Search our online database of Indian immigrants to South Africa. The Indian Shipping Lists, complete in 91 volumes, provide extensive data relating to Indian indentured immigrants to South Africa.

* Colonial Number
* Names
* Father
* Year
* Month
* Gender
* Caste
* Height
* Places of origin, namely Zillah, Thanna (or Taluk), and Village
* Remarks
* Deceased
* Arrival Date
* Name of Ship
* From
* Employer
* Return to India List

A final column in the registers provides identifying information on caste marks, scars, moles and warts. This has not been included. Instead Remarks columns have been added providing information obtained from the Report of the Protector of Indians on unnatural deaths, suicides and accidents, and from the Estates Registers, the names of employers and transfers from one estate to another.

Do you qualify for Indian Citizenship?

Eligibility Criteria: A foreign national, who was eligible to become a citizen of India on 26.1.1950 or was a citizen of India on or at anytime after 26.1.1950 or belonged to a territory that became part of India after 15.8.1947 and his/her children and grand children, provided his/her country of citizenship allows dual citizenship in some form or other under the local laws, is eligible for registration as an Overseas Citizen of India(OCI). Minor children of such persons are also eligible for OCI. PIO card holders and those eligible to become PIO may also apply for OCI. Persons wanting to apply for Indian Citizenship can apply via the High Commission of India to South Africa.

Use of the Shipping Lists

The amount of information and the large number of entries makes the Shipping Registers, with their complementary Estates Registers, an important tool for researchers. Economic historians, sociologists or anthropologists interested in caste and occupation would find plenty to work on. A considerable number of different caste names have been used in the Ships' Lists, many of which do not appear in the modern caste lists. The spelling has been compared with the caste names in the Census of British India for 1883 and corrected where necessary but there is a great deal of work to be done by an expert in classifying and correlating them with modern lists.

The valuable part played by Indian workers in the economy can be assessed and analysed while a list of employers of indentured labour reveals just how many white and Indian companies and domestic households relied on Indian labour; this extensive list of employers and their agents is in the process of compilation as at July 2003. The physical height of each Indian immigrant, originally provided in feet and inches, has already been used in a study of height in relation to nutrition and caste. `Push and pull' factors in the decision of individuals and groups to emigrate from India, the significance of famine and hardship, and the apparently unreasonable demands of the Zamindars are all aspects of emigration waiting to be examined.

Use of the Shipping Lists in Genealogical Research

At one time it was only academics that showed any interest in the Shipping lists and related documents. That has changed in the last few years and now there is a steady stream of interested people asking to see these documents. One reason for this new interest is the opportunity for people of Indian descent to visit India and trace the village that their forefathers came from.

There is now a flourishing trade between South Africa and India and many more people have reason to travel to South Asia. Another reason is that once having traced in the Ships' Lists the grandparents or parents who came to Natal, individuals can obtain a written statement from the Archivist, giving full details of the person, the ship and the date of arrival. With this the representative of the Indian Government in South Africa will provide a certificate for Persons of Indian Origin which has advantages for those visiting India regularly.

Others, with no intention of visiting India, are now interested in their ancestors, where they came from and the details that all genealogists like to know.

Looking for more information on the arrival of Indian Passenger? Read this article

During the 17th and 18th centuries criminal cases were tried before the Court of Justice which sat at Cape Town. This Court, the highest in the Colony, was composed of eleven members in 1686, and a hundred years later of twelve. In 1797 the number was reduced to seven, when the members received salaries for the first time. The President received £400 per annum. Up to 1734 the Governor occupied this position, but after this the Vice-Governor did so. The members acted as judge and jury combined. It was only during the Batavian period (1803-1806) that the members were first appointed with some reference to their legal qualification; in fact the first members then appointed all held the degree of Doctor of Laws. Two or more generally sat as commissioned members ( Heeren Gecommitteerden ) to try petty cases and hear disputes. In the latter cases they endeavoured as far as possible to settle them amicably, and thus prevent them going before the full Court. Besides their judicial functions two of their number attended in rotation at the registration of all deeds of transfers of landed property, mortgages and other like acts. A record of all the proceedings of the Court of Justice was kept by the Secretary or Registrar.

One of the important functionaries of the Court was the Fiscal, who was the Public Prosecutor. He held high rank amongst the government officials, taking precedence after the Vice-Governor, and had a seat in the Council of Policy. Yet he was free from any control of the Governor and was called “Independent”. He was appointed by the Directors of the Dutch East India Company in Holland, and to them he was directly responsible. He watched with vigilance the interests of the Company and was ever on the alert to bring to justice any official guilty of neglect, a breach of those regulations by which it was hoped that the monopolizing and restrictive system of its Eastern trade might be upheld.

He maintained and protected before the Court of Justice the power of the Government and defended its property, means, revenue, rights and privileges against all fraud, contravention by whomsoever attempted. The Fiscal had free access to all and every register, book, letter and paper of the Government. He could report the Governor to the Seventeen for any misrule or neglect of duty, and could institute an action against any other officials before the Court. In civil and criminal cases he was instructed to guide himself according to the Ordinances of King Philip, passed in the years 1580 and 1570 respectively. In 1793 it was found necessary to make the Independent Fiscal subordinate to the Government, and his title was accordingly changed to that of Fiscal. He, however, retained his powers and duties notwithstanding this change. Both by his early instructions and those given by Commissary-General de Mist, when he received the title of Procureur-Generaal (Attorney-General), he exercised the functions of Public Prosecutor.

To bring a criminal to trial before the Court he was either arrested or summoned to appear personally. Unless a person was found in flagrante delicto or detected while running away, he could not be arrested without an order previously obtained from the Court to whose jurisdiction he was subject. In the case of crime not of a serious nature, the perpetrator was summoned to appear on a fixed day before the Court. But a criminal caught in the commission of a crime was arrested at once, and the Prosecutor obliged to apply within twenty-four hours to the Court for confirmation ofthe arrest. If he had taken to flight he was summoned “by means of placards and the ringing of a bell” to appear and answer to the charge upon pain of perpetual banishment. The fugitive was summoned on four occasions, a week or more being allowed to elapse between each citation. Each summons was read out from the balcony of the Court House ( bij edicte en openlijken klockingeslag doen dagvaarden ), and copies thereof posted up (placarded) at different parts of the town and in the country where the people congregated as a rule. All government proclamations, notices and advertisements were promulgated in a like manner and often read from the pulpit after divine service or as the congregation dispersed. Copies were also affixed to the church door. By Ordinance 21 of 1826 this method, as regards government laws, was abolished. It provided that the transmission of the Ordinance to the Court of Justice, together with the printing thereof in the “Government Gazette” constituted promulgation. The ringing of the bell and reading out the citation in legal cases ceased to be practised the following year. When the Fiscal was notified of the commission of a crime, he began instituting enquiries and gathering evidence. The depositions of the witnesses were taken before two commissioned members of the Court ( Heeren Gecommitteerden ) and sworn to before them, after having been carefully read over to the deponents. The Prosecutor laid his complaint before the Court and brought his witnesses. The Court then decided whether an order of arrest was to be given or not.

Before the death sentence could be passed, it was necessary that the accused should confess his crime. In order, therefore, to obtain this confession in a case where the proofs of his guilt were sufficient, but he would not acknowledge it, he was subjected to torture. With regard to what was sufficient proof necessary to put a suspected person to the torture, Van Leeuwen says: “But only upon such proofs as would almost alone amount to sufficient certainty, only that in such event nothing else is wanting but the confession of the accused, in order to convict him with sufficient certainty of the offence out of his own mouth.” The early Cape records show that not only the rack,b0 but also the thumbscrew was used for this purpose. The degree of torture seems to have varied. We read of the prisoner being brought into the torture room ad actum proximum . The accused was hoisted up by a rope tied to his hands and suspended by a pulley from the ceiling. Weights were attached to his great toes. These weights varied according to the degree of torture. “Full torture” consisted of 50 lb. weights being suspended from each of the great toes. The use of torture against persons suspected of crimes was abolished at the Cape in 1797. It is interesting to record what Sir John Barrow says about this in his book of travels: “Contrary, however, to the opinion of the Court of Justice, there were fewer executions after the abolition of the rack and torture than had taken place in an equal period for many years before, so much, that one of the public executioners made an application for a pension in lieu of the emoluments he used to receive for the breaking of legs and arms. The fate of the other hangman was singular enough. On hearing that the abolition of the rack and torture was likely to take place he waited upon the Chief Magistrate to know from him whether it was the fashion amongst the English to break on the wheel. A few days after he was found hanging in his room. It was thought that the fear of starving, for want of employment, on account of his having held such an office, had operated powerfully on his mind as to have led him to the perpetration of self-murder.” The use of torture was abolished in Holland in 1798.

There were two ways of prosecuting a criminal, one called the Ordinary and the other Extraordinary Process, and both were founded upon the 7th, 32nd and 35th articles of the 1570 Ordinance. The one was where the accused denied the crime or the evidence was doubtful, and the other was where the guilt had been confessed or was proved by the evidence. In ordinary process he was allowed to defend himself by counsel, as in an ordinary suit, and could lodge an appeal against the sentence. In the other case, however, no appeal lay against the judgment. With regard to a criminal being allowed to have counsel to defend him, he could not of right demand it, but only if the judges thought it necessary. The prisoner was brought before the judges within twenty-four hours of arrest and examined. This examination was based upon the evidence adduced from the preliminary depositions taken in the early stages. In the country districts the Landdrost took up the duties of the Public Prosecutor. A preliminary examination was held before two commissioned Heemraden, and when the case was ready the prisoner was sent down to Cape Town for trial. Here the Landdrost would conduct the prosecution subject to the Fiscal not wishing to do so. Sometimes it happened that the evidence was insufficient, and there was little likelihood of further proof being obtained then or in the future. In such a case the prisoner applied to be released, under handtasting, i.e., he took the President of the Court by the hand and promised to appear again when called upon subpoene confessi et convicti. In 1811 this was still practised here. After the claim and demand ( eisch en conclusie ) of the Fiscal had been heard (this statement was written out before the trial) the verdict of the judges was given. This was taken by ballot, which in the case of murder had to be given by a majority of votes. “These opinions, and the grounds of them, are not declared in public, nor is there a summing up, as is done by the judges in England. The deliberations are foribus clausis, and the judgment read by the Secretary to the parties in Court, re-opened for that purpose.” No sentence was carried out until it received the Governor’s fiat , and when confirmed had to be executed without delay. A person sentenced to death was attended by a clergyman until his execution. On this day he was sent under a military escort to the place of execution, which in former days stood upon the site occupied at present by the Magistrates’ Office in Buitenkant Street, Cape Town. Two commissioned members of the Court, the Secretary and the Fiscal were all present and remained until the end. A report was sent in to the Court that the sentence had been carried out. The instruments of death and torture were the gibbet, flogging and strangling posts, the cross upon which the limbs were broken, and the branding irons. For castigations, ropes’ ends, split rattans, twigs of quince trees, leather traces, and the sjambok were used. A person condemned to be scourged was tied to a post and his hands fastened above his head, and the lashes applied upon the back and shoulders. The executioner inflicted the first stripe, his assistant the next few and the remainder were given by convicts.

The crimes punishable at the Cape were such as are mentioned in any of the books of the Dutch jurists on criminal law. They were crimes against the State and public safety, crimes against the life, person or reputation of another, crimes against property and those arising from incontinence. Taking the sentences of the Court of Justice passed between the years 1814 and 1825 the following crimes are found: murder, infanticide, homicide, rape, incest, unnatural crime, seduction, treason and rebellion, arson, perjury, forgery, uttering forged money, embezzlement, fraud and theft, assault and robbery, assault and violence, vagabondizing and desertion, burglary and theft, stock theft, receiving stolen goods, libel, etc. Adultery was also punished. The following few cases, taken from the criminal records of the Court of Justice, are set forth so that the reader might see that the general practice here was similar to that in Holland. Grotius says that those who committed deliberate suicide were punished by their bodies being dragged upon a hurdle and exposed on a gibbet and their property confiscated. In 1671 the Court passed sentence on the body of a female Hottentot who had strangled herself. The body was drawn out of the house by an ass and hanged upon a gibbet as carrion for the birds. Her property was confiscated and the proceeds went to defray the cost of the trial and execution. Bigamy was punished by fine and imprisonment. In 1711 a man found guilty of this was declared dishonourable, infamous and unfit to serve the Company again and was bereft of his office, rank and pay. He was sentenced to be brought to the place of execution and to stand publicly exposed with a paper on his breast on which were to be written in large letters “THE TAKER AND POSSESSOR OF TWO WIVES.” He was to stand for an hour with a distaff under each arm, and was to be sent as a convict to Robben Island for five years and pay a fine of 200 rixdollars (£40) profisco. Women who had been guilty of this crime were also punished. In 1725 a woman was pilloried and afterwards sent back to Holland and fined 100 rixdollars. Four men found guilty of insurrection were ordered to draw lots for life or death. Those who drew lots for life were scourged and sent to labour ad opus publicum (Robben Island). The other two were punished with the halter on the gallows. In 1748 three men were sentenced to draw lots “for life or death”. The one who drew the shortest one was to be shot and those who escaped death to be banished from the Colony. These men had deserted from the Company’s service. For threatening to shoot the Governor, and charged with laesae majestatis, an accused was sentenced to have a bullet fired over his head and banished for three years to the public works. A crime which occurred with some frequency was the forgery of the paper money in circulation at the Cape from 1782. A man and woman who had forged and uttered the Cape paper money were banished for life out of the Colony. For forcing his way into the church as the congregation was dispersing and creating disturbance, a slave was ordered to be scourged. For receiving stolen goods a sentence of scourging, fifteen years in chains on Robben Island, and perpetual banishment from the Colony was passed. A libel ( pasquil ) on the good name of the citizens and government officials had been placarded over the town, the author whereof was not known. Upon the Fiscal bringing this to the notice of the Court the latter declared the composer and publisher to be infamous and disgraced, and if discovered ignominiously punished. It further ordered that the libel be burnt in the presence of a judicial commission by the public hangman at the place of execution. It is interesting to compare a sentence passed for the same offence committed by a European or slave. In 1763 a European was sentenced to be scourged, branded and placed at hard labour on Robben Island for ten years for housebreaking and theft. For the same offence a slave was ordered to be hanged. Fighting or challenging to fight a duel was punished in 1737 by flogging, and one of the parties being put in chains and sent to work at Robben Island for three years. One hundred years after prosecutions for duelling were still carried on, as the case of two military officers before the Supreme Court shows.

