Greetings:

I thought I should cast a wider net in an attempt to pinpoint the correct source of a document that was cited.

In researching the background into one of my ancestors, Jan Baen/Banen (or variant spellings) of 15th/16th century Esselijckerwoude/Jacobswoude, this website surfaced in my Internet search: https://www.moustache.nu/genealogie/parentelen/esse/esse.htm#BM2499

When consulting this researcher's work, I came across the following statement about one of my ancestors:  "III.1    Jan Baenenzoon van ZIJL, geboren ± 1468 te Esselyckerwoude? 08-03-1505: Jan Banen tot Jacobswoude draagt op 4 morgen in Jacobswoude (bron: Leiden, Stadsheerlijkheid + vroonwateren, 57 f 17v)
vr. med. van W van Duijn..."

In checking the source that was cited, it would appear to be the incorrect reference.  I checked the Leiden archives online, and it deals with a completely different record in the 1700s.  

Incidentally, I contacted the webmaster of the site a month ago, but I have received no reply.  Moreover, the Leiden archives were contacted but they were unable to find the correct source.

So, I am posting my inquiry here in the hope that I can lead to the appropriate source which contains reference to "08-03-1505: Jan Banen tot Jacobswoude draagt op 4 morgen in Jacobswoude..."

Thank you for anyone's assistance in advance.

Regards,

Steve
 

Wat betreft de bron van de vriendelijke mededeling.
W van Duin uit Sassenheim was een bekende genealoog die in diverse tijdschriften publiceerde,
onder andere voor de Historische Vereniging Oud Leiden.
Volgens Google lijkt het er op, dat hij circa 1995 voor het laatst iets heeft gepubliceerd.

Het is overigens vreemd, dat ze je in Leiden niet konden helpen, want ze
hebben die inventaris gewoon in huis
https://www.erfgoedleiden.nl/collecties/archieven/archievenoverzicht/details/NL-LdnRAL-0505

Wanneer de nummering inmiddels is gewijzigd, moet daar altijd een concordans van zijn.

Hi Jan: Thanks for your reply.  I scrolled through the PDF of the inventory, and didn't find a concordance number. Let alone anything remotely close to what W van Duin's reference. Update:  checked again, and I am afraid the item in question is not listed.

Unsure if I am correct, but this looks like the closest thing to what I am seeking:

991 Vroonregister, met verschillende stukken betreffende de visserijen, bijeengevoegd in 1734 en vervolgd tot 1793. 1539-1793

Deel B, 3e. L.

Extrakten uit de rekeningen betreffende de vroonvisserij, 1440 1597.

UPDATE:  This is incorrect.  The search continues.
 

Jan Banen is mentioned in another source.

Thanks.  I ordered scans for this record as well.

Regards,

Steve

Despite my best efforts, I am unable to locate the 1505 entry in question. I beginning to believe the source citation and statement lacks credibility, and does not even exist.

Hi Steve

The source citation is defenitely incorrect, but there could be some credibility in the statement itself. What could have happened is that W van Duijn found the record, and then he or the compiler of the Van Zijl site quoted the wrong inventory. The one quoted is 0505 - Stadsheerlijkheden en Vroonwateren. 
But first of all Jacobswoude was not one of Leiden's heerlijkheden (these were de Vennip, Leiderdorp, Zoeterwoude (including Stompwijk etc) nor were the vroonwateren located there (as far as I'm aware).
Secondly, the nature of the statement (Jan Banen gives (up) 4m land to ???)  doesn't fit in  the inventory 0505. It would much more likely fit into some other ones 0502 (Kerken), 0503 (Kloosters), 0504 (Gasthuizen) or 0513 (Hofjes). Or maybe 0519, where Jan Banen already is mentioned in 1512.

But, whereas land in Jacoswoude appears in several instances in these inventories, I couldn't find the 4 morgen of Jan Banen.  So this doesn't bring us any further either.

