NATIONAL OR NATIONALIST? A Critique of the National Monuments Council, 1936-1989
Franco Frescura

The first tentative steps towards the preservation of South Africa's cultural heritage were taken in 1911 when the Bushmen Relics Protection Act was passed. This legislation was aimed specifically at the protection of San rock art as well as other archaeological artifacts. However an awareness that the historical built environment was a valuable and non-renewable resource which should also be protected took somewhat longer to develop. In spite of the establishment of a Historical Monuments Commission (HMC) in 1923, existing legislation could do little to safeguard buildings and other artifacts from indiscriminate destruction. It was only in 1934 that the promulgation of the Natural and Historical Monuments, Relics and Antiques Act empowered the HMC to extend its protection to a wide range of artifacts, buildings and natural environments. As a result the HMC was able to embark in 1936 upon a relatively modest programme of monument declaration. This was continued with increasing vigour after 1969 when the HMC was replaced by the National Monuments Council (NMC), a body whose powers have since been extended by successive Acts of legislation promulgated in 1979, 1981 and 1988 respectively (NMC c1986). Up to 1988, a period of 54 years, 3581 buildings, sites and objects had been brought under the umbrella protection of the NMC (NMC 1988), an average of 66 proclamations per annum.

The work of the NMC has undoubtedly played a leading role in preventing the demolition of many individual historical buildings as well as the education of the general public on issues of environmental conservation. In more recent years however, the policy of monumentalisation as a conservation strategy has been subjected to increasing scrutiny (Frescura 1989, and others). There is a rising awareness among many architects, for example, that the character and charm of a built environment owes much to the use of a particular set of building elements (Theron c1984, Herholdt and Frescura 1987). These are often ephemeral and thus virtually impossible to preserve through the declaration of monuments.  Also a wholistic, multi-disciplinary approach to architectural conservation dictates that buildings be read in their wider context. This may make the process of monumentalisation irrelevant unless accompanied by parallel adjustments at a social, environmental or technological level.

This paper examines the rationale behind a policy of monumentalisation and the role that local architects have played in its formulation. It surveys the work of the HMC/NMC since 1936 and concludes by suggesting a series of measures aimed at making the work of conservation bodies more meaningful in the context of a post-apartheid South Africa.


A comprehensive historiography of architectural histories over the past two hundred years has still to be written, although a number of interesting books on the subject have begun to appear in more recent times (Rykwert 1972). For our purposes however we can begin to identify three broad trends of thought.

  • The first and older tradition follows a linear and compartmentalized pattern of thought, favouring the creation of stylistic and historical stereotypes based upon aesthetic patterns. The failings of such thinking are self-evident and are best represented by the "monumental" work of Bannister Fletcher, in all its nineteen comparative editions. His writings focused upon the outward forms of what Rapoport described in 1969 as a "high design" tradition, embodying the monuments of man, the works of the rich, the powerful, the idiosyncratic (Rapoport 1969).
  • The second propounds a view of history as a series of interacting synchronic flows responsive to socio-economic and technological forces and therefore accepts aesthetics as being but one of the significant features of an architecture. This thinking has typified many of the architectural histories written since the early 1970s and was probably initiated by the publication of Charles Jencks' "Modern Movements in Architecture" in 1973.
  • In more recent years a third school of thought has begun to emerge as the result of interaction with other disciplines such as anthropology, sociology and psychology. It argues that the built environment is governed by a series of cognitive codes, a language perhaps, which permits us to accept an object, picture or building as a document to be read and interpreted. The aesthetics of built form, material texture and decorative motif are now given equal place alongside spatial hierarchies and the social pressures which they reflect. It is argued therefore that an artifact cannot be fully comprehended unless read in its correct social context (Alexander 1977, and others).

The impact of such thinking upon the everyday practice of building is not easy to assess. Certainly the rise in recent years of a Post Modernist style of architectural expression seems to suggest that the writings of post-structuralist philosophers such as Derrida and Foucault (Sturrock 1979) have not gone unread. However the monumental and elitist quality of much of this work raises the question whether architects have truly understood the lessons that post-stucturalism has to offer, or whether the profession's rank and file have not merely adopted it as yet another aesthetic promulgated through the glossy journals. The implications of such attitudes in the field of culture conservation are understandably serious.