The punishments generally inflicted were death, perpetual imprisonment, banishment, whipping, branding and the like. There were also lesser ones, as exposure on the scaffold with a board affixed to the culprit’s neck describing his offence, exposure under the gallows with a halter round the head, firing a shot over the head, waving a sword over the head while the prisoner knelt blindfolded before a heap of sand. There was imprisonment and fine. The death sentence was carried out in different ways, by hanging, strangling (as practised in the case of women), breaking on the wheel or cross with or without the coup de grace, in not frequent, in cases of arson, decapitation, quartering and chopping off the limbs. Banishment was for life or a number of years, from one particular district of the Colony or from the whole country. Confiscation of a criminal’s property which was in vogue here, was abolished by a Placaat of the States-General on the 10th August, 1778. This was duly published at the Cape according to law on the 24th April, 1779.

The punishment of crimes was defined by the 1570 Ordinance. The Judges were ordered in criminal cases to decide according to the Netherlandic law, and where that was silent or deficient to refer to the Roman law. Sometimes the punishment was not specifically laid down and the punishment assigned by the Roman law was sometimes such as could not be applied. In such a case the punishment was left ad arbitrium judicis. A letter written by the members of the Court of Justice to the Head of the Cape Government in 1796 will show what rules guided the Judges in determining the punishments imposed.

” … The degree of severity with which punishments are inflicted according to our laws is measured by the atrocity of the crime, which in proportion to its magnitude demands a more striking example : But in all cases the following particulars are carefully considered : – (1) The person who commits the crime, and also the person upon whom it is committed; as when a subject murders his sovereign or a slave his master. (2) The place in which the crime is committed, for example, he who murders a person in his own house, which ever ought to be his safest asylum, is punished more severely than he who commits murder in a place to which both had an equal right. (3) The quality of the fact; as whether the instrument with which the murder is committed is generally esteemed a deadly weapon or not. (4) The quantity of guilt, as, when the accused has murdered more than one person, or has been guilty of the same crime at any former time. (5) The design in committing the crimes, as when it is followed by thefts. (6) The Judge also pays attention to the motives from which the crime was committed, for instance, whether murder has been perpetrated in anger or premeditated, in cold blood, and in an invidious manner.

Particular attention was paid to these and other circumstances, which might produce some shades of difference even in crimes essentially of the same nature, whether committed by free people or slaves, and incurred different degrees of punishment according to their atrocity. In our jurisprudence it is usual to punish with greater severity housebreaking and theft, accompanied with murder, than theft alone, whether it is committed by free people or slaves. A wilful and insidious murder is more severely punished, than murder perpetrated in the heat of passion, where provocation has been given – simple murder is deemed less culpable than regicide – parricide, fratricide, etc. – an incendiary is punished by fire, etc. These distinctions obtain so universally that they almost amount to a rule of conduct for the Courts Juridicature over all Europe; and in this country they are observed equally with free persons and slaves …”

Source: Cape Law Medicine & Place names by Graham Botha (Collected Works)

Quantity control was essential for trade, and trade was the driving force behind both the discovery and the colonisation of Southern Africa; hence the early establishment of a system of weights and measures at the Cape of Good Hope. In 1681, through the ‘Statuten van India’, the Dutch authorities prescribed standards of measurement and their application in trade. Instruments had to be assized twice yearly and the most common goods had to be marketed in fixed quantities. Fines were imposed for non-compliance. At the beginning of British rule in 1806 the following standards were in use:

Weight:

16 ounces = 32 lood = 1 Dutch pound
92 Dutch pounds = 100 English pounds
Units of weight: 50 lb to 1 lood

Dry measure:

1 schepel = 82/107 Winchester bushel
1 muid = 4 schepels (3 Imperial bushels)
1 load = 10 muids

Liquid measure:

1 leaguer = 152 Dutch gallons = 126 7/11 Imperial gallons
1 pipe = 110 Dutch gallons
1 aum = 38 Dutch gallons
1 anker = 9 ½ Dutch gallons
1 flask = 11/32 Dutch gallons

Cloth measure:

1 ell = 27 Rhineland inches
1 yard = 37 17/20 Rhineland inches
4 Dutch ells = 3 English yards (approx.)

Measure of length:

1 foot = 12 inches (Dutch)
1 rood = 12 feet (Dutch)
1000 Dutch or Cape feet = 1033 English ft

Under the British occupation the Dutch system remained in force, although the British weights and measures were also used, especially in the towns. (It cannot be established to what extent the aborigines made use of any measures.) As the pioneers migrated inland, they took the Dutch measures with them, so that by 1850 these were also used in the Transvaal, Orange Free State and Natal . During this period traders rarely possessed scales. They had to use measures of contents like the bucket and schepel. The term ‘an hour on horseback’ was used to indicate distance, and often also to measure the area of farms. In South-West Africa the German Colonial Gazette of 26 June 1895 laid down this distance as 10 km exactly. The need for statutory control was evident, and after 1850 the various governments all passed laws to control measurement: the Cape in 1858-59 and 1876, Natal in 1852 and 1872, the Transvaal in 1874 and 1891, while the O.F.S. passed a comprehensive law in 1898. It is not known to what extent control was exercised, as there is no record of the employment of trained assizers until 1902, when the municipality of Johannesburg appointed one.

Legislation on weights and measures passed by the two British colonies in the Cape and Natal, as well as in the two inland republics, retained the Dutch or Cape area measure of 1 morgen = 600 square roods = 2,116 acres; but they all favoured the British standards of weight and measure of length and contents, although the Transvaal scheduled the Dutch and the metric units as alternatives. Natal prescribed Imperial land measure, the acre, subdivided into 43 560 English square feet; and this was the legal unit in that province, excepting the northern districts of Vryheid and Utrecht, which belonged to the Transvaal until 1902 and therefore retained the morgen. The acre, however, was used outside Natal as a popular unit for land sales, especially for small properties, but not as an official measuring unit.

Since January 1970 all land-surveying has been done in metric units of measurement, the units being the square metre (m4) and hectare (ha).

During the period 1902 to 1922 all the former legislation remained in force, while its administration was ceded to local authorities. The need for uniform control was advocated by commerce, but it was not effected until Parliament passed the Weights and Measures Act (No. 32 of 1922. In the mean time the municipalities of Johannesburg, Pretoria and Durban established assize departments with trained assizers to assize traders’ instruments and control the sale of goods. The other major towns had standards and equipment, and the fire brigades administered weights and measures regulations. The trained personnel of the local authorities was taken over by the Union government and formed the nucleus of the Assize Division of the Department of Commerce and Industries from 1923.

The Act prescribed standards based on the British reference units, but converted the imperial avoirdupois weight units to decimal denominations by omitting the odd units of 3, 4, 7, 14, 15, 28, 56, 112 lb and the long ton (2240 lb). Provision under the 18th-century weights found in wall of Town House, Cape Town. It was customary to bury weights showing signs of wear.

Act was also made for the examination of candidates for the assizer’s certificate, approval of new types of instruments intended for use in trade, and control of the sale of goods. The Act was amended in 1933 and 1940 and was superseded by Act 13 of 1958, which was again amended in 1960, 1964, 1969 and 1970. The following denominations of weights were prescribed by the Act of 1922 and remained in force until metrication:

Avoirdupois. 2000 lb (1 ton),100 lb (cental), 50 lb, 25 lb, 20 lb, 10 lb, 5 lb, 2 lb, 1 lb (= 16 oz), 8 oz down to ½ dram. The ton mentioned above is the ‘short’ or Cape ton, being the legal unit of weight in South Africa besides the metric ton (1000 kg) which before metrication was used in the export trade only. The ‘short’ ton is also in use in the United States and Canada.

Troy weight (for precious metals in ounces troy (oz 0): 500, 400, 300, 200, 100, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 (I oz t. = 480 grains or 20 dwt). Subdivisions of the ounce troy range from 0,5 down to 0,0001 oz t.

Apothecaries’ weight (for medicines). 12 oz apoth. 1 lb apoth. ; 1 oz apoth. = 480 grains = 8 drachms = 20 scruples. Denominations used before metrication: 10, 8, 6, 4, 2 and 1 oz. Since metrication the metric system is being used by chemists, i.e. the litre and millilitre.

Measures of length used until metrication were 1 yard = 1 Imperial yard = 0,9143992 metre, with sub-multiples: 1 yard = 3 feet = 36 inches.

Measures of volume until metrication were 1 Imperial gallon = 4 quarts = 8 pints = 160 fluid ounces.

Conversion to Metric System

Act 32 Of 1922 made provision for metric measures of weight, length and capacity to be used in trade, but the system had been used only to the extent indicated above. When decimalisation of coinage was implemented in 1961, it became evident that it was desirable for the country to adopt the metric system of measurement. Amendment Act 44 of 1964 provided for an independent National Standard Kilogram to be kept by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (C.S.I.R.) and to be regularly compared with the international standard. Subsequently, the Republic adopted the International System of Units and provision was also made for other essential standards in this system.

Since the commencement of metrication in 1968 all packaging above retail level has been converted to metric measurement, and by June 1973 more than 50% of the instruments in trade use had been converted. All pre-packing will be in metric units as soon as retailers’ instruments are completely converted. The use of Imperial weights, measures of length and volume was prohibited as from 1 Jan. 1973. (New legislation in South Africa substitutes the term ‘mass’ for ‘weight’, but in other countries ‘weight’ will probably be retained, as the difference between the two concepts is too slight to matter for ordinary commercial purposes.)

Weights and measures regulations to enforce pre-packers to declare the quantity either by measure of weight, volume, length, area, cubic measure or number on every packet and invoice coincided with the actual commencement of metrication in trade. Excellent progress was made with standardisation of pre-packed goods at the same time, in order to facilitate comparison of quality and price for consumers.

Metric units replaced apothecaries’ units formerly used by chemists. The troy system is still in use, but is to be replaced by the metric system. It is not certain whether the metric carat system used for diamonds and precious stones will be replaced by metric units.

The Trade Metrology Act (No. 77 of 1973) is to repeal the Weights and Measures Act. The permissible measuring units prescribed in the Weights and Measures Act were incorporated in the Measuring Units and National Standards Act 1973 (No. 76 of 1973), which also provides for custody of the national standards by the C.S.I.R. Except for provision in the new legislation for the ultimate retention of the international System of Units only, there is no radical difference in the remaining provisions of the Acts.

Other countries in Southern Africa

In the former German colonies, South-West Africa and Tanganyika , the metric system of measurement was in use until 1914. Since then, the British Imperial system gradually took over and, as in the case of Rhodesia and Kenya, measurement has been controlled by British-trained officials. Effective control of measurement in South-West Africa commenced only in 1944 when officials of the South African government were seconded to the Administration of the territory for that purpose. The South African standards were adopted and the territory is converting to the metric system simultaneously with the Republic.

Rhodesia and Zambia are converting to the metric system, and Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda have already done so. Angola and Mozambique have been employing the metric system, as in Portugal.

Swaziland, Botswana and Lesotho, having close economic ties with the Republic of South Africa, are adopting the metric system, although it will probably be some years before the instruments of traders are converted. (See also Decimalisation; Metrication.)

Weights and Measures

The Division of The Assize, as it was known until 1963, was established with effect from 1 May 1923 as a division of the Department of Mines and Industries, to administer the Weights and Measures Act of 1922. In 1933 the division was incorporated into the Department of Commerce and Industries. The objects of the Act and the regulations promulgated are to ensure fair competition between traders and to protect purchasers against short weight and measure. The Act requires that all weighing and measuring instruments and all weights and measures used in trade be assized annually, so that a reasonable standard of accuracy may be maintained. To achieve this, there are 14 regional offices in the larger centres of South Africa. The Assize Board, a statutory body, assists and advises the superintendent in case of an appeal against an assizer’s decision, in supervising and conducting the examinations of pupil assizers, and in examining and approving new types of weighing and measuring instruments used in trade. Journeys are regularly undertaken by assizers of the regional offices for the assizing or re-assizing of heavy, delicate or fixed instruments, or those of traders whose premises are more than is km from the nearest assize station. Instruments found to be correct are then stamped with the stamp of assize, while those not conforming to the standard are rejected for repair and re-assizing later. A neccessity after assizing is inspection to ensure that instruments have not been tampered with.

In the case of the large railway weighbridges, the Administration of the South African Railways and Harbours provides test units with 2 x 2,000 kg, 5 x 5,000 kg roller weights and 50 x 20 kg weights, supplied by the Division to a total weight of 30 tons each. For road weighbridges the Division provides its own mobile test units with a gross weight of about as 25,000 kg. The Division also tests, on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, dairy glassware for the determination of the butter-fat content of milk and cream. The second object is to ensure fair competition, and therefore it is laid down that many articles must be sold in prescribed quantities or by net weight. In order to protect the public against malpractices, all articles sold by weight or measure must be marked accordingly. In 1973 legislation was passed to provide for the systematic introduction into South Africa of the measuring units of the International System of Units and for the maintenance of national measuring standards. The latter function was assigned to the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.

