A second transcription of film 008145125 images 45-46, supplied as a spreadsheet
transcription · a copy, index or transcription · consulted 2026-08-18
- Type
- transcription
- Repository
- Supplied 18 Aug 2026 as Opgaafrol_GraaffReinet_img45-46_transcription.xlsx. Three sheets: Transcription (23 households), Column structure, Source & caveats.
- Reference
- Film 008145125 images 45 and 46; the sheet gives the ark for image 46 as 3:1:3Q9M-CSK8-LPT7
- Consulted
- 2026-08-18
The citation as it was given
A SECOND READING OF THE PAGE SRC-459 RECORDS, AND IT IS BETTER THAN MINE IN PLACES AND WORSE IN ONE. Kept as its own source rather than folded into SRC-459, because two independent readings of one manuscript are evidence about the manuscript and merging them would destroy that. | WHERE IT AGREES, AND IT MATTERS. The ward structure is the same: a carried total, three households, then the subtotal line VELDCORNETSCHAP BOVEN OLYPHANTSRIVIER, and the Oosthuyzen block opening the NEXT ward. Foot totals 19/14/26/22. And it puts the farm entry and the figure 152 ON THE FIRST OOSTHUYZEN ROW, which is the alignment the photographs could not fix. | *** WHERE IT DISAGREES WITH THE READING HELD HERE - SEVEN NAMES, AND TWO OF THEM CHANGE WHAT A PUBLISHED PAGE SAYS. *** (1) Row 4 patronymic: it reads "Jacb Oosthuyzen WILLSZ", expanded Willemsz; the reading here was Ock-something, leaning to Ocksz. If Willemsz is right the man is not Ockert's son at all. (2) Rows 17 and 18: it reads MARTH PET JACS OLIVIER and JOH PET JACS OLIVIER against Oosthuizen here. THAT TAKES THE PAGE FROM SIX OOSTHUIZEN HOUSEHOLDS TO FOUR, and S043 says six. (3) Row 5: SUS MARTH OOSTHUYZEN, a woman heading her own entry, against Piet Marth Oosthuyzen here, reported as the first placing of Pieter Marthinus. (4) Row 7: PETRUS JACS BESTER x Joa Petron Oosthuyzen against a Venter here. (5) Row 16: Gerrit Adr Oosthuyzen x JOHNA CATH STEENKAMP against Anna Cath Schoeman here. (6) Row 19: PET JOH STEENKAMP against Pet Jaco Schoeman here. (7) The four Strydom rows differ in given names and two are read as women. | NEITHER READING IS AUTHORITATIVE. Both are readings of screenshots of a 1816 hand; the manuscript has not been read at full resolution by anybody here. The spreadsheet flags its own confidence per row and marks several low. | *** AND IT ANSWERS THE 152 QUESTION, AGAINST MY OWN HYPOTHESIS. *** Three other households on the same page carry a farm and a figure: Buffelsdrift 135, Groote fonteyn 141, Diepe Kloof 130, beside Mos[d]asfonteyn 152. FOUR THREE-FIGURE NUMBERS IN THE SAME NARROW RANGE. So 152 is not a distance marking one holding as far away - it behaves like a registration or place number that every farm on the page has. The reading of it as possibly 152 hours to another landdrostdij is withdrawn. | It also reads the farm name as MOS[D]ASFONTEYN with a query, not Modder fontyn. | ONE THING IN IT IS WRONG AND CAN BE SHOWN TO BE WRONG. Its Source sheet gives the film as "Graaff-Reinet Landdrosdistrik" and the date as "within the 1816-1826 Graaff-Reinet run". THE FILM'S OWN TARGET CARD SAYS GEORGE - OPGAAFROLLEN - VOLUME J 97 - YEAR 1816 (SRC-459). The spreadsheet inherited the same description that this project carried for a day and corrected.
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.