Architects, almost by definition and certainly by their very nature, build monuments. They build monuments to their clients, to their national heroes, to their kings, to their presidents, to their political systems, to corporate society and to their own egos. They build monuments because they are encouraged to do so from the very first moment they cross the threshold of an architectural school; because professional journals publish monumental work and sneer at anything smaller; because politicians and financiers reward them richly; because society lionises its monument builders and their power; and because, unlike other mortals, architects are given the opportunity of achieving immortality through their work. It is not for nothing that most architectural history books are littered with the monuments of patriarchal men: the religious shrines, the corporate headquarters and the homes of the rich and powerful.

It does not come as a surprise therefore that the programme for the conservation of our historical architecture in South Africa has become involved primarily with the declaration of national monuments. Not only have architects always been influential in this movement but our society, indoctrinated by generations of architectural historians, has come to equate monuments with "history" and, more dangerously, with "culture". This is plainly wrong. Not only does this marginalise the role of the larger community in the processes of history, but it also ignores their habitat, which at the best of times, constitutes the major part of the built environment.

There are, of course, other reasons why South African society should have become so concerned with the creation of architectural monuments. In cases where a small elite controls political power it also controls the writing, and the rewriting, of history. At a time when South Africa's white minority finds its legitimacy being challenged from a variety of sources, it is natural that it should seek to reinforce its precarious claim to tenure by elevating examples of its material culture to the status of monuments. Revel Fox perceived this in 1986 when he stated that:

"To achieve true cultural representation, our very history books will have to be rewritten. People, places and events with special significance for the different groups in our society will have to be identified ..." (Fox 1987)

However, like other architects of his generation, Fox is also bound by the concept of celebrating history through monuments. He went on to claim that:

"... there will be a need for new monuments to record the memories of past events" (Fox 1987).

This does not mean to say that, given a different set of circumstances, the concerns and reactions of the local Black community would differ radically from this standpoint. A good example of this was given in 1981 by Dr Edison Zvobgo when he was still Zimbabwe's Minister of Local Government and Housing.  Giving evidence as an expert witness in a court case successfully instituted to save Jameson House, in Harare, from demolition, he stated that:

"Nations who go about destroying their own buildings are in danger of destroying their own heritage." (Jackson 1989).

In this case Zvobgo was motivated by more than mere aesthetic considerations. In 1896 some twenty-two Zimbabwean patriots, who had taken part in a national uprising against the white settlers, were tried and sentenced in the High Court which sat in Jameson House. Thus, although the Zimbabwean experience differs from the South African on a number of significant points, the intent of their conservation policy remains orientated towards the preservation and declaration of individual buildings as monuments. As such then, its outcome is very similar to our own.

Thus, what is in question here is not the concept of conservation, but the manner in which this is enforced through a policy of declaring monuments.


South Africa's record since 1936 in the declaration of national monuments does not appear to have ever been fully assessed. Thus the objectives and terms of reference of the HMC, formulated in the 1920s, and first applied in 1936, are still being implemented almost unchanged in the 1990s by the NMC.

A survey of the HMC/NMC's records for the past 54 years makes for interesting reading (NMC 1969-1989). During this time some 2183-odd buildings, environments and objects have been declared. Using these as a data base it was possible to arrive at a number of conclusions.