The Masters’ Division is a creature rich in history not surpassed by any public institution in this country. The creation of the MASTERS’ BUSINESS UNIT is a further chapter of this history.

Although the predecessors of the Masters’ Division can be found in the annals of some European countries long before 1652 the real history of the Masters’ Division in South Africa started in 1674 when the “Weeskamer” (Orphan Camber) was created. While the Master is presently a creature of statute the functions of the Orphan Chamber were up to 1714 not prescribed by statute but were founded on its compeers in Holland. In that year the Orphan Chamber prepared some regulations that were approved of by the authorities.

These regulations were in force till 1793 where after a thorough investigation was launched into the activities of the Orphan Chamber and new regulations enacted. In 1828 in a preamble the importance of the Orphan Chamber was described as follows:
“Whereas the establishment of the Orphan Chamber in this Colony has become an Institution of great public interest and utility and should therefore placed under permanent and more determinate regulations…”.

In 1834 the Master became a creature of statute. The staffing of the Masters’ Division also went through many changes. The Orphan Chamber for instance staffed by a chairperson appointed by the Governor in Council, two officials of the then authorities and two freemen. Only the secretary was paid for his/ her work. One of the officials and one of the freemen had to retire from the Orphan Chamber annually and their successors elected by the Political Council from a list drawn up by the Orphan Chamber itself.

The Orphan Chamber was restructured by ordinance in 1828 and then staffed by a chairperson and four Masters appointed by the Governor. Two of the latter had to be civil servants. This ordinance sounded the death bell of the Orphan Chamber, died in 1834 and superseded by the Master of the Supreme Court.

The functions of the Masters’ Division underwent many changes through the centuries. Initially the word “Orphan Chamber” was in deed a good description for the activities of the Orphan Chamber since its activities were more focused on minors and widows. Although many regulations pertaining to the functions of the Orphan Chamber were changed through the years major changes took place in the year 1793. With the creation of the office of the Master in 1834 the Master’s functions and duties became prescribed by statute. Initially the Orphan Chamber had, inter alia, a very personal interest in those put under its jurisdiction.

The Orphan Chamber for instance put minors under foster care and had to ascertain that those minors were brought up under strict Christian principles and received a proper education and trained in a trade. As is the case today funds of the minors could be used for those purposes. Corporal punishment by officials of the Orphan Chamber was allowed and the undisciplined had to appear before the Orphan Chamber.

Their authorities over the persons of the minors were nearly unrestricted – two orphans who time again ran away from their foster parents were enrolled in the army and sent to Batavia. Following numerous enquiries about persons who died and in view of the fact that there was no office of a registrar of deaths at that time persons who died could not be buried before the Orphan Chamber was notified of their deaths! The Guardians’ Fund was an integral part of the system since 1686. All monies belonging to orphans and absent / unknown heirs were deposited in this fund and administration fees (as well as salaries of officials till 1808) were paid from the profits made by the fund. Monies were invested on mortgage bonds and loans against securities at an interest higher than the 6% paid to account holders.

Since the Orphan Chamber considered itself a philanthropic institution donations were also made to orphanages and poor churches. It was also recorded that the then Governor, Lord Charles Somerset, even instructed the fund to donate an amount of 51 000 guild to a congregation to build a new parsonage – apparently Mrs Reverend did not like the old parsonage! Only 15 000 guild was forthcoming. Due to the fact that this fund became very ‘affluent’ the ordinary person on the street (dust track?) became mistrustful towards the fund because they apparently believed that the fund could not become so strong in an honourable way.

When the then secretary of the Orphan Chamber died in 1737 a shortfall of more than 50 000 guild was discovered in the fund. The authorities decided that the Masters of that time should be held responsible for the shortfall. Understandably they fought this decision and after a period of 15 years a truce was reached between the Masters the authorities whereby the interest earned on the funds of absent heirs used to cover the shortfall. Unfounded stories about enrichment by officials of the Orphan Chamber became the order of the day. During the period 1788 to 1791 the execution of functions by the Orphan Chamber fell in chaos.

A commission of enquiry was instituted, the then secretary dismissed and the shortfall of more than 167 000 rix-dollars recovered from his estate. In view of the fact that banking institutions were foreign at that time, the monies of the fund not invested were kept in an iron trunk with three sets of locks. Three different officials kept the keys. However, this arrangement did not prevent the authorities of that time to raid the trunk on two occasions to cover the shortfall on the government’s budget! The control over the liquidation of sequestrated estates befell the Master also in 1828.

Before that time such matters were under the control of the courts (till 1803), the “Desolate Kamer” (1803 to 1819) and “sequestrator” (1819 to 1828.) The assessment of succession duty became the duty of the Master in 1864. It is common knowledge that the Voortrekkers of that time were not fond of the then authorities and as they trekked from under the auspices of the British authorities they founded their own Orphan Chambers even while on trek The office of “Weesheer” was a well sought after position and many well known personalities of those times acted as “Weeshere.”

At the establishment of the Union of South Africa in 1910 four different sets of control over the administration of estates existed. A so called unified act was enacted in 1913 which act was in operation till 1967 when the current act came into effect. Even today no unified act exists – the next chapter to be written in the long history
of the Masters’ Division.

(Acknowledgement: J H Jordaan – Master’s Office Pretoria)

1673-1833

The Board of Orphan Masters was established at the Cape about 1673. In the following year we read in the Government Journal of monies of the Cape Orphans being administered by the Diaconate or Poor Fund and a proposal to separate such monies and place them with the Orphan Chamber. (Journal 9/10/1674)

A few months later the Journal records that “the Board of Orphan Masters, already created last year, shall be increased by a Company’s servant, so that it will consist of five members, besides a burgher to be appointed as Secretary”. (Ibid 13/12/1674, Tennant in his “Notar’s Manual” says the Chamber was established in 1691. By a letter, 28/9/1675, from the Seventeen to the Cape the establishment of this Chamber was approved)

Two of the members were chosen from the members of the Court of Justice and two from the Burgher Councillors. Not long after the Board consisted of a President, Vice-President, drawn from the Company and burghers respectively, two Company members and two burgher members. A nomination of names was sent in every two years for Government to select from. The office of President and Vice-President was made permanent in the days of the Batavian Government. (Provisioneele Instructie voor de Weeskamer, art 1) After 1806 the appointments were not made with reference to any particular principle. From this date to 1828 the Presidency was held by the President of the Court of Justice.

The Orphan Chamber originated through the early necessity of making provision for the collection and administration of the property of persons who died intestate and left heirs absent from the Colony or were under age and therefore unable to take the duty upon themselves. Property of persons who died on the voyage to and from Europe and found on board was subject to its jurisdiction. By a letter of the 30th March, 1711, the Cape Government was advised that the Chamber was not to be burdened with deceased estates of Company’s servants and burghers who had died on the outward or homeward- bound voyage, except those who were on the paysheets ashore. Its principal duties were: (Vide Treatise for His Majesty’s Commissioners of Enquiry)

1. the administration of the estates of persons dying intestate in the Colony or on the voyage to the Colony and among whose heirs there were minors or persons residing abroad, also estates of those who had not specially excluded the Orphan Masters in their will, or had specially appointed them even where their heirs were majors and resident here;
2. the registration of wills of deceased persons;
3. administration of minors’ property;
4. receiving and paying to present and absent claimants the portions or legacies due to them; keeping a death register or record of persons who died at the Cape; recording the resolutions and transactions of the Board.
In 1714 the Government issued to the Orphan Masters a set of Rules and Regulations by which they were to be guided in carrying out their duties. (Resolutions, Council of Policy, 26/6/1714) These instructions were taken over from the Statutes of Batavia. They included a tariff of fees, which were to be charged in administering an estate. In 1793 renewed instructions were issued, compiled from the 1714 rules, from those of the Orphan Chamber at Batavia , from a sketch of instructions submitted to the Government by the Orphan Masters, and from a report relative to the improvement in the Chamber. (Annexures to Treatise for His Majesty’s Council)

Provisional Instructions were framed for the Orphan Chamber by De Mist, ( Provisioneele Instructie voor de Weeskamer ) but these show that they were evidently “framed more with a view to confirm the standing rules than to introduce new regulations” (Treatise for His Majesty’s Commission) Ordinance 104 of 1833 abolished the Orphan Chamber, and its duties were transferred to the newly appointed office of Master of the Supreme Court.

It might be of interest to note one or two of the articles of the instructions laid down. Immovable property of orphans could only be sold by an order of Court, and such property had to be put up for public auction and sold to the highest bidder. An absent minor, out of the country for sixteen years, could be publicly summoned at his last-known place of residence if it was uncertain whether he was alive or dead. If it could not be ascertained what had happened to him, his heirs could receive his property upon giving security de restituendo.

Persons had to obey a summons to appear before the Masters as if it had emanated from a Court, and upon a third default to appear they could be brought before the Court of Justice. From the resolutions sent from time to time by the Government to the Board and the instruc tions framed in 1793, it would appear that the Orphan Masters were given nearly the same portion of authority and jurisdiction in testamentary matters as was exercised in earlier periods by the spiritual Courts in England .

(Report of Commissioners of Enquiry on Court Justice. Theal’s “Records of Cape Colony” 28.110) The Annexures to the liquidation and distribution accounts of the Orphan Chamber form one of the most important series of the collection, as they contain very useful material for a social and economic history of the Cape in the early days. They contain private ledgers, correspondence, memo books, paid accounts, business transactions of deceased persons. All the records of the Chamber are, as a matter of fact, of great value, which cannot be overestimated. The greater portion of the records of this Chamber was transferred in 1912 from the Master’s Office.

Wills, 1689-1833
Instructions to the Orphan Chamber issued in 1793 provided that “all wills shall be exhibited to Orphan Masters in order to be registered”. Ordinance 104 of 1833 laid down that on a testator’s death his will was to be transmitted to the Master of the Supreme Court. Up to 1833 certified copies were filed in the Orphan Chamber. The originals of the latter copies will be found filed amongst the records of the Court of Justice, q.v.

Inventories, 1673-1834

Resolutions, 1758-1833 (incomplete)

Of the several duties of the Secretary, one was to keep a record of the proceedings and resolutions of the Orphan Chamber. Before 1758 the resolutions were kept on loose sheets and signed by the Secretary. Towards the end of 1757 it was resolved that the proceedings were to be entered in a bound volume and signed by all the members.

Liquidation and Distribution Accounts, 1709-1835
When Orphan Masters were nominated as executors of an estate or were not specifically excluded by the will, or the deceased died intestate, they took control of the effects of the estate. They took the necessary steps to liquidate the estate, framed a liquidation and distribution account of their administration, and, after paying out the creditors, awarded the residue to the heirs. Executors testamentary, other than the Masters, were not called upon to render an account to the Chamber, except when the latter had not been excluded from interference.

Vendu Rolls, 1691-1834
There were no licensed auctioneers during the eighteenth century; the right of holding public sales was entrusted to certain Government officials, amongst which was the Secretary to the Orphan Chamber. A complete list or vendu roll was kept of the articles sold, name of purchaser, and price paid. These vendu rolls refer to articles and property sold in deceased estates, and give a good idea of prices at auction.

Death Registers, 1758-1833
In 1711 the Orphan Masters saw the necessity of opening a Death Register, and requested the church authorities to order their sextons to submit to the Board the names, calling and places of burial of persons whose funerals they conducted. Notwithstanding the fact that sextons were prohibited in 1714, under forfeiture of their office, of having a grave dug without previously notifying the death to the Secretary, it seems that no beginning was made with the register. The first one extant begins in 1758, and up to 1797 the particulars given are: Name, residence, date of death and calling or occupation of deceased. After this additional details are entered, as age, birthplace, whose wife, widow, son or daughter, and at whose residence the person died.

Letters Received, 1690-1797
These include correspondence with the Orphan Chambers in Holland and Batavia and other possessions of the Company, with similar bodies in Europe and with the local government and individuals.

Letters Despatched, 1691-1880. The same note applies as under Letters Received.

Kusting Brieven, 1709-1821
These are mortgage bonds passed in favour of the Orphan Chamber on behalf of the heirs of a deceased person for the purchase price of the immovable property sold in such estate. They had to be passed before the Commissioners of the Court of Justice at one and the same time when transfer of the property specially hypothecated was executed.

Conditions of Sale, 1697-1833
Immovables in an estate were sold by public auction after the Court had given its consent and the highest bidder signed the conditions of sale and furnished two sureties.

Bewyzen, 1731-1825
The survivor of two spouses who wished to remarry and had minor children by the first marriage, had to enter into a bond or kinderbewys before the Orphan Masters, securing to such minors their inheritance from the estate of their deceased parent. Today a certificate from the Master of the Supreme Court is necessary to enable a surviving spouse to contract a second marriage.

Extracted from: Archives and Records of the Cape , Volume III by C. Graham Botha

Estate records and the Orphan Chamber
The Orphan Chamber (Weeskamer) was set up in 1673 to act as legal guardian to orphaned children. After the devastating effect of the smallpox epidemic of 1713, the Council of Policy empowered the Orphan Chamber to protect the transference of property of all free individuals in the colony. It was responsible for the collection and administration of the property of persons who died intestate, or left heirs who were minors (under 25 years of age) or who lived abroad. It was also responsible for estates where the will did not specifically exclude them (the OC) from acting as executors.

The Board of the Orphan Chamber consisted of a President and Vice-President drawn from Company officials and burghers, plus two Company men and two burghers. Every two years the Board would be selected by the Government from a list of nominations submitted for that purpose.

