A second transcription of film 008145125 images 45-46, supplied as a spreadsheet
transcription · 'n afskrif, indeks of transkripsie · geraadpleeg 2026-08-18
- Soort
- transcription
- Bewaarplek
- Supplied 18 Aug 2026 as Opgaafrol_GraaffReinet_img45-46_transcription.xlsx. Three sheets: Transcription (23 households), Column structure, Source & caveats.
- Verwysing
- Film 008145125 images 45 and 46; the sheet gives the ark for image 46 as 3:1:3Q9M-CSK8-LPT7
- Geraadpleeg
- 2026-08-18
Die sitasie soos dit gegee is
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.
Woordeliks gehou. Hierdie projek weerspreek gepubliseerde genealogieë en stel 'n familie se eie mondelinge oorlewering reg, so elke bewering moet nagegaan kan word deur iemand wat nie in die vertrek was nie.