  1. The bias of HMC/NMC declarations has been almost overwhelmingly orientated towards the Cape, 75% of monuments being located in this province (figure 1). The remaining are distributed between the other three provinces, with the Orange Free State containing less than 5%. It does not appear that a significant change of emphasis took place after 1974 when Brian Bassett joined the NMC (figure 2).
  2. Since 1936 the number of national monuments has increased at an exponential curve which exceeds the rise gradient of this country's GNP (figure 3). It is interesting to note that, in the fifteen years between 1974 and 1989, three times as many national monuments were declared as in the previous 38 years. This is probably attributable to growing public interest in the local historical built environment, although other factors of a political and economic nature have also played a strong contributory role.
  3. Since 1936 the declaration of national monuments appears to have taken place in a number of well-defined stages (figure 4). The establishment of the HMC in 1934 was followed by a brief flurry of activity which covered the years between 1936 and 1939. This abated substantially after 1940 when the Second World War and the economic downturn which followed it gave national monuments relatively low priority in the national budget. A small number of declarations were made annually from 1950 onwards, but their quantity remained modest, averaging only eleven per annum up to 1969. During this time the bronze plaques, which the HMC/NMC places outside proclaimed buildings, cost £13.10.0 (R27.00) apiece. This appears to have been a factor which affected the implementation of HMC policy to a great degree (Barrie Biermann, pers comm July 1989). From 1960, after South Africa left the Commonwealth, up to 1969, when the National Monuments Council was established, there was a gradual increase in the number of listings. In 1969 the number of annual declarations rose sharply almost every year until 1983 when the number of proclamations more than trebled. This year marks a high point in the activities of the HMC/NMC and since then the number of proclamations has undergone a gradual decrease until 1989 when the number of declarations returned to the same levels experienced in the early 1970s.
  4. Omer-Cooper has postulated that apartheid went through three historical stages of development (1987)
    • Baasskap Apartheid, which emerged in the 1930s with Afrikaner nationalism and was moulded by white supremacist ideologies from Europe. However it was only put forward as a formal political platform in 1948 by the Nationalist Party under Malan. It probably reached its climax in 1961 with the transformation of South Africa into an Afrikaner-ruled republic, although vestigial elements survive to the present day.
    • Separate Development, which sought to give racism a veneer of political legitimacy by formalizing colonial policies of land segregation and labour exploitation into an ideology of providing the various racial groups with separate-but-equal facilities. This began to break down after 1973 when changing social and political pressures inside the country began to bring about significant alterations in the South African economy.
    • Multi-racial co-option, which coincides with rising ANC political and military activity inside the country, widespread social unrest, increasing militarisation of white political structures, military adventurism both without and within the country, and attempts to impose increasingly repressive legislation and censorship as part of a policy of "Total Strategy". This stage effectively came to an end in 1989.
      During this time the work of the HMC and its successor, the NMC may be seen to act as a broad reflection of these social patterns (figure 5). Before 1960 the declaration of national monuments was relatively low key, marked only by an initial spurt between 1936 and 1938 and another in 1950. The tempo picked up perceptibly after 1960, the year of Sharpeville and the State of Emergency, and showed a slow but marked upward trend over the next 15 years. This reached a high point in 1975 following the independence of Angola and Mocambique and the breaking of the so-called Info Scandal. In 1976, the year of the Soweto student uprising, was relatively quiet for the NMC but the upward swing was picked up again the following year when Steve Biko was murdered and eighteen community organisations, including World newspaper, were banned. The period from 1976 onward was marked by the establishment of Bantustans as independent states, rising guerilla activity within the country and increased popular protests. This also marks the high point in NMC activity, and between 1983 and 1987, the years of greatest governmental oppression in this country, the Council created 826 monuments, 38% of the total number ever declared. Significantly once the incidence of violence began to decrease in 1988, so then the number of declarations show a marked decrease, reaching levels comparable to those experienced in the late 1970s.
      Although during the 1980s popular resistance to white minority government was countrywide, much of this struggle was focused upon the eastern Cape, a region generally acknowledged to be the heartland of ANC support. It is significant therefore that, when the number of monuments declared annually in this region between 1983 and 1987 is deducted from the national totals, the chart undergoes a dramatic transformation (figure 6). The all-time high of 1983 is reduced substantially while other totals, although still inflated, appear to be more in accord with the national average since 1978. Data indicates that in 1983 61% of monuments declared were located in the eastern Cape, whilst in 1987 this figure was 49%.