Understanding the laws governing the process of inheritance is essential to the understanding of the role of the Orphan Chamber in this process. Secretary William Bird, describing the State of the Cape of Good Hope in 1822, explained the system and process of inheritance clearly:

Under the laws of the colony the widow takes one-half, whether it be real or personal property, and the other half is divided equally between the children, whether male or female; and if no children, to the nearest relatives of both father and mother. No one by will can deprive a child of its share. But a man can leave to his widow, in addition to the half she inherits, one child’s portion. At the death of the widow unmarried, her half descends, in like manner, to the children; but if she has a second husband, and children by him, her property goes equally between such husband and the children of both beds, as does the property of the husband at her death.

If a married person dies intestate, and leaves children under age, the orphan chamber is at liberty, on the application of the surviving husband or wife, to suffer him or her to remain in possession of the whole estate, on condition that an inventory be taken, and a fair valuation be made of the same, according to which valuation, the half of the net balance is assigned to the children in equal shares, and left in the hands of the survivor, provided good security be given, that the share of each of the children will be forthcoming at their becoming of age. The principle of this regulation is, that it is in the interest of the children themselves to have their parent remaining in the undisturbed possession of his concern, in order to prevent the danger of loss, arising from a sudden disposal of the estate; and also to preserve more fully to the surviving parent, the means of educating his children.

It is always to be kept in view, that community of property among married people is the law of the colony, unless excepted or restricted by a settlement before marriage … there is no advantage from primogeniture.

The inventories of fixed properties, goods and chattels were taken within a few days of the householder’s death, sent to the Master of the Orphan Chamber, recorded by a clerk (in a standard format though original details, such as order of appraisal, are retained), numbered and filed in more or less chronological order. If an auction (vendu) of these possessions subsequently took place, the sales were also itemised in detail and filed.

After the VOC relinquished the Cape in 1795, the British and the Batavian regimes left existing legal and bureaucratic systems and personnel almost intact because of limited resources, so inventories continued to be taken and auctions organised to dispose of estates as before. Between 1824 and 1828, however, deliberate policy was established to set up an independent judiciary and an impersonal and bureaucratic civil service, and to impose the English language, so that the Cape was brought more into line with the political and economic system of the British Empire. In 1834 the role of the Orphan Chamber was taken over by private companies; the precursors to BoE and Syfrets.

Inventories in the MOOC series
As was mentioned above, the appraisal of Estates occurred shortly after death and would then be ‘copied’ into the Inventory lists that we now have. The internal ‘layout’ of the different inventories can provide us with some interesting information about different estates. For example: Smaller estates would often be represented quite straightforwardly listing the items either from the most valuable to the least or according to the appraisers access to them. Larger estates, on the other hand, would often be represented in terms of the spaces in which items lay, such as rooms, cupboards, stores, attics, outbuildings, and the farmyard. Inventories for larger estates would also occasionally contain catalogues of book titles and, very rarely, pictures.

It is also interesting to note that appraisal was not made for tax purposes (only some documents are evaluated, probably the “fair evaluation” referred to by Bird above), and individual items were often noted as being bequeathed to specific persons.

Auction lists (vendu rollen)
Despite the advantages of retaining estates in one piece after a death, property was often put up for sale by auction to enable division of the estate to take place or because it was insolvent. Other reasons for auctions included remarriage and bankruptcy. The records of sales, vendu rollen (MOOC10), list all the items sold, name of purchaser and how much was paid.

Archival location
The material is filed in the Archives of the Master of the Supreme Court (Cape of Good Hope) housed in the National Archives, Cape Repository, Roeland Street, Cape Town. It includes:

Volumes Description Dates
MOOC 7/1/1-140 Wills & Appraisals 1688-1835
MOOC 8/1-48 Inventories 1673-1834
MOOC 8/49-51 Inventories & Appraisements 1780-1834
MOOC 8/75 Inventories not bound 1673-1825
MOOC 8/76-77 Index to Inventories 1692-1834
MOOC10/1-49 Vendu Rolls 1691-1834

MOOC Master of the Orphan Chamber
7/1 or 8 or 10 volume set
/1 ff volume number
.1 ff document number

Compiled by Antonio Malan

On the 1st August 1834 slavery was abolished at the Cape. Have you started looking for your slave ancestors? When Robert Semple visited Cape Town in 1804 he correctly noted the significance of the naming pattern for Cape Slave owners:

It ay here be observed that the whole heathen mythology is ransacked find the names which are generally bestowed in a manner not the most honourable to those deities at whose alters one half of the human race formerly bowed down.

Thus Jupiter cleans the shoes, Hercules rubs down the horses, and Juno lights the fire. Yet [this] is it not done through any disrespect towards these once remarkable names, as those in Scripture are applied with as little ceremony, and in as unappropriate a manner,  being daily sent for water and Solomon up to Table Mountain for firewood.

Buy Robert Shells E-Book Changing Hands

One might think that naming slaves might have reflected conscious – if the jocular and harmless – references to be patriarchal or imperial patrician life-styles, which the slaves made possible, but there was actually a more sinister logic to the choice of Cape slave names. Naming salves was a domestic ruse to diminish the dignity of the slaves in daily life and to establish differences among slave groups. There were six distinctive types of first names for slaves. These types represented a spectrum.

Day 0.8%

Protestant 31%

Catholic 0.4%

Old Testament 12.6%

Indigenous 10.1%

Muslim 0.5%

Classical 24.8%

Month 4.3%

Facetious 5.9%

Toponyms 0.3%

Unknown 9.25%

Facetious Names
The settlers’ facetious spirit found its fullest expression in ridiculous or pejorative nicknames given to slaves, faithfully copied in the transfers. The most common name was Fortune (Fortuijn), presumably an ironical reminder of where household wealth lay. Pickle Herring was the nickname of one slave; Winter Butter was another, a racial joke referring to the slave’s pale skin colour. The list is endless as it is demeaning. Thickleg (Dikbeen), Long-time-coming (Lang onderweg) Watch-out (Pasop), Sweet Potato, (Pattat), Teawater (Theewater), Blixem, (Buckslam – an expletive), Welcome (Wellekom), Sabbath Ape-child (Domingo Aapkind), or simply Ape (Aap), Evil (Slegt), Clever (Slim), and Servidor and Shitato, which require as little translation as they require imagination.

Presumably thigh-slapping humor was explained, or perhaps the joke grew old, but the names stuck. When the slave was sold again the name reappeared in the records.

Calendar Names
In between the facetious and classical or biblical names were calendar names, unlike West African day names, were at least partly facetious. Friday was most common day name, perhaps because the person on whom Daniel Defoe based his famous character – the real Robinson Crusoe – had convalesced Cape . But month names were the most popular calendar names, especially enslaved persons from the Indian subcontinent. One oceanic slave trader, after selling a particularly large lot of slaves from the quayside in Cape Town, and having exhausted his imagination and classical learning, reeled off, as their own, the names of the months, in order of the slaves’ appearance on the auction block. This month-naming practice, repeated quite often in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, may explain the haunting yet quite maddening lyrics of an old Cape dirge, or Moppie- “January, February, April, …” – which the slaves sang to help themselves get through the quotidian ordeals of Cape slavery. Possibly, the moppie had an educational purpose too.

Classical Names
One scholar of the American South has argued that the slave owners’ use of classical and historical names for their slaves was evidence that the slaves stood in the relation to their owner as did the owner’s dogs, at that time also commonly named for classical figures.

In this way, too, the slave owner invited the slave-owning into a cultural “joke,” (supposedly) hidden from the slave. That the Cape owners considered this joke to be a good one is attested to by the 81 Titus’s, Cupido’s, 50 Coridons, 35 Hannibal’s, and 39 Scipios in sale transfers from the period. In the 4,076 slave transfers used in this study, only one Cromwell and Diogenes testified to a different level of education among the masters. Most n were at the firmament level of Mars and Venus. To name a slave after a god or emperor was a common household device; the joke would be revealed when slave came upon livestock or pets that had his or her own name.

Old Testament Names
It was also a custom in the early Cape to name slaves after Old Testament figures The Old Testament provided many important precedents for the Dutch Reformed tradition, so it is difficult to separate sacred from profane naming practices. However, certain names such as Solomon and Moses were never used by the settlers for naming their own children.

Indigenous Names
Some slaves were allowed to keep their given, indigenous names. This was true for all imported Lodge slaves, but a few private owners also allowed their slaves to keep their given names. Since the Lodge was internally run (except for baptisms) one assumes that allowing the slaves to keep their names was a form of Lodge autonomy. Among private owners this practice was rare and did not extend to the second, creole generation. Such names as Affans, Assar, Caftiaan, Chachista, Cosambij, Doole, Galba, Jo-ombie, Jofta, Moensat, Nalk, Origo, Orsous, Pagolet, Pantsiko, Pasi, Soutanij, Thijmon, Towaijo, and Trimmatas all fell out of use.

Inclusion and the Owners’ Pool of Names
Only a tiny minority of urban patrician owners baptized their slaves and used the same name pool as they did for their own natural children. But some owners used names from their own pool and did not baptize their slaves. Aside from baptizing slaves, using family names for slaves represents the highest level of inclusion into the owners’ domestic circle. These naming patterns, when cross-tabulated with the sex and age of the slave, provide several statistically significant and revealing patterns.

What is most surprising is that the big variation is by sex, when one might reasonably have expected to find creole status and age the determinants. Female slaves, whether young or old, had the highest percentage of owners’ names. Young were named, like men, with names drawn from outside the owners’ pool. But here one is also seeing up the “capon” effect, because young male slaves were more often targeted in the oceanic slave trade. The socialization of male slaves as outsiders, at least so far as the names reveal, started early.

Slave women born in the colony were much more likely to have names from owners’ pool. Imported African slaves, male and female, were the next most to have owners’ names, but it must be remembered that the African slaves early in the colony’s history – in the first two decades – when there was a strong idealistic and inclusive Reformed tradition. African slaves also had the biggest proportion of facetious names.

Creole slaves, some of whom were born in the owner’s house, are a special as they were rarely sold. Their naming patterns are also revealing. Girls were named most closely in accordance with their owners’ naming patterns, then women. Creole boy slaves had fewer owners’ names the men, but all male slaves were obviously scheduled for the periphery of the household. The socialization of creole slaves was fierce, the patterns stark. Young creole boys had the highest percentage of facetious names of all groups apart from imported African slaves.

Some slaves did see through the naming schemes and rejected the facetious names – usually reserved for imported slaves – in favor of names of their own choosing. For example, in the more detailed crime records a slave might identified by a formal and a self-chosen name, as “Scipio of Bengal, known round about as Kees.”. Such a name was called a skuilnaam (literally, “a hiding name”). Over time, more and more slaves rejected their slavish names, and by the nine­teenth century, slave aliases and Muslim names were common, for example, Dort van de Kaap, Achmat van Bengal, Abdul Malik van Batavia, and so on. These illustrate the growth of an alternative culture, but the three-level naming pattern nevertheless remained constant.

Slaves were named, for ease of identification, by origin, and if this conflicted with a similar name, as noted earlier, a physical identification was added and finally, if there was still some repetition of names, yet another name. The three-level naming system for full-breed slaves at the Cape , similar to the European system, differed in the frequency and geographical range of the use of toponyms: slaves invariably had a broad toponym; Europeans usually had a narrow toponym. Creole slaves’ naming pattern followed the system of the contemporary dominant European order, but still disclosed the slave’s descent status. Mulatto slaves’ names were almost indistinguishable from owners’ names. Once manumitted, there was no change in their names and they smoothly entered the ranks of the free – and sometimes became slave owners themselves.

These points go some way toward explaining the plethora of racial and ethnic stereotyping found scattered throughout the later eighteenth- and nineteenth-century sources on the Cape . The early practice of systematically recording in the region of origin suggests that this was considered the single most useful bit of information about a slave, even when the age was sometimes left out the transfer. As the slave population became increasingly creolized, the system was modified, but by then some identities had become established. For instance, favoured, locally born slaves were still considered “Malay” in the nineteenth

Like the European Christian master class, they too, forged an identity on descent.

The slave names at the Cape were descriptive tags that constantly reminded householders of their slaves’ racial descent, origin, language, sometimes parenthood, but always their slave status. The more facetious names were often reserved for male imported slaves, young and old, but even creole children were often named in this way. Based on the evidence of naming slave women were on the inside track in Cape household slavery. Their total incorporation into the household as nannies, concubines, or wives prompts comparison with other lineage slavery systems on the African continent. The slave naming system was certainly only a minor part of the hegemonic apparatus the owners had constructed, but it was an aspect adumbrated, meticulously recorded, deeply imbedded, and universal. Relics system still survive, as any telephone directory in the Cape Province will bear.

With kind permission – Prof. Robert Shell

An excerpt from the thesis “British Policy Towards the Malays at the Cape of Good Hope 1795-1850)

By Ghamim Harris B.A. (UCT) M.A. (U. W. Wash.)

The building of mosques was one of the most important activities of the Malay community at the Cape of Good Hope. Very few accounts, except that of Rochlin (1), have been written to examine this aspect of the development of Islam at the Cape. In recent years an excellent attempt was made by Bradlow and Cairns, on the Muslims at the Cape, with information on the Auwal mosque, (2) which other contemporary writers (3) have ignored.
There is no documentary evidence that an attempt was made to build a mosque before 1790. There is evidence that the Muslims at the Cape made an attempt to build a Mosque in the late 1790′s. The invasion by the British in 1795 and the Dutch defense of the Cape gave the Muslims the opportunity to enlist the support of the governing authorities to grant them permission to build a mosque. The Dutch authorities before 1750 did not condone the spread of Islam; they were only interested in converting slaves to Christianity. However, this all change with the publication of Van der Parra’s Plakaat, or Code of Laws (4); the Dutch followed more tolerable attitude towards Muslims at the Cape and in the East Indies. This action may have fostered the development of a positive attitude towards Muslim community in Cape Town.

