The aim of this article is to analyse a few aspects pertaining to the creation of the historical marble frieze in the Voortrekker Monument, Pretoria, on the basis of selected sources and to present an accompanying source evaluation. Preliminary findings indicate that the suppositions in secondary sources are in striking contrast to those of archival sources and do not portray a truthful image of the creation of said frieze. Secondary sources create to a large extent the impression that the conceptualising of the historical marble frieze was a streamlined process. This has inadvertently led to assumptions and factual mistakes.
Through the method of internal source criticism and by comparing the contents of secondary and archival sources, these assumptions are refuted and the factual mistakes exposed. The three selected aspects pertaining to the planning stage which stretched from 1931 to 1942 include the role and contribution of the Historical Committee; the use of the sketches of W.H. Coetzer and the manufacturing of the plaster of Paris models. The overarching aim is to demonstrate that the conceptualisation and embodiment of the historical marble frieze was a complicated process and commenced much earlier than what is being portrayed in secondary sources. In the final instance it will be demonstrated that historians can be misled by some secondary sources to such an extent that myths are perpetuated and accepted as the truth.
Die doel van die artikel is om 'n aantal aspekte rakende die totstandkoming van die historiese marmerfries in die Voortrekkermonument, Pretoria, aan die hand van geselekteerde bronne en 'n gepaardgaande bronne-evaluasie bloot te lê. Voorlopige bevindings dui daarop dat die inhoud van die sekondêre bronne, in teenstelling met dié van argivale bronne, allermins 'n waarheidsgetroue beeld aangaande die totstandkoming van die historiese marmerfries bied.
In 'n groot mate skep sekondêre bronne die indruk dat die konseptualisering van die historiese marmerfries 'n vaartbelynde proses was. Daarbenewens word aannames gemaak en feite-foute begaan. By wyse van interne bronnekritiek en 'n vergelyking tussen die inhoud van sekondêre bronne en argivale bronne, word dié aannames weerlê en feite-foute aan die kaak gestel. Die drie geselekteerde aspekte staan in verband met die beplanningsfase wat van 1931 tot 1942 gestrek het en het betrekking op die rol en bydrae van die Historiese Komitee, die sketse wat W.H. Coetzer gemaak het en die maak van die gipsmodelle of gips-prototipes. Die oorkoepelende doel is om uit argivale bronne aan te toon dat die konseptualisering en vergestalting van die historiese marmerfries ingewikkeld was en veel vroeër 'n aanvang geneem het as wat tot op hede in sekondêre bronne aangeneem word. Ten slotte word aangetoon dat historici dermate deur party sekondêre bronne mislei kan word, dat mites as waarheid aanvaar word.
