Drooge Kloof

· on record 1833–1922 · show on the map

District: Prince Albert

This parcel has no matched survey polygon, so it cannot be drawn on the map. That is a gap in the cadastre match, not an absence from the record.

Why this farm is here

Almero Jacobus Hitge Oosthuizen lived on this ground. Not yet placed on the map.

Almero Jacobus Hitge Oosthuizen is on record on this ground directly. No trace needed.

story A written history is set on this ground Almero Hitge and the teachers over the Swartberg
story A written history names this ground Middelwater No. 169: a farm history
story A written history names this ground The Oosthuizens of the Koup
parcel Consolidated out of Middelwater

Stories

set here Almero Hitge and the teachers over the Swartberg
A fourteen-year-old drives three schoolteachers over Bain's new Swartberg Pass in a mule cart and comes home by moonlight.
mentions this farm Middelwater No. 169: a farm history
From a loan farm on the Zwartberg to eight cadastral parcels: the full documented history of Middelwater No. 169 - Stretch's 1833 survey for Okert Oosthuizen, the twelve-farm grant day of 1841, the 1883 resurvey and the 1884 quitrent to J.D.J. Oosthuysen 'and another', the portions cut off for a spring called Vaste Water and a place called Avondrust, and the 1990 power-line survey whose coordinates finally put the farm on a map.
mentions this farm The Oosthuizens of the Koup
Eight generations east, from a VOC soldier off the Land van Schouwen in 1685 to a farmer baptised at Prince Albert in 1909. An 1809 estate inventory shows a forge on the Olifants River and explains in one line why the family left: the farm was sold to the eldest son for 1 000 rixdollars, and the rest had to find ground elsewhere. After 1836 they stop moving, and title and a congregation arrive in the same two years.

What the record holds, in order

1833 boundary change consolidation: from Middelwater
1878 lived here Almero Jacobus Hitge Oosthuizen (18 January 1878–29 October 1961)
farming
2 January 1922 lived here Almero Jacobus Hitge Oosthuizen (18 January 1878–29 October 1961)
farming (residence per death-record informant field)

Research notes

Almero Hitge & Hendrik [29 Jul 2026, SRC-084] Corroborated: A.J. (Almero Jacobus Hitge) Oosthuizen (PER-000016) gives "Droogekloof, Prince Albert" as his residence on his father's 1922 death record - the legacy "Almero Hitge & Hendrik" note now has a primary-source anchor. Note this is the ground annexed to Middelwater in the 1833 survey (DOC-0038). [2 Aug 2026, CORRECTED TWICE - read this whole note before moving it again] (1) THE ERROR: this row carried farm_no 164 and was pinned to W052C061000000000164000000, which the cadastre names BLOEMENDAL ANNEX (1,138.2 ha). It was drawn on somebody else's farm. (2) MY FIRST CORRECTION WAS ALSO WRONG. I cleared the farm number on the reasoning that the Prince Albert division holds no farm called Drooge Kloof, so it could not be a farm. [FAMILY] Some portions carry names that are not officially recorded... drooge kloof, vischat - those are examples. *** A NAME'S ABSENCE FROM THE CADASTRE IS NOT EVIDENCE THE PLACE IS NOT REAL. *** This is a WERF NAME in local use - the house Frans's father grew up in - and the cadastre records title, not what people call the ground they live on. Vischat on Rondabel is the same class (LEAD-0018). (3) WHAT IS ACTUALLY KNOWN. The name appears twice in the paper, on two different pieces of ground: as the Government ground DROOGE KLOOF annexed into Middelwater No. 169 by Stretch's 1833 diagram (DOC-0038), and as a struck-through 'Droege Kloof' against Portion 3 of Bloemendal Annex No. 164 on that farm's deduction verso (DOC-0161), 316 morgen 257 sq rds, dgm A609/26, transferred 1926. And A.J.H. OosthuizenM gave 'Droogekloof, Prince Albert' as his residence in 1922 [SRC-084]. (4) SO IT IS NOT DRAWN. No polygon, because we do not yet know WHICH of those two grounds the family's Drooge Kloof is, and a wrong pin is worse than none. It is located by asking the family, not by searching the cadastre. See LEAD-0064. [2 Aug 2026, ANSWERED — and the answer was already in the model]. PLC-000035, 'Droge Kloof (werf)', is a homestead coordinate he supplied on 31 JULY — 33°15'16.06"S 22°32'56.38"E — and a point-in-polygon test puts it inside PAR-000001 MIDDELWATER and, within that, inside PAR-000079, MIDDELWATER PORTION 3. So of the two candidate Drooge Kloofs this row was caught between, IT IS THE MIDDELWATER ONE: the Government ground Stretch annexed in 1833 (DOC-0038), not Portion 3 of Bloemendal Annex No. 164. Still NO-POLYGON as a parcel, because a werf is a point and this row is the 1833 annexed ground rather than the house; the coordinate lives on PLC-000035 where it belongs. AND IT SHARPENS LEAD-0023: the werf stands on Middelwater Portion 3, the 4,251 ha piece no document in this collection mentions at all. A homestead called Droge Kloof on the silent portion is not proof the portion was called that, and it is the obvious name to ask the deeds office for.

The research behind this page, kept separate from it: dated working notes, open questions, and what is not yet settled.

Open questions

Where is Drooge Kloof, the house Frans's father grew up in? priority 1 · LEAD-0064
Drooge Kloof is a werf name in family use - Frans's father grew up in the house - and it is NOT a farm name in the Prince Albert cadastre. It appears twice in the paper, on two DIFFERENT pieces of ground: as the Government ground annexed into Middelwater No. 169 by the 1833 diagram, and as a struck-through 'Droege Kloof' against Portion 3 of Bloemendal Annex No. 164 on its 1913 verso. Which one is the family's?

What would settle it Frans saying which farm the house is on, or a coordinate.

What the record is missing

Nobody is on record as ever having held this third order · B8 never-held
Drooge Kloof is in the model, and carries no ownership record of any kind, not a grant, not a transfer, not an occupation.

What would settle it The Surveyor-General's diagram for the farm number names the grantee and the date; the deed reference on it opens the transfer chain.

Found by breaks.py reading the model against itself, not written by hand, each one is a shape of missing record, not a fault in the data. The whole set is on the questions page.