The Malays had always held their religious services in prayer rooms set aside in the houses of imams. They now saw a changed attitude, which may lead to the building of a mosque.
The first literary reference to any kind of mosque was made by Thunberg:

On the 20th of June (1772), the Javanese here celebrated their new year. For this purpose they had decorated an apartment in a house with carpets, that covered the ceilings, walls and floor, At some distance from the furthest wall an altar was raised, from the middle of which a pillar rose up to the ceiling, covered with narrow slips of quilt paper and gilt alternately; from above, downwards ran a kind of lace between the projecting edges. At the base of this pillar were placed bottles with nosegays stuck in them. Before the altar lay a cushion, and on this a large book. The women, who were still standing or sitting near the door, were neatly dressed, and the men wore nightgowns of silk or cotton. Frankincense was burned. The men sat crosslegged on the floor, dispersed all over the room. Several yellow wax candles were all lighted up. Many of the assembly had fans, which they found very useful for cooling themselves in the great heat necessarily produced by the assemblage of a great number of people in such a small place. Two priests were distinguished by a small conical cap from the rest, who wore handkerchiefs tied about their heads in the form of a turban. About eight in the evening the service commenced when they began to sing, loud and soft alternately, sometimes the priest read out of a great book that lay on the cushion before him.

I observed them reading after the Oriental manner, from right to left, and imagined it to be the Alcoran they were reading, the Javanese being mostly Mohamedans. Between the singing and reading, coffee was served up in cups, and the principal man of the congregation at intervals accompanied their singing on the violin. I understood afterwards that this was a Prince from Java (5) , who had opposed the interest of the Dutch East India Company, and for that reason had been brought from his native country to the Cape, where he lives at the Company’s expense. (6)

Writing about the same time as Thunberg was at the Cape, George Forster, wrote of the Malays that: “A few of them follow the Mohommedan (sic) rite, and weekly meet in a private house belonging to a free Mohommedan, in order to read, or rather chant several prayers and chapters of the Koran.” (7)

The above two quotes support earlier testimony that Malays owned property and that the Dutch had become more tolerant after 1750. The Dutch tolerated the practice of Islam, while denying official recognition. In an earlier chapter it was pointed out that some plakaats were not really enforced, although they remained on the statute books.
The free Malays obtained the right to own land. Not necessarily because of changes in the legal system, but de facto, by the purchase of property, this was legally registered in the name of the owner. This is an acknowledgement that they had the right to purchase and own real estate. Moodie mentions many Black Free Burghers who owned considerable property. (8)

Since many of the Free Blacks were Malays, it is logical that many Malays owned real estate. In a footnote Moodie observed, “The opinion that the right of Burghership was an exclusive privilege of the Whites, seems to have no foundation in law, …” (9) Another early writer, who visited the Cape in 1799, Mirza Abu Taleb Khan, wrote “… among them I met many pious Mussulmans, several of who possessed considerable property.” (10) The records at the Deeds Office in Cape Town, supports the fact that many Malays owned property in the central and upper part of the Cape Town during the first two decades of the administration of the British Government at the Cape of Good Hope.

On the other hand, according to Commissioner de Mist (11) and Theal’s commentaries on the administration of the Batavian Republic, (12) the Malays did not enjoy the freedom to worship in public. Public worship also included the right to build a mosque and to use it as a public place of worship. For the liberal de Mist, imbued with the spirit of “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity,” of the French Revolution, there was far too much opposition on the Council of Policy for him to extend freedom of religion to anyone, other than the members of the Dutch Reformed and the Lutheran Churches. The Batavian government at the Cape of Good Hope was not in control long enough to enforce their liberal ideas nor did they have the support of the majority of the white inhabitants.

In the late 1790′s some Muslims, among them Tuan Guru (Imam Abdullah Kadi Abdussalaam), and Frans van Bengal petitioned the British authorities for a mosque site, but were refused. Barrow wrote, “… The Malay Mohomedans (sic), being refused a church performed their public service in the stone quarries at the head of the town. (13)” This statement by Barrow has not been corroborated by any other documentary evidence.
A statement by Samuel Hudson, who was chief clerk of the customs, confirmed the fact that permission was granted to build a mosque. Samuel Hudson was a keen observer of events and gives a graphic description of the people, their attitudes and events at the Cape during in the period from 1798 to 1800.

The heads of them (Muslims) have petitioned the government and obtained permission to erect a church or mosque for celebrating their public worship, so that in a few months we shall see a temple dedicated to Allah and the Mohametan religion openly professed. (14)

Theal stated that The Muslims petitioned General Janssen for a mosque site. This was granted because of the impending war against Britain. Although permission was granted for the building of a mosque, the actual building did not begin, because of the invasion and occupation of the Cape by the British. Later the Muslims building on this strength again petitioned the new British Governor Sir George Yonge to build a mosque. This was their petition:

To His Excellency the Right Honourable Sir George Yonge, Baronet, and Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, one of His Majesty’s most Honourable Privy Council, Governor and Commander in Chief of His Majesty’s Castle, Town and Settlement of the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa and the Territories and Dependencies thereof, and Ordinary and Vice Admiral of the same.

The most humble Petition of the inhabitants of Cape Town professing the Mohometan faith:

The aforesaid humble Petitioners beg permission to approach your Excellency with all possible humility, and to represent to your Excellency that they labour under the greatest distress of mind by having no place of worship in which they may pay their adoration to God, conformably to the principles of their religion. They assure themselves your Excellency will admit nothing conduces so much to the good order of Society as a due observance of religious worship, and though they trust it will be allowed them that few enormities have been committed by the persons subject to your Majesty’s Government who profess their faith, yet they believe their being by your Excellency’s paternal indulgence furnished with the means of regular worship, that the manners and morality of their brethren will be greatly improved, and that they will thereby become more valuable members of society. They therefore implore your Excellency to grant then a little spot of unoccupied land of the dimensions of one hundred and fifty squareroods whereon to erect at their own expense a small temple to be dedicated to the worship of Almighty God. Your Excellency knows that the form of the religion requires frequent ablutions from whence it is indispensable that their mosque should be contiguous to water. A suitable spot is situated at some distance above the premises of General Vanderleur, and they humbly conceive there will be no objections to their little temple being there placed. They throw themselves at your Excellency’s feet, and beseech you to their humble and pious solicitations, and if your Excellency is pleased to give a favourable ear to their Petition they will by their conduct demonstrate they are not unworthy of your Excellency’s indulgence and protection.

And your Excellency’s humble petitioners will as in duty bound ever pray, etc., etc., etc.

Signed by “Frans van Bengal,” for himself and the rest of the inhabitants professing the Mohametan faith. (16)

The petition was signed by Frans van Bengalen in Arabic.
The request was approved by the Governor Sir George Yonge on January 31, 1800. Sir George wrote over the petition in his handwriting, “Approved.” ‘That was pending a report being prepared by the Proper Officer regarding the land described in the petition. Signed: ‘in G.W. Yonge, Government House, Jan’y 31 1800.’
On February 1, 1800, the Colonial Secretary, Andrew Barnard, wrote to the President and Members of the Burgher Senate:
Castle Cape of Good Hope
1 February 1800

Mr. President and Members of the Burgher Senate:
Gentlemen:

I am commanded by His Excellency the Governor and Commander in Chief to send you the enclosed petition from the Mohametan (sic) inhabitants of this place requesting that a piece of ground may be granted them for the purpose of erecting a place of worship thereon. His Excellency therefore desires that you will depute two of your members to examine the ground and report thereon if it may be granted without injury to the public or any individual.

I am, Gentlemen,
Your obedient servant, Signed A. Barnard. (17)

Unfortunately there is no record that the Burgher Senate inspected the ground or sent the Governor a report either approving or disapproving the request. Opposition by members of the Burgher Senate may have been responsible that the Muslims did not receive permission to proceed with the building of a mosque. By that time the Batavian Republic had taken over the Cape under General Janssens.

During the Batavian period form1803 to 1806, the Malays again petitioned for permission to build a mosque. Janssens true to his liberal attitude readily agreed. The Batavian administrators had a greater sense of tolerance than the Dutch East India Company officials towards the Malays, but they were also realists since they needed the assistance of the Malays to defend the Cape against the British. The mosque site was granted, on the condition that the Malays commit themselves to defend the Cape militarily (18). Janssens thereupon formed the Malay Artillery. The officers trained them to be a very efficient fighting force. However, before Janssens could execute this promise, the British occupied the Cape in 1806. The Malay Artillery fought bravely to resist the invaders that General Baird with no hesitation confirmed the promise made by Janssens. Theal noted:

The Mohamedan religion was never prohibited in South Africa, though during the government of the East India Company people of that creed were obliged to worship either in the open air or in private houses. Permission to build a mosque, which was granted without hesitation, and a commencement was about to be made when the colony was conquered by the English. General Baird confirmed the privilege granted by his predecessor, and very shortly there was a mosque in Cape Town. Another was build during the government of Lord Charles Somerset. (19)

The initial mosque may have been built in the stone quarry. This is located near Chiappini and Castle Streets. Little evidence remains of this mosque. This mosque could have been a temporary building. Since no land was granted to the Muslims to build a mosque, Somerset had noted later that the governor had the right to grant citizenship and to issue land grants to any person or group of people. Somerset granted the Malays permission to build a mosque. This mosque was the Auwal Mosque. Unfortunately this led to a disagreement in the Malay community regarding the leadership or the appointment of an imam at this mosque.

Tuan Guru (Imam Abdullah) died in 1807. His death resulted in a major dispute within the Malay community. According to letters written to the editor of the South African Commercial Advertiser, Tuan Guru did not want Jan van Boughies to succeed him as Imam.

Cape Town, 17th Feb., 1836.

Sir, – I present you my best compliments, hoping that you will hearken to my prayer. Sir, I have seen in the paper that they published, that my father, Imaum Abdulla, did not raise Achmat, who is Imaum now. I can assure you Sir, that my father called Imaum Achmat in, and made him promise that he would take care of me and of my brother, according to my late father’s wish; and therefore I wish to state to you the truth if I am called upon for the circumstance: but, Sir, you do not think it is pleasant for me to hear these uncomfortable circumstances. I can assure you, that my father having given the situations over to Imaum Achmat, so he acted according to my father Imaum Abdulla’s wish: and I can assure you that since my father’s death, Imaum Achmat treated us two as his own children; in fact, he could not have done better towards us; and may I wish that he may live twenty years longer in this world, for his is like a father and mother to me; my whole power is from him. Sir, I beg leave to say, also, that it is my place to stand at the head of all, because I had to promise my own father Imaum Abdulla, that we were not to stand before we were of the age of 40 years: but, Sir, because I am not studied through the books, therefore I gave it over to Imaum Achmat until I shall be able to take his place. And I can assure you that none of the others ever assisted me since my father’s death – neither Abdul Wassa, nor Jan of Bougies; as for Manzoor, I don’t count him at all – he is nothing.

And I wish, Sir, that the Almighty God will never change my heart from that church, or from Imaum Achmat, and May I wish that no one will bury me but Imaum Achmat, and myself had to promise my brother, on his dying bed, (my emphasis) never to leave Imaum Achmat, and that Imaum Achmat is to teach me exactly like my own brother. And therefore I shall stay with him as long as I live, please God that he may see me on the righteousness of the world. Honored Sir, may I pray of you that you will do justice to me and to Imaum Achmat, and may I hope that you will see into the case, whether it is justice. And may I pray to the Almighty God that your heart will be good enough to do what you can for me and my father Imaum Achmat.

I am Sir, your most obedient servant.
Prince Abdul Roove. (20)

This is the first evidence of a major split in the Malay community. Although most services were previously conducted in the houses owned by the Free Malays, before the building of the first mosque, some services were still conducted by other imams in their own homes. Many mosques were built at the death, of an imam, because the congregation could not agree on a successor, or if a successor was chosen an opposition faction would break away to form their own group and build a mosque. There is evidence in the Cape Archives of two major civil cases questioning the right of certain persons to be imams. (21)
PALM TREE MOSQUE or Langar:
This split in the Malay communtiy occured in 1807. Jan van Bhougies and Frans van Bengal broke away from Guru’s congregation to form a new congregation.
Since Tuan Guru stated quite clearly, according to Prince Abdul Roove’s the letter to the editor of the South African Commercial Advertiser, that he did not want Frans van Bengal as the imam of his congregation.
The free Malay community in Cape Town was growing rapidly in Cpe Town and numbered 1,130 in 1806. (22) By 1811 the number of Muslims would have been as high as 1,500, not counting the slaves. It is quite obvious that one mosque would have been too small to meet the needs of all the Muslims.
In 1811 the land on which the Auwal Mosque is located was donated to Tuan Guru’s congregation for the building of the first mosque.

Immediately after the death of Tuan Guru Jan van Boughies and Frans van Bengal (Frank) purchased the house in Long Street and took legal transfer of the property on November 30, 1807. The upper floor of the two-storey house was converted into a large prayer hall or langar. (23)

This was the first time that a house was converted for use as a mosque, since imams formerly used rooms in their homes, which was set aside as a prayer room. Because this house was located in “die Lange Straat,” houses that were later converted as mosques were called, “Langar.”
This has been the popular interpretation of the origin of the term. However, subsequent research discovered a much more plausible explanation of the use of the term “langar” at the Cape to describe places of worship which were not mosques. The Encyclopedia of Islam provides the following description.

