Blaauwpunt No. 13 (Oudtshoorn)

Farm number: No. 13
Also recorded as: Blaauwpunt; Blauwpunt
On the cadastre: 13, whole farmregistered as BLAUWPUNT
Modern surveyed area: 2160.6 ha

Why this farm is here

In the model from the cadastre pull only, nothing in the record yet says who held this ground or why it belongs here. 10 km from Klaarstroom.

What the record holds, in order

No dated record on this parcel yet. It is on the map because the Surveyor-General has a polygon for it; the history is not transcribed.

On the 1915 divisional map

As the Surveyor-General printed this farm in 1915: the registered holder, the date the title was issued and its quitrent reference, copied off the sheet as written. The whole map, farm by farm

Farm, as printed	Holder	Title	Quitrent	Note
BLAAUW PUNT				name only; trig station MEIRINGS POORT (Bailey) above it

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

Research notes

Named on SG diagram 2920 of January 1911 as bounding UITKYK No. 12 (PAR-000285) to the south-east, in the FIELD CORNETCY OF CANGO EAST, Division of Oudtshoorn. That is the Cango valley above Oudtshoorn, the country SG 2440 OB of 1877-79 covers (SRC-493).

NO POLYGON, AND THAT IS A DECISION RATHER THAN A GAP. The name is read off SG diagram 2920 (SRC-496), which is a document; the LOCATION is not established. The Oudtshoorn cadastre extract holds no farm names at all - its P_FARMNAME column carries a numeric code, 6457 for Uitkyk itself - so the polygon cannot be found by name.

Adjacency was tried and does not settle it. Four modern farms share a boundary with Uitkyk No. 12: no. 11 to the W, no. 24 to the SW, no. 261 to the S and no. 13 to the E. The 1911 diagram names its neighbours NE, SE, SW and W-and-SW, so THE DIAGRAM'S NORTH-EAST NEIGHBOUR HAS NO MODERN COUNTERPART and its south-east is my south or east. A hundred and fourteen years of subdivision and renaming sits between the two, and a bearing to a centroid is crude on an irregular shape.

5: an unresolved place gets no pin, because a wrong pin is worse than a missing one. Same treatment as Drooge Kloof. [TO VERIFY]

*** NUMBERED 20 AUG 2026: BLAAUWPUNT IS OUDTSHOORN NO. 13, and the plan says so in writing. *** SG 2440 OB sheet 2 (SRC-493, DOC-0318), the 1879 Plan of the Division of Oudtshoorn, read 20 Aug 2026 after being filed unread on 19 Aug. It letters the farms of the F.C. LOWER OLIPHANTS RIVER with their numbers, and reads '12 UITKYK LOT 40' and '13 BLAUWPUNT LOT 41' side by side.

CONFIRMED A SECOND WAY, INDEPENDENTLY: SG diagram 2920 of 1911 (SRC-496) says Uitkyk No. 12 is bounded 'S.E. by BLAAUWPUNT', and the cadastre puts farm 13 7.5 km EAST of farm 12. The plan gives the number, the diagram gives the direction, and they agree.

The same sheet also gives WILDEHONDSKLOOF as No. 55 Lot 42 and DE RUST as No. 57, which is what SRC-500's title block says independently - so the numbers on this plan are Oudtshoorn farm numbers and can be trusted as such.

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

Open questions

Which cadastral polygons are Annex Uitkyk, Blaauwpunt, Voorzorg and Spitzkop? priority 2 · LEAD-0241
SG diagram 2920 of 1911 names four farms bounding Uitkyk No. 12 in the Field Cornetcy of Cango East. All four are in the model as NO-POLYGON. Which modern farms are they?

What would settle it Any one of the four neighbours' own diagrams, or the 1879 regional sheet read at the Cango East.

What the record is missing

Nobody is on record as ever having held this third order · B8 never-held
Blaauwpunt No. 13 (Oudtshoorn) 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.