  5. The distribution of monuments among various language and culture groups indicates that the work of the HMC/NMC has generally focused upon the material culture of white Dutch settlers to this country. 97% of all declared monuments reflect the values of the immigrant white community whilst the remaining 3% represent the art, architecture and artifacts of 84% of this country's Black population (figure 7). The majority of these were archaeological sites or the location of San wall art, thereby perpetuating white supremacist stereotypes of indigenous South Africans as a group of rural and poorly educated peasants possessing little material culture of any note. The full breakdown, in percentages, is as follows (figure 8):
    • Dutch, including Voortrekker, Boer and Huguenot ……          33%
      Afrikaner, 20th century ……………………………………          17%
      English, including 1820 settler, colonial and Empire ….         37%
      All other white settler ……………………………………..            10%
      Black, including Indian, Malay, Slave and Griqua …….           3%
  6. The work of the HMC/NMC has focused predominantly upon urban sites, which comprised 66% of all declarations, while only 17% were located in rural areas (figure 9). 9% of the total were also concerned with structures which could be considered to have a modern or high technology component, the majority being bridges or an assortment of mechanical artifacts. Examples where colonial architecture has attempted to find an accommodation with local values and traditions have largely been ignored. This is probably indicative of a mind-set which has not progressed much beyond a settler mentality, seeking to emphasise immigrant roots and to justify a white presence at the tip of an otherwise "dark" continent. The marked lack of national monuments reflecting a more recent architectural aesthetic, such as Modernism and Art Deco, seems to strengthen this viewpoint. It also seems to indicate that the majority of officials employed by the NMC originate predominantly from urban, white, bourgeois backgrounds and have little in the way of inclination, knowledge or travel budgets to venture beyond the city confines.
  7. Analysis also indicates that 43% of declared national monuments originally fulfilled a domestic function, while 11% were of a religious nature. The remainder served a wide variety of governmental, industrial and public uses (figure 10).
  8. 76% of all national monuments were declared after 1974, when Brian Bassett joined the NMC. Understandably the concerns of the HMC/NMC have not remained consistent over the years and, in some cases, have shown extreme fluctuations. For example, all listed theatres and hotels were declared after 1974 although no artistic artifacts have been listed since that time. Similarly there has been a marked increase in the number of listed industrial buildings and urban domestic structures, while there has been a considerable drop in civic spaces, military installations, bridges, walls and natural features (figure 11).

    As a result of their enlightened work the HMC/NMC have managed to identify and immortalise some prime examples of South Africa's cultural heritage. These include the following architectural gems:
  • Hendrik Verwoerd's residence at Betty's Bay, which was canonised in December 1973. Known as Blaas 'n Bietjie, it is reputed to have been planned by its owner in 1961.
  • The cornice and pediment of 131 Bree Street, Cape Town, proclaimed in 1950. This building was subsequently demolished in 1971, thereby illustrating the effectiveness of conserving odd bits and pieces from a structure.
  • Two houses, one in Cradock and the other in De Aar, which, at different times, were the home of Olive Schreiner.

Among the artifacts which the HMC/NMC has lovingly preserved for posterity we can find nine pieces of artillery whose potential for demolition remains somewhat suspect; a historic hyena trap, found on the farm Bluegum House, in Graaff-Reinet; eighteen water pumps which, it is claimed, sum up the cultural heritage of Jagersfontein; and the first manufactured aircraft engine in South Africa, which is in the tender care of the Bloemfontein Museum.

The Monuments Council has also paid particular attention to the historic, and rapidly vanishing craft of digging holes in the ground. The Aandenk borehole, at Allanridge, in the Orange Free State, is reputed to be a prime example of its genre, whilst those wishing to fill in the railway tunnel at Waterval Boven will find their way barred by an angry crowd of NMC officials.

The demands of horticultural historians and arboreal architects have also been well catered for. Van Riebeeck's hedge, in the Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens, and remains of the same in Klaasen Road, Bishopscourt, are both listed monuments. Lovers of leafy lushness and luxuriant lumber can also visit an orange tree on the farm Groot Heksrivier, in Citrusdal, a fig-tree on a vacant lot in Church Street, Durban, and an acacia tree in Pietermaritzburg. They can also mourn over one syringa tree stump in Rustenburg, which is reputed to have provided the rump of some sainted volk hero with a temporary resting place.

An interesting item which also features in the NMC's listings is the engraved names of Slotsbo, Rhenius and Bergh, at Vanrhynsdorp, which only goes to show that today's vandalism is tomorrow's national monument.