In the Dutch Indies, two kinds of mosques have to be distinguised, the mosque for the Friday service (Jumah) – these alone were called mosque (masagijid, also mistjid) – and simple houses of prayer. This second category is found all over the country, especially in smaller villages and owes its origin to private initiative and partly to public efforts; they have native names (langar [Javan], tajug [Sum], surau [Malay]). The langar, or whatever it may be called, of the village, is a centre at which the salat (prayers) can be performed, but it also serves other purposes of general interest. The upkeep of the building is the affair of the community and in particular one of the tasks of the religious official of the village. The upkeep of the other langars, erected by private individuals , is left to them. The building stands on its own site and is maintained by the founder or his descendants. The owner, cannot, refuse admission to strangers who desire to use it for salat or as shelter for the night. Such private chapels are always found near Mohammadan seminaries (Jav. passantren). We sometimes find that these langars are endowned as as wakf (Jav wakap). The village langar on the other hand has a more public character.

The Mosques, i.e. the masjid djami, are found in larger places usually in those which are also centres of administration. Their erection and maintenance is regarded as a duty of the Muslim community. (24)

In 1811 Burchell noted that, “The Malays have also a house dedicated and supported by them. This latter building is nothing more than a private dwelling house converted to that use.” (25) This information refers to the house of Jan van Bougies and Frans van Bengal in Long Street. In 1811 Frans van Bengal left Cape Town permanently and made Jan van Bhougies the sole owner and imam of the mosque in Long Street. This house was then transferred to the sole ownership of Jan van Bhougies. (26)
Although the legend on the door of the house that is home to the Palm Tree Mosque says 1777, that date refers to when the house was built, not when it became a mosque or a langar.

One has to consider Jan and Frans visionaries and persons committed to the religion and their principles. They were aware of that the population was growing and and that the Malay community did not have the financial resources to build a mosque, so they literally put their money where their mouths were.

Frans van Bengalen was involved in the military when he assisted the Dutch against the British. He was the Javaansche Veld Priester in the “Auxillarie Artillerie.” We know that he witnessed the translation of Tuan Guru’s will from the Arabic (Malayu written in Arabic characters) to Nederlands. The original will was copied, by hand, in the presence of Frans van Bengalen on May 2, 1807. The other witnesses to this signature, was a person by the name of Watermeyer and the other witnesses were Enche Abdul Malik and Enche Abdul Wasing. (27)

Frans van Bengal was called a “Field Priest” in the street directories of Cape Town. He was an important personality at the Cape Malay community. He, together with the French officer, Madlener, led the Javanese artillery at the Battle of Blaauwberg in 1806. The other mention of Frans was in the records when he requested to manumit his slave, February 1789. (28)

Frans was one of those industrious slaves, who worked hard to accumulate his savings. By dint of good behaviour and determination and hard honest work to free him from the drudgery of slavery he bargained with his master for a price for his freedom. He was determined to raise the agreed amount of money, which he did and thus paid for his freedom. He continued with this attitude by raising more money, to become a fruit dealer and a fish seller. A few years later he purchased two slaves and a boat and furnished his house as those of other free Malays.

During this time slaves were apprenticed by their masters to become tradesmen. After they became qualified they were hired out to bring in a share of their labour to their masters. They were allowed to keep a portion for themselves. In this way many slaves were able to purchase their freedom.

Frans made it clear to his slaves that should one of them decide to embrace Islam, then that slave would be manumitted. He also made a condition with them that if they serve him faithfully over a specified period they would be freed and given sufficient money to start their own businesses. He was an honest man who kept his word. When the slave did not serve him faithfully, he was told, he would be sold. Several slaves received their liberty from him in this way. Business was good for Frans, and when the English took over the Cape in 1795 he was held in high esteem by the captains at the station, who recommended him as an honest person, who received work for several thousand rix-dollars at a time. Because of his stature as a respectable and honest businessman he made friends amongst the influential people of the Colony, like Admiral Sir Roger Curtis. He had become rich and deserved his honest gains. He was also instrumental in helping the Muslim community receive a grant of land on Lion’s Rump as a cemetery. Frans was often seen, when he was free from his numerous business endeavours using his leisure time working with his slaves building a wall around this cemetery to keep out the cattle that was always grazing at this sacred spot.

He intended to leave the Cape and had thus made over all his property to his wife and adopted children, and was determined to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca and to visit the grave of the Prophet Muhammad (O.W.B.P.) He had made several applications to captains of ships going to the east but have not been successful, until later in 1811, when he sold his half share in the Long Street Mosque to Jan van Bhougies and left the Cape permanently.
He married Mariam. At the time of their marriage, which happened sometime during the 1770′s? The name would have been Nederlands with an appelation “van de Kaap”. They had one son.

Frans’ name first appeared in the records when he manumitted his slave Februarij in 1789. He also signed the petition to Governor Janssens in 1794 for a mosque site, before the British occupied the Cape. He lived at 21 Longmarket Street, before he moved to Long Street.

Frans van Bengalen’s partner in the purchase of the Palm Tree Mosque was Jan van Boughies or rather, Enche Rajap Boughies. His will stated that he was a free man and his wife, Samida van de Kaap, a free woman. He was another one of those persons of whom there are many legends generated in oral history and void of documentary evidence. Jan van Bhougies was not White. The appellation “van Bhougies” was used because he came from Bhougies, in the East Indies.

The opinion that he was white was because his house was the first house in Long Street to have had a prayer room set aside as a mosque. Jan van Bougies owned this house at a time when Malays weren’t generally allowed to own land. Jan van Bougies was the only other person, besides, Tuan Guru, in South Africa to have transcribed the Quran from memory. The last page of the Quran, written in Malayu with the Arabic script, indicated that his monumental task was completed after Assar on the 14th day of Jamaadiel Thani (29) in the year of 1218 A.H. (30) of the Prophet (O.W.B.P.) (31) by Enche Rajab Bougies (Jan van Bougies), son of Jafaar Abu Nya Yakiem. The Quran (32) was passed on to Imam Mammat, (33) who was the successor of Jan van Bougies (Jan van Batavia).
The date corresponds to approximately September 30th 1803 A.D and the translation was made by Hajjie Achmat Brown.

Jan van Bhougies died in 1845, at the age of 112. This age must have been according to the Islamic calendar. This was quite an achievement to live to such a ripe old age. His will made in 1811 he described himself as a free person. He was at that time a man of property who accumulated enough money to have a half share in the purchase of the Long Street property, of which he later assumed full ownership. In 1848 his wife, Samida van de Kaap made her will in which she stipulated that the house in Long Street, used by her late husband, Jan van Bhougies, as a Mohammedan church should be left to the then priest, Maamat van de Kaap, elders, and deacons of the Church of Jan van Bhougies. After their deaths it shall not be sold, pawned or rebuilt, and it will remain the sole property of the Mohammedan congregation under the name of The Church of Jan van Bhougies. Jan van Bhougies also owned a house at 19 Long Street, which was worth £300 at that time. This is quite a princely sum of money in 1845. The administration of his estate was ordered by the Supreme Court. The file on his estate was closed on 11th July 1872.

Samida’s will transferred the property in Long Street, which housed the Church of Jan van Bhougies to Maamat, who was the sole survivor of all the persons named in the will, and who was then the imam.
Samida’s will led to a protracted civil case which, commenced on February 26th 1866, when the case of Ismail and others, Imams, Gatieps and Bilals of the said church came before Justice J. Bell.

“Mammat, the priest who was a member of the corps, was wounded in the battle.” (34) He died at the age of 104 in 1864. His obituary, in a local newspaper, said: “He was much respected by the Malay population, and deservedly so, having led a good life, and devoted his services to the cause of his religious calling with credit to himself and satisfaction to those with whom he came into contact.” The age is most probably according to the Islamic calendar. According to the Gregorian calendar he would be over 100 years old. He was listed in the street directories of Cape Town between 1811 and 1834 as a fisherman.
When the Javanese artillery was formed in 1804, Imam Maamat served under Madlener and Frans van Bengal, at the Battle of Blaauwberg. He died at the age of 104 in 1864 and his obituary, in a local newspaper, said: “He was much respected by the Malay population, and deservedly so, having led a good life, and devoted his services to the cause of his religious calling with credit to himself and satisfaction to those with whom he came into contact.” (35) He was listed in the street directories of Cape Town between 1811 and 1834 as a fisherman.

In 1862 Mahmat executed a deed, based on the will, appointing the defendants to be the imam, Gatieps and Bilals of the Church of Jan van Bhougies. However, he gave himself the right to dismiss any of those persons and appoint others in their stead. He also stated that the house should be transferred to those persons who were last mentioned in this deed and who were still living. Mamaat died in 1864. Between the transfer in 1861 and Maamat’s death, the plaintiffs, left the congregation, because of a dispute with Imam Maamat. According to the evidence the defendant, Ismail, performed all the duties of the Imam, because Imam Maamat was not able to perform those duties due to infirmity. He performed these duties with the full consent and support of the congregation.

The court held that Imam Maamat did not have the power to make the appointments by deed. Under the circumstances they were entitled to be held as duly appointed officers of the church and would be entitled to hold the premises in trust for the congregation. The plaintiffs also, did not lose their rights when they left the church to avoid confrontation with Imam Maamat, and were still entitled to join the service and the congregation at any time they desired. The judge also stated the both custom and law was proved that the senior Gatiep would succeed the deceased as imam. Lastly there is no provision in law or in custom that the imam has the sole right to appoint anyone to succeed him as imam.

The dispute in the mosque occurred when Gatiep with the greatest seniority, Hajjie Danie, returned from a pilgrimage to Mecca and started a campaign to change the manner in which the services were to be conducted. He obtained the key to the mosque and immediately excluded Imam Maamat from the mosque. Imam Maamat took legal action against Danie and others to re-instate him as imam and to have the keys return to him. This action resulted in Imam Maamat being return to his position as imam, which restored his control over the congregation. Danie and his congregation left the Mosque of Jan van Bhougies to establish their own “langar” in a private house. Maamat executed a second deed appointing Ismail as his successor and confirmed the other defendants in their previous positions as Gatieps and Bilals. Danie was the next senior Gatiep and Ismail was the Gatiep next in succession. This action effectively prevented Danie from again usurping the role as imam.

He died intestate, only a death noticed was filed. The death notice was filed on March 27, 1871. On March 27, 1871 an edict was published for a meeting to be held on May 9, 1871 regarding the Estate Late Imam Maamat. On June 9, 1871 the minutes of the meeting indicated that Letters of Administration was granted to Gatiep Moliat as Executive Dative with Kaliel Gafieldien, Mishal Kalieldeen, William Humphrey and Arthur Crowley as sureties. The liquidation account was filed on July 15, 1872.

Auwal Mosque:
Saartjie van de Kaap, the wife of Imam Achmat, who was one of Tuan’s Guru’s Ghateebs (36) donated the land in Dorp Street (Wallenberg) to build the Owal Mosque.

In 1811 Imam Achmat and Prince Abdul Raouf took over a three lot parcel of land on the corner of Buitengracht and Dorp Streets to build a mosque.(37) The site was owned by Saartjie van de Kaap. Her name indicates she was born at the Cape, because slaves were given names in that manner during the early reign of the D.E.I.C. The property was given to the Muslim community in perpetuity. She was the first female Malay land-owner in Cape Town. She gave the land as a gift to the Muslim community for the building of a mosque. The mosque (38) and a house were built on this site. The house was to serve as a rectory for the imam. Another house was added later on the site; on the corner of Buitengracht and Dorp Streets. Imam Achmat in his evidence, given to the Governor in 1825, confirmed the existence of this mosque. (39) The Auwal Mosque is regarded as the first mosque built in Cape Town. At this time it was not called the Auwal Mosque, it was called the Buitengracht Mosque. This mosque was built before 1814. General Craig gave the Malays permission to build this mosque. Contrary to popular opinion, and the date on the minaret, that the mosque was built in 1840, it was built earlier before 1814. It was built for Tuan Guru’s son, Abdul Raouf. However, Imam Abdul Raouf did not immediately assume leadership of the congregation. He only became imam on reaching the age of 40. (40) Imam Achmat was not to become imam after Guru’s death. However, he did become imam before Abdul Raouf reached the age of 40.

The land on which the Owal (Auwal) mosque is located and the adjoining house, is still registered in the name of Saartjie van de Kaap according to the records at the Deeds Office in Cape Town. The above property was first registered in the name of Saartjie van de Kaap on 13th February, 1809.

The properties were originally registered in the names of Douw Steyn. On December 16, 1777 they were transferred from the Estate of Douw Steyn to Jan Minnie, who later transferred the properties to Coenraad Frederick Faasen on September 30, 1784. Faasen transferred it ten years later to Coridon of Bengal on September 26, 1794. He appears to be the first Free Black owner of the property and may have set a trend for the acquisition of nearby properties by Muslims. Cathryn, also a Free Black, inherited the properties from her husband and on his death, became the sole owner of the property. Although Saartjie van de Kaap was already married to Imam Achmat the property was transferred to Saartjie in her maiden name. This didn’t make a real difference since Muslim marriages were not legally recognized. On February 13, 1809 Cathryn transferred the property to her daughter Saartjie van de Kaap.

Saartjie van de Kaap was an independent and strong willed lady who was able to run a household, raise seven children and run her own business at the same time. She has much to be admired when one considers the period during which she lived. The African Court Calendar and Almanac of 1811 listed her as owner of the Preserved Fruit Shop at 2 Boom Steeg. She also listed her as washerwoman at 28 Buitengracht Street. Another listing shows her as the owner of a retail shop at 20 Keerom Street. Her husband, Imam Achmet van Bengalen was listed as a Malay priest living at 42 Dorp Street. In 1821 she was listed as a seamstress at 2 Spin Steeg. Imam Achmet was listed in 1830 at 40 Dorp Street. The information indicates a lady with varied interests and business who was quite an entrepreneur for her day. It could have meant she owned these businesses at different periods, since that the family address was consistent with the location near the Owal Mosque in Dorp Street.

