Opgaafrol 1800, index page listing ten Oosthuyzen householders - DISTRICT still unconfirmed
census / tax roll · consulted 2026-08-04
- Type
- census / tax roll
- Repository
- FamilySearch, "Opgaafrollen, 1692-1844"; Cape Archives J-series census returns
- Reference
- ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK8-NCDT-Q; Film # 008145126, Film/Digital Note "B. J110-J118 1792-1800"; URL i=570, which the viewer displays as image 571 of 580. Year 1800 from the section header; DISTRICT UNCONFIRMED.
- Consulted
- 2026-08-04
The citation as it was given
*** PROVENANCE PARTLY ESTABLISHED - COLLECTION, FILM AND YEAR YES, DISTRICT NO. *** COLLECTION AND FILM NOW ESTABLISHED, read off the FamilySearch viewer in Frans's own signed-in browser: catalog record "OPGAAFROLLEN, 1692-1844"; FILM # 008145126; Film/Digital Note "B. J110-J118 1792-1800"; 580 images on the film. FamilySearch reports NO citation for the image. THE J-SERIES IS THE CAPE ARCHIVES CENSUS RETURNS, and that is corroborated inside this project rather than assumed: the abbreviation table in Boeseken and Cairns (SRC-259) lists "J Census Returns". So the film holds the opgaafrolle J110 to J118, covering 1792 to 1800. THE YEAR IS 1800, on Frans's reading of the section header - the film is scanned in sections and this one opens by stating the year. That also sits right with the position: image 549 of 580 is near the end of a film whose range ends at 1800. THE DISTRICT IS STILL NOT ESTABLISHED. Nothing in the viewer panel names it, and it should be read off the same section header that gives the year. | ORIGINAL NOTE, kept because it records how the error happened: This page was recorded on 4 Aug 2026 as the Graaff-Reinet opgaafrol of 1800, on the strength of how it was supplied. Frans withdrew that within the hour - "i think i made mistake - not sure that index was for 1800 graaf reinet" - and it could not be checked from this machine: the FamilySearch ark resolves to a sign-in page, so no breadcrumb, waypoint, film number or title is readable here. SO THE DISTRICT AND THE YEAR ARE BOTH UNKNOWN, and nothing in this project may cite them. What IS reliable is the transcription below, which was read off the image itself. WHAT THE PAGE SAYS, transcribed as written with uncertain readings marked: Gerhardus Oosthuyzen DE JONGE 43 | Ockert Johannes Oosthuyzen MARTHINUSZ 33 | Jan Hendrik Oosthuyzen D'OUDE 39 | Johannes Oosthuyzen [?FREDR]sz 7 | Marthinus Rud[?olf] Jacob Oosthuyzen MARTHINUSZ 34 | Gerhardus Oosthuyzen D'OUDE 43 | Marthinus Oosthuyzen [?GERTSZ] 42 | Jacobus Nicolaas Oosthuyzen [?JOBS ZOON] 39 | Gerhardus Oosthuyzen JANSZ 43 | Jo[?b] Hendrik Oosthuyzen [illegible] 43. THE OBSERVATION THAT SURVIVES THE DOUBT, because it does not depend on district or year: ten Oosthuyzen householders appear on one page, and the clerk needed a different qualifier for nearly every one. Three men called Gerhardus are told apart only by DE JONGE, D'OUDE and JANSZ. That is a period clerk refusing to identify a man by his name alone, which is the rule 9 imposes on this project, and it holds whatever roll this turns out to be. TO FIX IT: open the ark while signed in to FamilySearch and read the breadcrumb - the collection, the district and the year sit above the image viewer - and record the film or DGS number with them. Until that is done this row is a transcription without a provenance. [TO VERIFY]
Kept verbatim. This project contradicts published genealogies and corrects a family's own oral tradition, so every claim has to be checkable by someone who was not in the room.
Nothing in the model cites this source yet.