← The land

Person PER-001769

Maria Elisabeth Louw

? – 2 August 1823

Names

Given
Maria Elisabeth
Surname
Louw

The formal baptismal name and the name a person was actually called are both kept, and neither is derived from the other. Spelling drift between records is evidence, not noise.

A life in the record

  1. 17 February 1820 land Held it, Lokenburg No. 815
  2. 2 August 1823 died Died

Ground they are on record on

Stories

What we don't know

A sourced gap beats an unsourced fill. These are the open questions on this person, stated rather than papered over.

Research notes

[10 Aug 2026, SRC-365/SRC-366] HELD LOKENBURG IN ERFPACHT IN 1820, and an interest in the neighbouring leeningsplaats DE MENSIESKRAAL jointly with Pieter van Zijl. The diagrams name her only as the widow of Jacobus Adriaan Louw - 'de Wede. Jacobus Adn. Louw' on the typed copy, 'Mevrouw Jacs. A. Louw' on the manuscript - and give her no name of her own. Recorded as the record has it, 5a. Added under the 6 amendment for people related to the land. SHE IS THE SECOND WIDOW TO HOLD A VAN DER MERWE FARM: the widow of William Petrus Burger held Tygerhoek in 1823 (PER-001768). Two farms, two widows, and both surnames run in this line - Schalk Willem van der MerweL married ANNA JACOBA LOUW and died on Lokenburg in 1866, and his grandson was christened Schalk Willem BURGER van der Merwe. Neither connection is established. [TO VERIFY] LEAD-0149.

[10 Aug 2026, SRC-368] SHE HAS HER OWN NAME NOW: MARIA ELISABETH LOUW. Her estate inventory, MOOC8/75.66, names her in full and records that she died at LOKENBURG on 2 August 1823, three years after the farm was measured for her. The row was created this morning as 'Wed. Jacobus Adriaan Louw' because that is all the diagram gave; the inventory supplies what the diagram withheld.

These are working notes, not finished prose: they carry the reasoning, the corrections and the things still marked to verify. They are kept here so the page itself can read as what is known.

What the record is missing

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.