The FARMS column of the roll - film 008145384, images 356 and 357, entries 724-734
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, images 356 (names and counts) and 357 (right leaf, farms). Page numbers 13 and 14 at the outer edge of image 357.
- Consulted
- 2026-08-18
The citation as it was given
*** THE ROLL NAMES EACH HOUSEHOLD'S FARMS, AND ONE OF THEM IS A MODDERFONTEIN. *** | IMAGE 357, the right-hand leaf, transcribed as read: | 2 [?Zegwaij]bosch fonteijn gel: ALSBOVEN [outer number 13] | 1 MODDERFONTEIJN gel: aan KAFFERKUILS RIVIER | 1 Zoetemelks rivier gel: aan VALSCH RIVIER | 2 Buffel fontein, ende groote heuvel | 2 Welberaaden, en de valsch rivier | 1 Melkhoutekraal gel: over Kafferkuils rivier, de wey de rivier, de zelve drift en de buf[illegible] | 2 [?Zeldrift] aan de GOURITZ RIVIER ... de Zand fonteijn ende melkhoute[...] [outer number 14] | with a middle column carrying '2000' and '3000' against two rows, and a column reading '1 Plaats'. | *** THIS SETTLES WHAT THE PAGE-115 COLUMN AT SRC-483 IS. *** That column - '1 wolfe fonteijn get: aan de Swartberg', 'de buffelskloof aan de Swarteberg' - has the identical form: a quantity, a farm name, and 'gel: aan' plus a river or a mountain. IT IS THE FARMS COLUMN OF AN OPGAAFROL. The abbreviation read there as 'get:' is gel: for GELEGEN, confirmed by this hand. | *** AND IT IS NOW THE MOST IMPORTANT UNANSWERED QUESTION IN THIS SESSION: DOES THAT MODDERFONTEIN ROW BELONG TO AN OOSTHUIZEN? *** Image 356 is the left leaf and carries entries 724 to 734, of which FOUR ARE OOSTHUIZEN - 728, 731, 732 and 733. Image 357 is a right leaf carrying about seven farm rows. IF the two are the facing leaves of one opening, the farm rows read across to those entries and one of them may be an Oosthuizen's. THAT IS NOT ESTABLISHED. The two crops are of different heights and no row line has been traced from one leaf to the other. NOTHING MAY BE CONCLUDED UNTIL SOMEBODY PUTS A RULER ACROSS THE OPENING. | AND THE RIVER IS WRONG FOR THE ONE WE WANT, WHICH MUST BE SAID PLAINLY. The farm this project has been hunting is 'de Modder Fonteyn, GELEGEN AAN D'OLIFANTS RIVIER' (PAR-000065), where Ockert Oosthuijzen died in April 1809. This one is on the KAFFERKUILS, which runs past Riversdale to the sea. Those are different rivers and this is a different farm on the face of it. What it does establish is that MODDERFONTEIN WAS A LIVE FARM NAME IN THIS DISTRICT'S ROLLS, on the same page as four Oosthuizen households. | THE RIVERS ARE NAMED SPECIFICALLY BY THIS CLERK - Kafferkuils, Valsch, Gouritz - which is worth noting against SRC-483, where the farms are placed 'aan de groote rivier'. A clerk who names the Gouritz when he means the Gouritz is not the same clerk, or not the same roll. | IMAGE 356, the left leaf, with the figure columns now legible: | 726 Meijer Gerrit N: G:z - M: Prinslo | 727 [ditto] C: C: / d[?] - J: Fourie | 728 OOSTHUIZEN Joh: MARTH:Z - M: M: [?]Cok (5 sons, 3 dtrs) | 729 [?Hendaal] WED: W:m - [no wife named] (1, 3) | 730 Otto Mich: Andr: - J: [?]Lorenz | 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) | 734 Plessis, Paul du D:z - C: C: van der Schijf (2, 4) | ENTRY 729 READS 'WED:' - WEDUWE, a widow, and her row names no wife. That is the first of the leading abbreviations on this roll to be read with any confidence, and it means the marks before the given names are a mixed bag of status words and dittos rather than one repeated symbol. The 's/' recorded at SRC-482 should be re-read in that light. | 728's patronymic MARTH:Z is legible here in a way none of the earlier crops managed, which is what a full-resolution image buys. [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.