Regards, Frans
 

Hi Frans:

Thanks for trying. I guess we'll never know the source of the 1505 statement concerning Jan Banen.

Regards,

Steve

Hello Steve,

The term "draagt op" reminded me of leenprotocollen, so I looked at Hogenda what protocols were available for Woubrugge. Esselijkerwoude resorts under Woubrugge. I did not find the exact text you are looking for, but I did find a Jan van Zijl in the "Repertorium op de lenen van de hofstede Warmond"

https://www.onsvoorgeslacht.nl/genealogische-databank/leenkamers/repertorium-op-de-lenen-van-de-hofstede-warmond/4506/ 

"27. Een hofstede en woning in Alkemade (1472: in de Veen), groot 5 morgen, strekkend
van de weg door Roelofsarendsveen oostwaarts tot Jan van Zonneveld en de leenman,
noord: Jan van Zijl, Jan van Zonneveld en de leenman, zuid: Hendrik Gerardsz." and

"28. De helft van 6½ morgen land gemeen met Jan van Zonneveld met leen van Jan van
Poelgeest in Alkem. (1472: in de Veen; 1565: in Roelofsarendsveen), strekkend met het
uiterste eind aan het meer, noord: Lauwe Dirksz. (1565: Anton Nikolaasz. en erven
IJsbrand Willemsz.), zuid: Jan van Zijl met land van de hofstede en aan de meer Ja-
cob van Grieken, (1565: Wouter IJsbrandsz., Jan Jacobsz. en de leenman), west: de
lijdweg (1565: de veenweg), oost: Jan Clemensz. (1565: de Brasemermeer)."

There is also a "Baan Jansz." pre 1460 here. Maybe a father?

"126. 1½ morgen land in Eslikerwoude, oost: de wetering van Ofwegen, noord: Baan
Jansz., zuid en west: de leenman."

For what it's worth,

Michaël

Hi Michael:

Thanks for taking the time to help. Yes, the Baen Jansz you found would be the father of Jan Baensz.  I believe I have this record.

Again, my gratitude for trying to help.

Regards,

Steve

Speaking of the record which specifically named Jan Banen in 1512, this was posted on the Leiden archief site.  Please note: it's not the original, only a copy of it.  Unclear what became of the original record:  https://www.erfgoedleiden.nl/collecties/archieven/archievenoverzicht/scans/0519/2.6.2.2/start/0/limit/10/highlight/2

Hi:

Regarding the last posting, can anyone determine what became of the original record of the 1512 transaction. It appears it's recorded in Woubrugge archiefs? 

Hi Steve,

ELO: Toegang 0519; Inv. Nr. 4575 Afschrift van de akte van verkoop ten overstaan van de schout van
Jacobswoude (thans Woubrugge) door Jan Banen, Foy Mathijsz.,
Claes Jacobsz., Geryt die Groot, IJsbrant Dircxz., en Dirck Govertsz.
aan de hoofdmannen van het Sacramentsgilde te Leiden van een
losrente ten laste van de ambachtsbewaarders van Jacobswoude,
1512 jul. 28. Met bijbehorend stuk, 1900.
1512-1900 

It was metioned that the record was in archive 0519. You can search on Toegang. Once found, you choose to download it as a PDF and you can then use Ctrl-F in your browser to find the year 1512.

The original was in 1900 handed over to the municipality of Woubrugge whose archives are kept in the Gemeentearchief Alphen aan de Rijn https://gemeentearchief.alphenaandenrijn.nl/ 

They do not have a lot of resources online. Most of their online records are on the website of the ELO.

You could venture to send them an e-mail and ask about the record. Sometimes they are willing to make a picture with their phone and send that to you.

