An index carrying PATRONYMICS AND WIVES - opgaafrol, film 008145384, entries 182-188 and 427-439

archival index · a copy, index or transcription · consulted 2026-08-18

Type

archival index

Repository

FamilySearch, "Opgaafrollen, 1692-1844"; Cape Archives J-series census returns. SWELLENDAM, CAPE PROVINCE - volume J 322 - year 1808.

Reference

Film # 008145384, images 340 and 342 of 519, plus further crops. Entries 182-188, 427-433, 439, 580, 653, 728-734. TARGET CARDS AT IMAGES 317 AND 318 - the section break, unread. SWELLENDAM, J 322, 1808.

Consulted

2026-08-18

The citation as it was given

*** WHAT THIS PAGE IS FOR: IT TELLS THE OOSTHUIZENS APART. *** | TRANSCRIPTION, read off the image, uncertain readings marked. Column 1 the entry number, column 2 the surname (written once at 427 and dittoed by a long dash down the rest), column 3 the given names and a patronymic, column 4 a second name where one is given: | 427 Oosthuizen [?f:] Joh:s H[?endrik] Chr:s - J. C. Rabe | 428 [ditto] [?s/] Joh: Jac:s / S[illegible] | 429 [ditto] [?s/] Marth:s / Marth[?z] | 430 [ditto] [?s/] Gerret - Joh: van Tonderen | 431 [ditto] [?s/] Joh: Jac:s / Jac[?z] - C. Gouws | 432 [ditto] [?s/] Ockert / Marth[?z] | 433 [ditto] [?s/] Gert Joh:s - S. Oosthuizen | WHAT IS LEGIBLE AND WHAT IS NOT. The entry numbers, the surname, the given names and the second-column names are clear. THE LEADING ABBREVIATION IS NOT: it is two strokes and a slash and it could be s, w, f or j, and it may be a relationship marker, a repeat mark or something else. The patronymic suffixes read Marth and Jac with a terminal flourish that is almost certainly -z for -zoon, but the flourish itself is not resolvable at this scale. Nothing here may be cited on those two readings. 5a. | THE FOURTH COLUMN IS THE WIFE - ANSWERED 18 Aug 2026 by SRC-484, the roll page two images on. It was recorded here as not understood, with a spouse noted as the obvious guess and only a guess. The roll's own heading settles it: 'Naamen der In en opgeZetenen boven de 16 Jaaren EN VAN HUNNE VROUWEN'. The roll names each householder and his wife, so an index over it indexes both, which is also why only four of the seven rows carry a name there. | AND THE SERIES IS ANSWERED WITH IT: this is an OPGAAFROL. Film 008145384 is a different film from the 008145126 behind SRC-260 and SRC-261, but the same series and the same form. THE DISTRICT AND THE YEAR ARE STILL UNREAD and sit in the section header; 5a-ii: the reading and the citation are two claims. [provenance settled 19 Aug 2026 - SRC-486] | *** THE ROLL'S GRAMMAR, now readable off four crops together, and this is the useful part. *** Column 1 the entry number. Column 2 the surname, WRITTEN OUT when it changes and dittoed below by the short mark read here as 's/'. Column 3 the given names followed by A QUALIFIER - either a patronymic (Jacz, Marthz, Hz, Jz, Cornz) or a seniority word (d'Oude, de Jonge). Column 4 THE WIFE. Then the counted columns. | SO EVERY HOUSEHOLD CARRIES TWO INDEPENDENT DISCRIMINATORS - the man's patronymic and his wife's surname - and together they identify him without a single date. That is the tool this project has been missing, and it is worth more than any one entry on the page. | FURTHER ENTRIES, transcribed as read, uncertain readings marked: | 439 Oosthuizen [?P: Corn: / ?P: Cornz] [?Jun:] - M: SWANEPOEL. Two readings and they are not equivalent: 'P: Corn:' is the given names PIETER CORNELIS, which fits Pieter Cornelis Oosthuizen (PER-000242, b.1767, d.1836), a son of Jacobus and therefore a BROTHER of our Ockert; 'P: Cornz' is Pieter CORNELISZOON, a son of a Cornelis and a different man. The whole value of the row turns on that one flourish and it cannot be resolved at this scale. | 182 to 188, a block under two surnames neither of which could be read (both are written out at 184 