Quite clearly therefore HMC/NMC policy since 1936 has been concerned predominantly with white, Dutch and Afrikaner domestic structures mostly located in the Cape Province. Significantly the number of declarations affecting the material culture of rural Afrikaners is particularly low. However a glimpse of Government policy since 1948, which used urbanisation as a means of reducing levels of rural white poverty, reveals that this lack is probably owed to a wish to submerge, or even falsify, the historical record.

It is also obvious that the policy of monumentalising our built environment has been used, consciously or unconsciously, to reinforce white political strategies and to support claims of white legitimacy in the region. This took place at a time when indigenous Black groups, wishing to cast off the burden of political and economic repression, were challenging this ideology. In 1982 the South African Post Office issued a set of postage stamps featuring 26 buildings from the colonial era. Significantly all were listed monuments, and ranged from Cape Town Castle, begun in 1652, through to the Union Buildings in Pretoria, finished in 1912, a period of 250 years. Although the designs were outwardly value free, both from a graphic and a philatelic point of view, their social context gave them a clear political focus. They could be interpreted as statements proclaiming that South Africa was an outpost of Western European civilization, while at the same time giving legitimacy to a White colonial presence whose work and ingenuity was evident through its visible and concrete monuments. The intent of this issue was summed up in its publicity booklet, which asserted that:

The establishment of Western European civilization at the southern tip of Africa towards the middle of the seventeenth century was the prelude that would in time to come give a new turn to the course of events in this part of the continent … Although … this culture was never completely isolated from Western Europe, it is also evident that it had a clearly indigenous character”. (SAPO, 1982)

The use of key words, such as “Western European civilization”, “culture” and “indigenous character” are clear markers to the ideology represented by such statements. In the mind-set of Apartheid ideologues the passage of time had allowed Whites to lay claim to indigenous status, while the creation of large-scale civic works presented tangible proof of their civilizing influence, their permanence, and their commitment to the country. At the same time it ignored the reality of the wholesale dispossession of rural land that had taken place in this country as recently as the 1970s, and reinforced conservative White claims to its control of productive agricultural areas. This stands in sharp contrast to the symbolism used on the Union coat-of-arms, designed in 1910, a scant 70 years previously, where an ox-wagon, representing the Transvaal, was used to represent immigration. As recently as 1949, a stamp issue celebrating the unveiling of the Voortrekker Memorial, depicted an ox-wagon, and proclaimed Voortrekkers as “heroes and heroines of our European civilization”. (Author’s collection)

The relationship between the HMC/NMC and ruling political ideology also needs to be examined. Since 1969 about 71 people have been nominated to the NMC Council. Of these 54 have been Afrikaans speaking, only three have been women and two have originated from outside the white community. At least 12 are known members of the Broederbond, the secret society of Afrikaners which, since 1919, has sought to regulate South Africa's political, economic and cultural life. These included FD Conradie, Member of Parliament for Oranjezicht, membership number 4765; Prof JJ Oberholster, membership number 4444, who was a member of the Council from 1951 to 1976 and in 1977 became its first Executive Director; Dr WA Cruywagen, former Minister of Education; and H Sloet, Director of FAK (Wilkins and Strydom 1978). The latter two were still sitting members of the NMC Council in 1990. (Appendix A)


Apart from the more obvious ideological role played by the NMC in giving legitimacy to past totalitarian and racist regimes, the Council's policy of monument creation should also be questioned on more fundamental and practical grounds. It is true that the creation of a small number of monuments within an urban environment can act as a focus for the restoration of smaller and less important historical buildings, probably through the intervention of private enterprise. It is equally true, however, that giving official historical status to individual buildings may, at the same time, de-recognise others about them, giving the impression that they are somehow less worthy of recognition and thus leaving them vulnerable to indiscriminate demolition and redevelopment. This is because current conservation policies single out special cases, idiosyncratic examples or buildings of exceptional merit, and, through the process of monumentalisation, isolate them from their social context.

