein No. 601 names E. A. Nel A son (government ground requested for), a surveyor stating on the record that this person held the adjoining ground. No one of that surname holds a single ownership span anywhere in this model.

What would settle it The diagram's own date fixes the window. The quitrent or erfpacht register for that year names the holder of the adjoining place, and an estate inventory will name the farm outright.
“Wid. Johs Louw J.G. Son (government ground requested for)” held ground next door and we have no tenure for them third order · B4 unheld-owner
A boundary description for Matjesfontein No. 601 names Wid. Johs Louw J.G. Son (government ground requested for), a surveyor stating on the record that this person held the adjoining ground. We do hold Louw tenure elsewhere, but none on this boundary and none at this date.

What would settle it The diagram's own date fixes the window. The quitrent or erfpacht register for that year names the holder of the adjoining place, and an estate inventory will name the farm outright.
Nobody is on record as ever having held this third order · B8 never-held
Matjesfontein No. 601 is in the model, 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.