and 186 and dittoed below): | 184 [illegible surname] Steph:s Joh:s / J:z - A. C. BESTER | 185 [ditto] Christ: / H:z - J. VAN TONDEREN | 186 [illegible surname] Jan / D'OUDE - C. OOSTHUIZEN | 187 [ditto] [illegible] C: Corn: - H. PLESSIS | 188 [ditto] Dirk Joh:s - C. VAN DER MERWE | Bester, van Tonderen, Oosthuizen, du Plessis, van der Merwe as five consecutive wives is this project's own surname list, and 'd'Oude' at 186 is the same seniority qualifier SRC-260 recorded twice. NOTHING IS IDENTIFIED FROM THESE ROWS - the surnames of the men are illegible and the wives are initials. They are recorded to show what the roll holds. | THE RECOMMENDATION THAT FOLLOWS: transcribe the OOSTHUIZEN SECTION WHOLE rather than row by row. Patronymic plus wife, across every Oosthuizen household on the roll, would separate this project's line from its namesakes in one pass - and 9 has been warning since July that nine people here answer to the bare string 'Ockert Almero Oosthuizen'. Read the section header in the same sitting: without the district and the year none of it can be cited. | *** ENTRY 580 TIES THE TWO FILMS TOGETHER AND GIVES A GERHARDUS HIS WIFE. *** 580 Oosthuijzen [?Gerh:] D'OUDE - J: SNIJMAN. | SRC-260, on film 008145126, transcribed ten Oosthuyzen householders of whom THREE were called Gerhardus, told apart by the clerk only as DE JONGE, D'OUDE and JANSZ - and one of them is 'Gerhardus Oosthuyzen D'OUDE, 43'. Here he is again on a different film, and this roll adds what that one could not: HIS WIFE WAS A SNIJMAN. | That is the two-discriminator structure doing exactly what it was predicted to do. A seniority word alone cannot separate a man from his own namesakes across two rolls; a seniority word plus a wife's surname can. | The given-name abbreviation is read as Gerh: and is not certain at this scale; d'Oude and Snijman are clear. No Snijman is in this model as at 18 Aug 2026. | *** FURTHER ENTRIES, and the high-resolution crop of 728-734 is the first one where the hand is genuinely legible. *** | 653 Oosthuizen WESSEL - S: J: V: RENSBURG | 728 Oosthuizen Joh: Marth:[?] - M: M: [?]COK (5 sons, 3 daughters) | 731 Oosthuizen [?HENDR:] - A: J: V: RENSBURG (2, 3) | 732 [ditto] NIC: JAC: - A: J: [?]SCHAPERS (5, 3) | 733 [ditto] W[?m]: D:[?] - A: R: SAAYMAN (2, 3) | and the neighbours on the same page: 729 [?Hendaal], 730 OTTO Mich: Andr: with wife J: [?]Lorenz, 734 PLESSIS, PAUL DU with wife C: C: VAN DER SCHIJF. | ENTRY 732, 'Nic: Jac:', is NICOLAAS JACOBUS - the given names of PER-001854 (b.1754), one of the Swellendam Oosthuizens added to this project on 17 Aug 2026 and a son of Gerhardus Oosthuijzen (PER-000298, b.1703). NOT CONFIRMED: no patronymic is legible on that row and the given names alone are exactly what 9 forbids matching on. | TWO VAN RENSBURG WIVES, at 653 and 731, and they are different women on the initials - S: J: and A: J:. | *** THE ROLL IS NOT ALPHABETICAL, AND THAT CHANGES WHAT THE CLUSTERS MEAN. *** Entries 728 to 734 run Oosthuizen, [?Hendaal], Otto, Oosthuizen, Oosthuizen, Oosthuizen, du Plessis - surnames interleaved, in entry order. So the roll is ordered by ROUND rather than by name, which is how an opgaafrol was collected: the field cornet rode his ward and wrote households down as he reached them. | WHICH MEANS EVERY CONTIGUOUS OOSTHUIZEN RUN IS A NEIGHBOURHOOD, not an alphabetical accident - 427 to 433 is one such run, 731 to 733 another, and the families beside them (Otto, du Plessis, Snijman, Saayman, van Rensburg, Schapers) were their neighbours on the ground. FOR A PROJECT ABOUT WHO HELD WHICH GROUND, THE ORDER OF THE ROLL IS EVIDENCE IN ITS OWN RIGHT. | AND IT UNSETTLES THE 'INDEX' READING OF IMAGE 340. This row has called image 340 an index throughout. If the roll is geographic then a contiguous block of seven Oosthuizens at 427-433 is a cluster on a