This means that the larger matrix of historical buildings and building elements is generally ignored. This is incorrect, for such an attitude does not take into account the reasons why such built environments should be preserved. This extends beyond mere aesthetics, or associations with prominent persons and events, and begins to explain the nature of historical habitats. These environments have a scale which includes such varied elements as width of streets, height of buildings, material textures and a clearly defined and identifiable language of architecture. We feel secure in such surrounds, secure in our knowledge of place, time and self-identity. This is why South African tourists go to such extraordinary trouble to visit Pietermaritzburg, Pilgrim's Rest and Stellenbosch or, alternatively, why so few people choose to holiday in Welkom, Venterspost or Carletonville. In 1985 the citizens of Uitenhage, a small town in the eastern Cape, invited the Department of Architecture at the University of Port Elizabeth to conduct a survey of its historical architecture. There they found that although the place was endowed with a number of fine and well preserved civic structures, few historical buildings of a more humble domestic nature remained intact. Out of a total of 1983 buildings in Uitenhage's historical centre, only 3.1% were of interest to the conservation study. This compared poorly with other towns in the region such as King William's Town where the equivalent figure was 8.7%, and Uniondale where this was 18%. Even Oudtshoorn, which has undergone extensive redevelopment of its historical core in recent times, could boast a higher figure of 6.9%. It was estimated that, at the present rate of destruction, only a scattering of Uitenhage's historical heritage would survive to see the town's bi-centennial in 2004.

However, researchers from the University of Port Elizabeth also found that much of the town's architectural charm and historical character could be attributed to a variety of applied elements: timber sash windows, decorated roof fascias, cast iron ridge pieces, verandahs with cast iron or fretted timber trims, and ornamental roof ventilators. Certainly none of these items, taken individually, warranted the status of a declared "national monument". Yet the larger impact of the town was not owed to its civic buildings so much as to the textures of its domestic architecture and the modest scale of its well-wooded streets. Sadly, much of this heritage is being lost daily through a combination of ignorance, lack of maintenance or merely a desire for innovation for its own sake. This is a story which is being repeated daily throughout southern Africa's smaller towns and villages.

Perhaps then what is required is a new set of attitudes in our conservation policies. Whites are perceived by fellow South Africans to have a throw away attitude towards their spouses, their children and their parents while spending extraordinary sums on the preservation of old buildings, dusty books and rare artifacts. If national monuments are truly needed, then by all means, let us have national monuments, but let us use them as part of a larger policy towards the urban landscape. As things stand, monuments are proclaimed in isolation of the contribution they make to urban life. When Dr Nic Woolff conducted his restoration of the Donkin row-houses in Port Elizabeth, these were declared national monuments and, in due course, his work received a number of conservation awards. His citations make reference to the careful workmanship, to the exact recreation of details and to the landmark value of the structures. Not once has it been mentioned that the buildings create a corridor which not only links the city's business district to the historical residential core but, in doing so, they reinforce the conservation efforts of others in the area, incorporating them into a larger and more cohesive whole. This then is where the merit of creating monuments truly lies: to reinforce existing historical fabrics; to re-integrate old buildings into the present-day life and activities of the community; to return them from structural decay and the threshold of demolition; to serve as focal points for further development; to put a halt to a potential "domino effect", where the loss of one important building puts a series of others under the immediate threat of removal. Such buildings, in their turn, reward the community and enhance the architectural character of its habitat, creating an exciting stage-set for the daily lives of their residents. We must also recognise that urban redevelopment is subject to market forces which determine where opportunities for new economic growth may exist or arise. Thus a conservation policy which sets out to create a number of museums, sterile and devoid of life, must fail because this stifles the economic development of a town. On the other hand, a policy which creates opportunities for growth, also generates new environments. These are valuable assets which contribute to the welfare of all citizens.

Ultimately however, when we discuss a "conservation policy" in its wider sense, we are not talking about monuments, but are seeking to maintain and restore the character of a built environment and retain a worthwhile quality of life for its inhabitants. The words of Jean Cassou, written in 1968, stand as a clear warning against a conservation policy guided by the narrow concerns of sectarian "culture". He said "The only obligation that this 'culture' imposes on us is to preserve the testimonies of the past, and perhaps even more to preserve the opportunity they provide for self-glorification." (Cassou 1968)

Much as patriotism is claimed to have become the last refuge of the scoundrel, we must not allow culture and the monuments of culture to become the last bastions of the bigot.