There still exists a belief that Saartjie van de Kaap was White. This was because of the official government position that only Whites or baptized Free Blacks could own property, both Cathryn and Coridon of Bengal were neither, although they still acquired freehold rights and became the registered owners of the property. Both Saartjie and Coridon were Muslims. They were able to purchase the properties and had it registered in their names. The information of the street directories indicate she was a woman with strong business acumen and was continually exploring new business opportunities. This act may have been responsible for her being thought of as a White person. It is rather unfortunate that the oral history and the myths surrounding the acquisition of these sites are not supported by documentary evidence. The other myth is the site was taken over by the Muslim congregation as early as 1794, when Coridon of Bengal bought this site.

Saartjie van de Kaap left the properties in her Estate to the Muslim community to be used as a mosque “as long as the government of the colony should tolerate the practice of the Mohammadan religion.”
She was blessed and fortunate to witness the building of a mosque on that site during her lifetime. According to Saartjie’s will there were four daughters, Noran, Somila, Jumie, and Rosieda and three sons, Mochamat (Muhammad), Hamien and Sadiek. Hamiem became an imam later. He was one of the signatories of a petition to Governor regarding the Khalifa.

It is interesting to note that many Muslims, whose last names was their father’s first name, thus Mochamat became Mochamat Achmat, born 1837, who in turn was the father of Gamja Mochamat Achmat, who died in 1915. This also follows the Islamic tradition but leaves out the “Ibn” (son of appellation). The other problem that one faces with the names of these individuals is that the White clerks who recorded there names on official documents had no idea how to spell them and would write the name as it it sounded to them. Another reason was the standard of literacy of these Muslims. They were not literate in Nederlands or in English so that they had to make a cross on official documents and were not always able to verify the correct information contained in those documents. The majority of them who left estates and wills, signed their names in Arabic, but had to trust their attorneys that they would implement their wishes correctly.

The following letters give a further insight into the problems of the Muslims community regarding the Imam at the Owal mosque.

Honoured Gentlemen,

I fall at your feet and entreat your forgiveness for thus intruding on your time, but I feel it my duty to add a few words. I can declare that Prince Emaum Abdulla, when he became weak, made Rujaap Emaum; who did not live long, at his death Prince Emaum Abdulla made Abdulalim, Emaum. I can also declare that before the death of this Prince, he sent for Achmat, and fully explained to him our Laws and Regulations, which Achmat swore to follow and never alter, it was also the wishes of this Prince – that Achmat would assist Abdulalim in performing his duties, this Emaum being very weak, and that Achmat would not leave him so long as he lived, which orders Achmat observed, until Emaum Abdulalim’s death. At the death of Emaum Abdulalim Serrdeen became Emaum; and at his death Achmat became Emaum. Before the death of the Prince Emaum Abdulla, he said to me and many other of his scholars – that it was his wish that we should all go to Achmat, and remain with him, and he would instruct and direct us in all things necessary which I did, and still remain with him.

This letter was signed by Abdolbazier. Similar information was contained in another letter written by Abdol Barick. (42)

Honoured Gentlemen.

I declare that when I was a scholar of Prince Emaum Abdulla, there was no church for our religion but afterwards there were so many Islams in the Cape that it was necessary to have a church; so Prince Imaum Abdulla made a church of the house of Achmat, which still stands; the second (Imam after) of Prince Imaum Abdulla was Rujaap, and I was a scholar of the Prince E. Abdulla. About this time Emaum Rujaap died; at which period Prince Emaum Abdulla made Abdulalim, Emaum; and me Clerk. It was Emaum Abdulalim’s wishes, that after his death Sourdeen should become Emaum, which took place; and I became under Priester, and Achmat was second of Emaum Sourdeen; so that at his death Achmat was Emaum. All I have to add is that from that time until now, I have never had reason of complain of our regulations. My prayers and supplications are for the welfare of our country and King, and I constantly offer up my prayers that the Almighty may shower down his blessings and prosperity on our Emaum, and all the worthy gentlemen of our Government.

I remain with respect, Honored Gentlemen,
Your humble servant,
ABDOLBARICK. (43)

In 1825 Imam Medien declared that there were two large mosques and five smaller ones in Cape Town. (44) The smaller ones would most probably be houses with prayer rooms. Imam Achmat confirmed this and added further:

I have officiated for many years, and for the last three I have been high priest. My predecessor, who died about three years ago, was the first to have been allowed to officiate and build a place of worship in Dorpstreet, where I reside. General Craig permitted him to erect it, and allowed the exercise of the Mohametan worship. This had not been permitted by the old Dutch government, but General Janssens gave authority for when the Dutch resumed the government, and when he enlisted the free Malays to serve as soldiers.

What number of places of worship has been erected? -

We have two regular ones that are acknowledged; the other is in Long-street. There was originally but one. The second was erected by a man named Jan; in consequence of a separation, he is not acknowledged by us. There are many persons who officiate as priests and instruct the people but they are not authorized to do so.

What number of people attend your mosque? –
About 50 attend every Friday, and there may be from 80-90 who belong to the mosque. There is no room for their families to attend. (45)

Imam Achmat states quite clearly that there were two established mosques in Cape Town; The Owal Mosque in Dorp Street and the mosque in Long Street. The latter one he states quite clearly was established because all split in the Malay community. It is also implied he would like to be responsible for “acknowledging” mosques and imams, hence his self-styled title, “high priest.” One can also infer from Imam Achmat’s statement that the first mosque, built in the quarry was not recognized as a mosque. He states clearly that the first mosque was the one in Dorp Street.

The Rev. John Campbell, who visited the Cape, wrote a description of the Jumah prayers held on Friday February 11, 1814 in the Auwal mosque.

On Friday, the 11th February, I visited a Mohametan (sic) mosque. The place was small; the floor was covered with green baize, on which sat about a hundred men, chiefly slaves, Malays and Madagascars. All of them wore clean white robes, made in the fashion of shirts, and white pantaloons, with white cotton cloths spread before them, on which they prostrated themselves. They sat in rows, extending from one side of the room to the other. There were six priests, wearing elegant turbans, a chair having three steps up to it, stood at the east end of the place, which had a canopy supported by posts, resembling the tester of a bed without trimmings. Before this chair stood two priests, who chanted something, I suppose in the Malay language, in the chorus of which the people joined. At one part of it the priests held their ears between the finger and the thumb of each hand, continuing to chant, sometimes turning the right elbow upwards and the left downwards, and then the reverse. After this form was ended, one of the priests covered his head and face with a white veil, holding in his hand a long black staff with a silver head, and advanced in front of the chair. When the other had chanted a little, he mounted a step, making a dead halt; after a second chanting he mounted the second step, and in the same way the third, when he sat down upon the chair. He descended in the same manner.

The people were frequently, during this form, prostrating themselves in their ranks as regularly as soldiers exercising. A corpulent priest then standing in the corner, near the chair with his face to the wall, repeated something in a very serious singing manner, when the people appeared particularly solemn; after which the service concluded. (46)

Further confirmation was the statement by Campbell was the statement, “… holding in his hand a long black staff with a silver head …” This “staff” was Tuan Guru’s tonka. The tonka is a staff which the imam holds in his hand during the sermon (khutbah). The silver head is the identification mark of Tuan Guru. Since Campbell visited the mosque in 1814, is clear evidence that the mosque was completed before 1814.

In 1822 William Wilberforce Bird noted that the Malays met in private houses and rooms. It appears that this civil servant was not aware that there were two mosques in Cape Town. It is strange that such a well known civil servant was not aware of the Auwal Mosque was built, so that in 1822 it went unmentioned in an account.

The Malays, who are supposed to amount to nearly three thousand, carry on their devotion in rooms and halls fitted up for the purpose and occasionally in the stone quarries near the town. One of their Imams is said to be a learned man, well versed in the Hebrew and Arabic tongues, and in Al Coran, which he chants with taste and devotion. It must be acknowledged with shame and sorrow, that Mohametanism makes great progress amongst the lower orders at the Cape. But where there is the greatest zeal, there will be the most effect. (47)

Bird clears up a very important point, that in spite of building the Auwal Mosque, the stone quarry continued to be used as a place of assembly and a place for prayer. It could also be because the original mosque was still there, and he simply thought the quarry was used as an “open air” assembly.

Tuan’s Guru’s sons, Abdul Raouf and Abdul Rakiep followed their father, but were only able to become imams when they reached 40. A person by the name of Isaac Muntar who appeared as a witness in this civil action in the civil action of Achmat Sadick and Others vs. Abdul Rakiep or Ragiep, August 28 to September 2, 1873; stated that Imam Abdul Roove was the first imam, although Imam Achmat van Bengalen was the imam but had the step aside when Imam Abdul Roove reach the age of majority (40 years). Witnesses also mentioned that Imam Abdul Rakiep was imam at the same time as his brother. Both of them became imams at the Auwal Mosque.

The court case, Achmat Sadick and Others vs. Abdul Rakiep verified this information, but it calls the mosque in dispute, the Buitengracht Mosque. The civil action was brought by the youngest son of Imam Achmat and Saartje van de Kaap, Achmat Sadick against Tuan Guru’s grandson, Abdul Rakiep, the son of Imam Abdul Roove. The plaintiffs, Achmat Sadick and Others, wanted to evict the Imam Abdul Rakiep, because he had become a Hanafee, since he was taught by Abu Bakr Effendi. Although Imam Abdul Rakiep was awarded the judgment with cost and thus won the civil suit. One could say he won the battle but lost the war, because he actually lost the role of imam of that mosque. The descendants of Tuan Guru moved to the Mosque in Main Road, Claremont, while the Achmat family resumed their roles as imams of the Owal Mosque. This was evidence in the book by Bradlow and Cairns on the family of Imam Achmat. Imam Mochamat Achmat’s will stated that he appointed his son, Amienodien Gamja imam at the “Mohammedan Church” corner of Dorp and Buitengracht Streets. The inference is that the present house on the corner of Buitengracht and Dorp Streets was a later addition.

The mosque that was called in the civil case, the “Buitengracht Mosque” and the Nurul Islam Mosque, located at 134 Buitengracht Street is not the same mosque. The following information will help to explain the history of the two mosques. The land on which the Owal Mosque is located is designated as Erf #2839. This parcel of land was transferred to Coridon van Bengal on September 26, 1794, and was later transferred from the Estate late Coridon van Bengal to Saartjie van de Kaap on February 3, 1809. Coridon was Saartjie’s father. The other lot, which is Erf # 2840 was transferred from Cathryn van de Kaap, the mother of Saartjie van de Kaap, to Saartjie van de Kaap on December 6, 1811. The mosque site is still in the name of Saartjie van De Kaap, when I examined the records at the Deeds Office in Cape Town. The other lot, Erf #2840, was owned by Achmat van Bengalen. That lot was on the corner of Buitengracht and Dorp Streets.

In the 1873 court case , Sedick vs Rakiep (Tuan Guru’s grandson) the Owal Mosque was referred to as the Buitengracht Street Mosque. The mosque at that time was located on the corner of Buitengracht and Dorp Streets.
The present Buitengracht Street mosque is Erf # 2797. (48) The Erf #2797 was transferred by JHM Isleb to Jassar Mohamed Saadien in 1905. Erf #2797 was subidivided into Erf #2797 (Lot B) and Erf # 2796. Erf #2797 or Lot B was later transferred from Jassar Mohamed Saadien to the Nurul Islam Congregation on September 30, 1912. On November 2 1928 The Noorel Islam Congregation sold that lot to Imam Gabebodien Hartley. On June 6, 1939 the property was transferred by Imam Gabebodien Hartley to the Trustees of the British Nizan of Afghanistan Society. This mosque is today called the Nurul Islam mosque. The records of the Deeds office show conclusively that the mosque could only have been built after 1912, when it was transferred to the Nurul Islam Congregation.

The Bulding of the Second Mosque

After the emancipation of the slaves there was a definite spurt in the growth of Islam. This led to further efforts to build another mosque in Cape Town. This mosque was built about 1850 in Chiappini Street.
Mayson describes a visit to the mosque in 1854:

There is only one mosque in Cape Town. This large, substantial but plain and unminaretted edifice has lately been erected with the concurrence and favoured by the patronage of the municipal authorities: with an implied guarantee that it was to be used by the Mohametans in common, irrespective of their misunderstandings. It is occupied by one section of them only. A smaller mosque was used before the present one was built; before its erection the Malays performed their religious services in the adjacent stone quarries. There are about twelve chapels or mosjids, for daily service, in the houses of superior priest. Each of these, as well as the mosque, contains a painted and arched recess at the end opposite the entrance, indicating the direction of Mecca; and is scrupulously clean. (49)

This description applies to the second mosque built in Cape Town. This mosque is the Jamia Mosque, located on the corner of Chiappini and Castle Streets, constructed about or before 1850.

This mosque site was granted by the British authorities in co-operation and exchange for their support in the border War of 1846 against the Xhosas. A description of their participation was given in an earlier chapter. Queen Victoria made good her promise of the mosque site as well as the rights to the land area in Faure, near the site of Sheik Joseph’s grave. The mosque site was originally owned by the Municipality of Cape Town and transferred to Imam Abdul Wahab in 1857. The two sites were granted in freehold to the Muslim community under the trusteeship of Imam Abdul Wahab. This mosque, because of the grant of the British authorities, had the British Coat of Arms above the Mighrab (or niche), and is the only one that had the feathers of the Prince of Wales above the mimbar (altar). For this reason the Jamia Mosque was sometimes called the Queen Victoria Mosque. (50) The first imam was Imam Abdulbazier, who was only Imam for a few months. He was succeeded by Imam Abdul Wahab in 1852.