ROLL PAGE, not an index entry group - which would also explain why entry 430 could not be reconciled between images 340 and 342. Neither reading is settled. [provenance settled 19 Aug 2026 - SRC-486] | *** THE DISTRICT IS SWELLENDAM. *** Read 18 Aug 2026 off the target card at image 318 of film 008145384, reported as 'Swellendam 1908'. | THE DISTRICT IS ACCEPTED AND THE YEAR IS NOT, and the reason is the collection itself: this film sits in OPGAAFROLLEN, 1692-1844. A year of 1908 is SIXTY-FOUR YEARS OUTSIDE the collection's range, and the sheet's own form settles it too - a roll counting enslaved people by sex and by over or under sixteen cannot be of 1908, seventy-four years after emancipation at the Cape. So the year is either 1808 with the second digit misread, or it is a volume, film or accession number standing beside the district on the card rather than a date. IT MUST BE RE-READ. | IF IT IS 1808, and that is the only reading in range that a '19' could be, then this roll matters more than anything else on the film: OCKERT JACOBUS OOSTHUIZEN DIED AT DE MODDER FONTEYN IN APRIL 1809 (PER-000118), so a Swellendam roll of 1808 is the year before his death and HIS HOUSEHOLD SHOULD BE ON IT. | SWELLENDAM IS EXACTLY WHERE THIS PROJECT ARGUED THE ESTATE STOOD, on evidence gathered before this card was seen: MOOC8/28.63 closes 'Ten mynen overstaan: A:A: Faure', and Anthony Alexander Faure was landdrost of SWELLENDAM from 1798 to 1810, a territorial office. The 1802 estate closes 'Mij present: A: Stockenstrom, Secret:s', and Stockenstrom was appointed secretary to Landdrost Faure of Swellendam in March 1796. George was not cut out of Swellendam until 23 April 1811, which is why the same households appear in the George roll of 1816 without having moved. THE SIGNATURE AND THE TARGET CARD ARE INDEPENDENT AND THEY AGREE. | *** THE YEAR IS 1808, CONFIRMED FROM THE TARGET CARD ITSELF (SRC-486). *** The card at image 318 reads, in block capitals: LOCALITY OF RECORD - SWELLENDAM, CAPE PROVINCE. TITLE OF RECORD - OPGAAFROLLEN, CENSUS - TAX. VOLUME/S - J 322. YEAR/S INCLUDED - 1808. | The '1908' reported an hour earlier was a misread digit, and the collection range had already ruled it out. THIS ROW IS NOW FULLY CITABLE and the standing [provenance settled 19 Aug 2026 - SRC-486] on its provenance is discharged. | *** [20 Aug 2026] ENTRY 432 READ AT A USABLE SIZE AT LAST. *** | [long dash] | [?r/:] ockert: Marth:z'. THE GIVEN NAME IS OCKERT AND THE PATRONYMIC IS MARTH:z - Marthinuszoon - which is now firm rather than probable. THE LEADING ABBREVIATION STILL DOES NOT RESOLVE even at this size; it remains two strokes and a slash and is not cited. | *** WHICH MEANS ENTRY 432 IS NOT THIS PROJECT'S OCKERT. *** PER-000118's father is Jacobus Oosthuizen b.1722 (PER-000230), so he is Ockert JACOBUSzoon, and his sons are entered 'Ockt:z' in the 1805 roll at entries 788 and 789 (SRC-497). The Ockert of entry 432 is another man's son. | SO THE SEVEN OOSTHUIZEN HOUSEHOLDS AT 427-433 ARE A DIFFERENT BRANCH, AND OURS IS ELSEWHERE IN THE 1808 ROLL. That matters for LEAD-0220: the farms column on this opening (SRC-521) is Ladismith and Touwsberg ground and it is NOT, on this evidence, our household's. | [23 Sep 2026, SRC-690] THE BLOCK READ HERE AS 182-188 IS 482-488, on image 344, which begins about entry 478: the leading digit was misread on the crop. Seen on screen: 484 [?] Steph: Joh: J:z - A: C: Bester; 485 (ditto) Christ: H:z - J: van Tonderen; 486 [?Craffort] Jan d'oude - C: Oosthuizen, which is Jan Crafford and Catharina Oosthuizen of the 1770 roll (SRC-490, PER-000236); 487 (ditto) [?] - H: Plessis; 488 (ditto) Dirk Joh:s - C: van der Merwe. The surname at 484-488 is written once at 484 and dittoed; it read as Craffort at 486 only. [TO VERIFY] at full size.

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.