This paper was originally published as part of the proceedings of the National Urban Conservation Symposium held at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 12-14 July 1990, under the title National or Nationalist: The Work of the Monument's Council, 1936-1989". Editors: Derek and Vivienne Japha. Cape Town: Oakville Press, 1991.


CASSOU, Jean. Art and Confrontation. Greenwich, New York: Graphic Society.  pp 8-9.
ALEXANDER, Christopher. 1977. A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
FLETCHER, Bannister. 1961. A History of Architecture on the Comparative Method. London: The Athlone Press.
FOX, Revel. 1987. Is There a Future for Our Past? CONSERVING A HERITAGE. Editor Franco Frescura. Port Elizabeth: ISAA. p 66.
FRESCURA, Franco. 1989. Who Needs Monuments? Juta's SA JOURNAL OF PROPERTY, Vol 5, No 2. 40-42.
HERHOLDT, Albrecht and FRESCURA, Franco. 1987. Uitenhage Conservation Impact Study. Port Elizabeth: UPE.
JACKSON, Peter. 1989. Zimbabwe-Initiatives in the Conservation of Historic Buildings. Symposium of the International Union of Architects and the Society of Egyptian Architects, Cairo, 12-14 November 1989.
JENKS, Charles. 1973. Modern Movements in Architecture. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
NATIONAL MONUMENTS COUNCIL. 1969-1989. Annual Reports Numbers 1 to 20. Cape Town: NMC.
NATIONAL MONUMENTS COUNCIL. c1986. The Aims, Functions and History of the National Monuments Council. Cape Town: NMC.
OMER-COOPER, JD. 1987. History of South Africa. James Currey: London.
RAPOPORT, Amos. 1969. House Form and Culture. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
RYKWERT, Joseph. 1972. On Adam's House in Paradise. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.
SOUTH AFRICAN POST OFFICE. 1982. RSA Vierde Vaste Reeks – Fourth Definitive Issue. Pretoria.
STURROCK, John. 1979. Structuralism and Since - From Levy-Strauss to Derrida.
THERON, Danie. 1984. 19th Century Port Elizabeth. Department of Architecture, UPE.
WILKINS, Ivor and STRYDOM, Hans. 1978. The Super-Afrikaners. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball.