This was the same mosque which Lady Duff Gordon visited on Friday, March 21, 1862.

I had just come from prayer, at the Mosque in Chiappini Street, on the outskirts of the town. A most striking site. A large room like the country ballroom with glass chandeliers, carpeted with a common carpet, all but a space at the entrance, railed off for shoes; the Caaba and pulpit at one end; over the niche, a crescent painted; and over the entrance door a crescent, an Arabic inscription and the royal arms of England! A fat jolly Mollah looked amazed as I ascended the steps; but when I touched my forehead and said ‘Salaam, Aleikoom,’ he laughed and said, ‘Salaam, Salaam,’ come in, come in! The faithful poured in, all neatly dressed in their loose drab trousers, blue jackets, and red handkerchiefs on their heads; they left their wooden clogs in company with my shoes, and proceeded, as it appeared to strip. Off with jackets, waistcoats, and trousers, with the dexterity of a pantomime transformation; the red handkerchief was replaced by a white skull-cap, and a long large white shirt and full white drawers flowed around them. How it had all been stuffed into the trim jacket and trousers, one could not conceive. Gay sashes and scarves were pulled out of a little bundle in a clean silk handkerchief and a towel served as prayer-carpet. In a moment the whole scene was as oriental as if the Hansom cab I had come in existed no more. Women suckled their children, and boys played among the clogs and shoes, all the time, and I sat on the floor in a remote corner. The chanting was very fine, and the whole ceremony decorous and solemn. It lasted an hour; then the little heaps of garments were put on, and the congregation dispersed, each man first laying a penny on a curious little old Dutch-looking, heavy ironbound chest, which stood in the middle of the room. (51)

In my interview with Imam M. Nacerodien in 1976 he stated that the mimbar and the tonga were the original ones that were used when the mosque opened in 1857. He claimed that the mosque was opened on November 9, 1857. He stated that this statement would be verified by an article in the Cape Argus of November 9, 1957, when they celebrated the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Jameah Mosque. Unfortunately I have not been able to verify these dates and the information.

The mosques in Cape Town were built in the same styles as the mosques in the East or in other Islamic countries. One reason for this could be the cost of building a mosque and the financial state of the Muslims. In 1861 an article on “Islam at the Cape” which appeared in the Cape Monthly Magazine, an unknown observer gives the following description about the Muslims of Cape Town:

Their mosques are assimulated externally as near as may be, to the style of Christian churches of the locality, and have precisely the appearance of the ‘Bethel’ of some English country place designed by the village carpenter. These structures are called, even by the Dutch, ‘Islamsche Kerk’, and we all remember that the priests, although they were probably put up to it, as a political manoeuvre, did actually petition the Colonial Parliament for a share of the sums voted for Ecclesiastical purposes.

The original building gave the appearance of a church. The only explanation I can offer for this is that the architect or the draughtsman was familiar with the appearance of a church and had never seen mosque.
A few years later a fourth mosque was built in Claremont. This mosque was built about 1855 (53) the site was donated by a Slamdien for the building of a mosque. A member of Abdul Raouf’s family became the imam at this mosque, and the trustee of the mosque was to be the imam at the Auwal Mosque in Dorp Street. Tuan Guru’s family became imams at this mosque. Their involvement at the Owal Mosque may have ended with the court case of Sedick vs Rakiep.

The evidence of the civil case, Sadick Achmet and Others vs. Abdol Rakiep indicated there was no Hanafee Mosque at the Cape by 1873. The Hanafee congregation decided to build a mosque. On December 12, 1881 Erf #2627 in Long Street was transferred from John Coenraad Wicht to the Moslem Sect Aghanaf. This mosque was completed shortly after it was acquired.

This has been an attempt to delineate the efforts to build mosques in Cape Town to serve the large and growing Muslim population during the administration of the British Government. Starting from a negative attitude in 1797 and developing towards a positive position, with the granting of the first mosque site in 1806. This grant acknowledged the Malays as an integral part of the population and de facto, their right to practice their own religion. Whether it was in fact an open admission of freedom of religion, which it appears to be, or it was an attempt to show the judicious and humanitarian attitude of the British authorities, is not clear. The development of Islam continued to grow and foster, and although it was a common policy of the British to grant church sites for all denominations, the Malays decided to apply for sites to ensure that this privilege applied to them as well. In spite of Theal’s assertion that another site was granted during the rule of Somerset, I have been unable to find any evidence of a mosque built during his administration. On the other hand, it may refer to the site of the Auwal Mosque. This site was not granted by Somerset, but he may have given them permission to build the mosque.

The last two sites were definitely an attempt by the British to offer the Malays complete freedom to practice their religion. British policies during this period seemed to have been more liberal, and definitely a positive reaction to a previous negative position as far as the administrations of various governors, and the Colonial Office, were concerned.

Footnotes:

1. S.A. Rochlin, “The First Mosque at the Cape,” South African Journal of Science, XXXIII (March, 1937) pp 1100-1105.
2. F.R. Bradlow and M. Cairns, The Early Cape Muslims, (Cape Town: Balkema 1978)
3. I.D. du Plessis, “The Cape Malays, (Cape Town: Balkema, 1972)
4. Roos, The Plakaat Books of the Cape.
5. Tuan Guru
6. Charles Peter Thunberg, Travels in Europe, Africa and Asia Made Between the Years 1770 and 1779. 4 vols. (London: Richardson, Cornhill and Egerton, 1796) I, pp. 132-4.
7. George Forster, A Voyage Round the World. pp. 60-61.
8. Moodie, The Record.
9. Ibid.
10. Mirza Abu Taleb Khan, Travels in Asia, Africa and Europe, I, p. 68.
11. De Mist, Memorandum.
12. Records, V, p. 120.
13. John Barrow, An Account of Travels into the Interior of Southern Africa in the Years 1797 and 1798. (London: T. Cadell & W. Davies, 1801) p. 427.
14. Cape Archives A602/9, Book No. 9, Hudson S.E., Manuscript Diary
16. Cape Archives, BO/154, Item 17, Incoming letter
17. Cape Archives, BO/154, item 236, Covering letter
18. It was because of this commitment that the Malays were formed into the Javanese or Malay Artillery, as it has been indicated in an earlier chapter.
19. George M. Theal, The History of South Africa Since 1795, (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1915) 5 vols. I, p. 4190.
20. South African Commercial Advertiser, February 27, 1836. The letter by Prince Abdul Raouf is printed in full.
21. Achmat Zadick and Others vs. Abdul Ragiep, August 28, 1873. and the civil case of Mahmat vs. Danie, 1866
22. George M. Theal, The History of South Africa Since 1795, (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1915) 5 vols. I, p. 419-420
23. This was called the Palm Tree Mosque (also known as the church of Jan van Bhougies). It was called a langar since it was located in the “Lange Straat” or Long Street. See another explanation in this chapter.
24. “Encyclopedia of Islam,” E.J. Brill, (London: 1913)
25. Burchell, Travels in the Interior of Southern Africa, p. 55.
26. The information was obtained from records at the Deeds Office in Cape Town. The transfer took place on October 25, 1811. The house was later transferred from Frans van Bengal to Jan van Bhougies.
27. The will was written in Malayu using the Arabic script. It was witnessed by Frans van Bengalen on May 2, 1807.
28. Leibrandt, Requesten, p. 463.
29. The sixth month of the Islamic calendar
30. It is approximately September 30th 1803.
31. O.W.B.P. On Whom Be Praised refers to the Prophet Muhamad. Whenever his name is mention, a Muslim would say O.W.B.P.
32. This Qur’an is currently in the possession of my brother Imam Yaseen Harris. It was passed from Jan van Bhoughies to Imam Mammat. It was owned by my grandfather Hajjie Mohummad Ghanief Harries and then my father Imam Sulaiman Harris. We were fortunately to find a person who was able to translate the Malay, Hajjie Ahmad Brown.
33. He was appointed Imam after the death of Jan van Bhougies at the Palm Street Mosque.
34. Eric Aspeling, pp. 16-17. Maximilien Kollisch, pp. 36-37.
35. Ibid,
36. Assistant imams
37. This mosque was called “The Auwal Mosque.”
38. The building of this mosque on the corner of Buitengracht and Dorp Streets has caused some confusion., since the court records of Sadick Achmat and Others vs. Abdul Ragiep of August 28, 1873, refers to this mosque as the Buitengracht Mosque, whereas it was actually the Dorp Street Mosque or Owal Mosque,. The Nurul Islam Mosque in Buitengracht was not the one referred to in the court case. This latter mosque site was only transferred to the Nurul Islam congregation in 1905.
39. British Parliamentary Papers #50 of 1835, pp. 207-210.
40. South African Commercial Advertiser, February 27, 1836. The letter by Prince Abdul Roove is printed in full in this chapter.
41. South African Commercial Advertiser. February 27, 1836.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid. Similar letters were published from Imam Achmat, Achtardeen and Hagt.
44. British Parliamentary Papers #50 of 1835, pp. 207-210.
45. British Parliamentary Papers, #50 of 1835, pp. 207-210.
46. John Campbell Travels in South Africa, (London: Flagg and Gould, 1816), pp. 327-328.
47. W.W. Bird, The State of the Cape of Good Hope in 1822. p. 68
48. Erf #2797 This lot was first transferred by deed of transfer # 160 on 28th June 1811. This land was transferred 24th October 1905 by JHM Isleb to Jassar Mohamed Saadien. Part of this lot was then sold (Lot B) and became Erf # 2796 by JM Saadien on 30th September 1912 to the Noorel Islam Congregation of Cape Town. Erf # 2796 was then sold on 2nd November 1928 by the Noorel Islam Congregation to Gabebodien Hartley. He then sold it on 6th June 1939 to the Trustees of the British Mizan of Afghanistan Society.
49. John Schofield Mayson, The Malays of Cape Town, (Manchester: John Galt, 1861), pp. 21-22.
50. Mayson, p. 32.
51. Dorothy Fairbridge, ed. , Letters From the Cape by Lady Duff Gordon, (London: Oxford University Press, 1927).
52. Mayson, p. 32.

Representatives of the free burghers on the Court of Justice (the supreme court of judicature) and later on the Council of Policy at the Cape. In the exercise of their functions the burgher councillors were not confined by any standing orders. It was, however, customary for the Council of Policy to confer with them on legislation affecting the burghers, and in some instances retired burgher councillors were also invited to attend preliminary discussions in this regard. Only since about 1780 did the burghers regularly have representation in the Council of Policy.

The first burgher councillor was Steven Jansz Botma, appointed in 1657 to serve on the Court of Justice for a term of one year. After the first year the free burghers were directed to submit a list of names from among which Botma’s successor could be designated. Hendrick Boom was the nominee, but the authorities having increased the number of burgher councillors to two, Botma was retained. One of the two members was to retire in rotation every year. In 1675 the number was increased to three, and in 1686 to six. From the time of Jan van Riebeeck trivial matters came within the purview of the ‘Collegie van Commissarissen van Kleine Saken’, in which two burghers sat with two officials and a secretary.

It had become customary to leave punitive expeditions against the Bushmen in the hands of burgher commandos, and in 1715 the burgher councillors were required to levy the costs of the expeditions from the citizens of Cape Town, the heemraden being responsible for the levy from burghers in the hinterland.

By 1779, under the governorship of Joachim van Plettenberg, agitation among a group of colonists for greater representation in the management of their affairs had gathered considerable momentum. These burghers already referred to themselves as ‘Patriotten’ (patriots). Among the measures they proposed was the appointment of a sufficient number of elected burgher councillors to counterbalance the officials. A strongly worded petition was taken by Tieleman Roos of Paarl and others to the Netherlands . Although this document was even submitted to the States General, it proved of no avail, the Dutch ‘Patriotten’ being at that time in the minority.

The only notable success attained by the petitioners was the concession made by Van Plettenberg in his reply to the Council of Seventeen, that an equal number of burgher councillors and officials could be appointed to the Court of Justice. Neither Van Plettenberg nor the Seventeen would tolerate a position in which the Council of Policy would virtually be dominated by the burgher councillors. The system of burgher councillors continued until the first British occupation, and in 1796 the Burgher Senate took the place of burgher councillors.

BIBL. C. Beyers: Die Kaapse Patriotte 1779-1791 (1930); Cambridge history of the British Empire , vol. 8 (1936); G. M.

Theal: History of South Africa , vol. 3, 4 (‘964); Eric A. Walker: A history of South Africa (1928).

Use of the facility for research by members of the public: R10 for the morning plus R10 for each transcript of a Certificate. (Because a number of the registers are now very frail, some dating back to 1825, we do not make photocopies but do certify each transcript.

Research by the Archivist: Where the EXACT date and parish is known R20 including one transcript. Extra transcripts at R10 each.

General search by the Archivist: For every hour, or part thereof, that a search is conducted, including one transcript R45. Extra transcripts at R10 each. As you probably know research is very time consuming and we usually estimate a minimum of two hours.

General conditions: A minimum deposit of R45 equal to one hour’s research must be made before any research can be undertaken. The staff are all volunteers and these funds go towards the maintenance of the facility. The Archive is part of the Anglican Diocese of Port Elizabeth and we have most registers (not all) that fall within their jurisdiction, i.e. Cradock, Colesberg, Somerset East, Uitenhage, Alexandria, Humansdorp and immediate surrounds, and of course, the Anglican Parishes in Port Elizabeth, about 70 in all.

Mr Warren Morris is in charge and is assisted by Rosemary McGeoghegan and Alice Mitchley.
Postal Address:

Telephone No: 041-365-1393 & Fax: 041-365-5238.
E-mail: [email protected]