Michaël

The original was in 1900 handed over to the municipality of Woubrugge whose archives are kept in the Gemeentearchief Alphen aan de Rijn https://gemeentearchief.alphenaandenrijn.nl/

Are you sure about that Michaël? ELO holds the archives of the Municipality of Woubrugge:
125.1.03 Archief van de gemeente Woubrugge, 1811-1935 (1944) <LINK>

If anywhere, it should be in that archive I guess. That is, If there was a reason to keep it. Not all documents have to be kept indefinitely.  

regards, Frans

If the original is not on ELO, would the municipality have the original? If so, is there a website with contact information?  I'd like to inquire.

I stand corrected Frans!

I see now in ELO: 125.1.01 Archief van het ambacht Esselickerwoude en Heer Jacobswoude en van de gemeente Woubrugge, (1505) 1589-1869 (1870). https://www.erfgoedleiden.nl/images/archives/pdf/125.1.01.ead.pdf doesn't show any hint of the document you are looking for, Steve.

I find it confusing what archives and municipalities are devided between ELO and GA Alphen a/d Rijn.

Sorry for my mis-information earlier on,

Michaël

No apologies necessary, Michael. What's perplexing is one municipality wanted the original document returned to them in 1900 from the Leiden archives, and then it goes missing. It would have been a wider move for the Leiden archives to have retained the record in the first place.  All we have to go on and reluctantly accept now is a 20th century transcript of a 16th century record.  Between an incorrect source citation for an action taken in 1505 and now the vanished original 1512 record, it's become evident this branch of the family tree, especially in the aforementioned years is high maintenance.

The National Archives has a number of receipt records, for a lack of a better term in which landowners were and dollar amounts were paid. And example are the registers of Foyken Willemsz.  There's a number of ledger books under his name, but attempting to pinpoint which register covering the areas in Zuid Holland where these gentleman purportedly lived is the next course.  The question becomes: which register should be examined. That's the conundrum facing me now.  Any suggestions would be welcomed.

What's perplexing is one municipality wanted the original document returned to them in 1900 from the Leiden archives, and then it goes missing. It would have been a wider move for the Leiden archives to have retained the record in the first place.  

I think your interpretation of the circumstances is not correct here Steve. The municipality of Leiden had nothing to do with the case in 1900. Let me try to explain the sequence of events.

In 1512, the Ambacht of Jacobswoude sold a losrente (an interest) to the Sacramentsgilde of the Pieterskerk in Leiden. From then on, Jacobswoude paid 4 guilders per annum to the said guild. 

in 1812  the Ambacht of Jacobswoude became the Municipality of Woubrugge. As the legal successor, the interest was paid by Woubrugge until (apparently) 1892. 

In 1900 Woubrugge wanted to be free of the interest and offered a settlement of 75 gld to the Sacrementsgilde to buy it off. After taking legal advice, the guild agreed. Part of the settlement was a declaration by the regents of the guild on the back of the letter that the guild had received the agreed amount form Woubrugge.

The original letter of 1512 was an economic commodity, it had a value. As such it could have been sold, amd the question of which archive should keep it, didn't apply. It had an owner. 
After the settlement, it became worthless but of course Woubrugge wanted proof and asked for the original letter to be handed to them. And that is what happened.

It's quite possible that the whole 1900 file (all their own documents and decisions plus the original letter) had been kept for a while by Woubrugge, if only as proof that the authorities acted correctly. As such it was no different from any other decision. But how long?  Maybe 10 or 20 years? There would have been no reason to keep it.

Nowadays if would have been different as the original letter of 1512 would no doubt have been seen as a document of interest from a cultural-historical point of view.

One, perhaps remote possibility, is that it would be in 125.1.03  / 84-168 Ingekomen stukken / 139 1900
But I don't know if that is juist a register, or that it contains the actual documents. Could be the first, because as I said before it would have been likely that it was added to a file of the settlement.

regards, Frans
 

Hi Frans:

Thank you very much for the detailed reply and explanation of the circumstances behind the 1512 document.  Every point you made makes complete sense.

For us genealogists, at least a transcript of the actual document survives, and I accept it as genuine.

Regards,

Steve