The roll behind the index - opgaafrol page, film 008145384, image 342, entry 430
opgaafrol page · an original record · consulted 2026-08-18
- Type
- opgaafrol page
- Repository
- FamilySearch, "Opgaafrollen, 1692-1844"; Cape Archives J-series census returns. SWELLENDAM, CAPE PROVINCE - volume J 322 - year 1808.
- Reference
- Film # 008145384, image 342 of 519. Two images on from the index at image 340 (SRC-482). DISTRICT AND YEAR UNREAD.
- Consulted
- 2026-08-18
The citation as it was given
*** THIS SETTLES WHAT THE FILM IS: IT IS AN OPGAAFROL, AND THE CLERK SAYS SO. *** | THE COLUMN HEADING, transcribed as written: 'Naamen der In en opge=Zetenen boven de 16 Jaaren EN VAN HUNNE VROUWEN' - names of the inhabitants and residents over 16 years AND OF THEIR WIVES. Then a number column headed N:o Nommer, and across the sheet: Soons | Dogters | Knegts | Mans Slaaven boven 16 Jaaren | Mans Slaaven onder 16 Jaar | Vrouwe Slaven boven 16 Jaaren | Vrouwe Slaven onder 16 Jaar | and two further columns running off the crop. | That is the standard opgaafrol form - household head, wife, children by sex, knechts, and enslaved people counted by sex and by over or under sixteen. The J-series is the Cape Archives census returns (SRC-259, Boeseken and Cairns). So film 008145384 belongs with 008145126, the film behind SRC-260 and SRC-261, and the same reading method applies to both. | *** AND IT ANSWERS THE QUESTION SRC-482 LEFT OPEN. *** That index's fourth column - J. C. Rabe, Joh: van Tonderen, C. Gouws, S. Oosthuizen - was recorded as not understood, with 'a spouse is the obvious guess and it is only a guess'. IT IS THE WIFE, and the evidence is the roll's own heading: 'en van hunne vrouwen'. The roll names each householder AND his wife, so an index over the roll indexes both, which is also why only some rows carry a second name. That is a reading off the document rather than an inference about it. | THE CARRIED-FORWARD LINE, 'P:o Transport': 957 | 399 | 5 | 201 | 89 | 194 | 111 | 493, with 235 written under the name column as the entry count carried. A district roll of real size, and those totals are a check on any later transcription of it. | THE ONE ENTRY VISIBLE, entry [?430], and it does NOT read cleanly against the index. The roll row is '[illegible] f: Gerrit /' in the name column and 'J: oosthuizen' in the wife column, with figures 5 | 1 | .. | 5 | [blank] | 4. But SRC-482's index shows entry 430 as an OOSTHUIZEN named Gerret with the wife Joh: van Tonderen - the surnames are the other way round. Either the entry number is misread here (it could be 436, 450 or 480 at this scale), or the first word is a surname that is not Oosthuizen and the household is indexed under the WIFE. NOTHING IS CONCLUDED FROM THIS ROW. 5a. | WHAT IS STILL UNREAD, AND IT IS NOW THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS: THE DISTRICT AND THE YEAR. Both sit in the section header the film opens each roll with, and both are missing from every row this project has recorded off this film. Without them the transcriptions are readings without a citation - the exact position SRC-260 was left in on 4 August and has still not been got out of. [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.
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.