LIST OF MEMBERS, 1968-1990

Adendorf, IA. 1982-1984. Inspector of Education, Historian
Balie, I. 1990
Bhana, S Prof. 1984-1987. Natal
Bird, Ms Flo. 1984 to date. Conservation activist, Transvaal
Brain, Dr CK. 1974-1984. Transvaal
Chadwick, GA. 1960-1990. Natal
Coetzee, GC. 1971-1990. Director, South West African Museum
Compion, Dr MH. 1982-1984. South West Africa
Conradie, DG. 1970-1974. Lawyer, Orange Free State, later moved to Cape Town
Conradie, FD. 1974-1990. MP, Cape Town, Broederbond No 4675
Deacon, Prof HJ. 1990.
Cruywagen, Dr WA. 1990. Formerly Minister of Education, Broederbonder
De Clercq, Prof JLW.1974-1979
De Kock, Dr WP. 1969-197. Vice Chair of NMC
De Kock, Justice MR. 1974 to date. Chair of NMC
Dorgeloh, A. 1976-1984. South West Africa
Du Plessis, Prof JS. 1974-1984. Transvaal
Eloff, Prof JF. 1969-1990. Archaeologist, Transvaal
Esterhuyse, Dr JH.1974-1977. Director of National Archives
Fehr, Dr William. 1954-1968. deceased 1968
Gaerdes, Fritz. 1969-1972. South West Africa
Gunther, Dr OK. 1977-1978. Deceased 1978, Senator, South West Africa
Hoffman, Dr AC. HMC 1969.
Hosking, Dr GA.1979-1981. Pietermaritzburg
Jooste, Dr JH. 1990. Director CKA Pretoria, Broederbond No 5221
Kearney, Prof Brian. 1984-1990. Architect and academic, Head of School of Architecture, University of Natal, author of Architecture in Natal, 1973.
Kieser, Dr A. 1940-1975. Chair NMC 1965-1969
Kotze, Prof Dirk J. Cape, 1969-1984. Broederbonder (Aurora Chapter)
Krynauw, Comdt DW. 1969-1974. South West Africa, later at the Pretoria Museum.
Lategan, Prof FV. 1970-1975. Philologist, University of the Orange Free State.
Liversidge, Dr RD. 1977-1990. Northern Cape, Director of the McGregor Museum, Kimberley.
Loock, JC. 1974 to date. Orange Free State
Malan, BD. Not listed as a member, but Secretary of the NMC in 1971.
Malherbe, Ms W. 1988 to date
Mienie, JH. 1976-1979. Archivist, South West Africa
Morgan, Mike. 1981-1982. Managing Director, Berger Paints
Neef, EW. 1974-1976. South West Africa.
Nolte, CB. 1974-1976, probable Broederbonder (De Aar), if the same person as one CB Nolte previously working in the Department of Cultural Affairs, Kimberley
Oberholster, Prof JJ. 1951-1976. Broederbond No 4444, Professor of History, University of the Orange Free State, moved to Cape Town, Vice Chair NMC 1974-1976, Director of the NMC 1977-1980, deceased in office 1980. Author of The Historical Monuments of Southern Africa, 1972.
Oberholzer, Dr JJ. 1988 to date.
Otto, Brig W. 1983-1985. Deceased in 1985.
Pelzer, Prof AN. 1969-1970. Registrar, University of Pretoria, Broederbond No 3381
Petzold, PO. 1979-1984. South West Africa
Picton-Seymour, Ms Desiree. 1984-1990. Cape, Author of Victorian Buildings in South Africa, 1977.
Preller, JF. 1963-1981. Chair NMC 1969-1974, Director of Archives, Pretoria.
Punt, Dr Willem HJ. 1955-1969. Director and Funding Member, Simon van der Stel Foundation.
Rennie, Prof Dr JVL. 1960-1979. Rhodes University, Grahamstown.
Rennie, John VL. 1988-1990. Architect and conservation practitioner.
Schoeman, SJ. 1970-1975. South West African Archives, Broederbonder (Brits)
Scholtz, Prof J du P. 1950-1971. Retired September 1971
Scholtz, Prof PL. 1974-1979
Scott, Dr JB. 1979-1981, Deceased in 1981, Historian, Port Elizabeth.
Singh, SS. 1990 to date.
Sloet, H. 1984 to date Director FAK, Broederbond No 7767 (Johannesburg North).
Smuts, Prof F. 1971-1987. Deceased 1987, Department of Culture Studies, University of Stellenbosch.
Snyman, Dr JH. 1982-1990. Deputy Director of Archives
Stals, Prof ELP. 1979-1981. Windhoek, moved to Transvaal.
Stander, JH. 1975. HMC, Broederbonder
Stengel, WH. 1973-1975. South West Africa
Theron, Prof Danie J. 1990 to date. Port Elizabeth, architect and academic, Head of School of Architecture, University of Port Elizabeth.
Van Den Westhuizen, Prof JE. 1984-1990.
Van Dyk, JH. 1975, HMC. Believed to have been a Broederbonder if employed in the Department of Bantu Administration.
Van Schoor, Prof MCE. 1977-1988. Department of History, University of the Orange Free State.
Van Zyl, GJ. 1963-1984. Transvaal, Broederbonder.
Vertue, Eric. 1968-1984. Cape, Businessman
Von Prittwitz und Gaffron, JBH. 1974-1975, South West Africa, later moved to Natal
Watson, Brian W. 1979-1990, Architect, East London.
Weber, Dr A. 1969-1975.
Yuill, Prof David. 1990 to date. Architect and academic, Kimberley, Formerly Head of School of Architecture, University of the Orange Free State.
Young, Graham. 1981-1984. Politician and City Councillor, Port Elizabeth.
Zschokke, Dr M. HMC 1971. Deceased in 1971, South West Africa

Copyright @