Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T00:10:52.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kinship, language and production: a conjectural history of Khoisan social structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2011

Alan Barnard
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In earlier articles I have argued the merits of the method of controlled comparison, both for the study of hunter-gatherer social organisation and for the study of Khoisan kinship across the forager/non-forager divide. In this article I put these two interests together to examine specifically the relation between kinship, production and culture contact among the Khoisan, and particularly the Khoe-speaking, peoples. Certain kinship structures and practices are dependent upon the means and methods of subsistence, while others are not. The latter are products of Khoisan history and in general reflect linguistic relationships between economically diverse Khoisan peoples.

Résumé

Parente, langue et production: une histoire conjecturale de la structure sociale des Khoisans

Cet article examine la parenté Khoisan par rapport à l'histoire linguistique des Khoisans, et particulièrement les peuplades parlant le Khoi. Les groupes de langue Khoi qui ont divergé les uns des autres il y a quelques 2000 ans sont de loin le groupe le plus grand et de culture la plus diversifiée de l'ensemble des groupes de langue Khoisan et comprennent à la fois des bergers (Khoekhoe) et des chasseurs (les Bushman Khoi). Néanmoins, la classification de la famille Khoi est caractérisée par un degré élevé d'uniformité, ce qui facilite la conjecture historique concernant la signification des origines Unguistiques, les modes de production et la diffusion culturelle pour déterminer les structures de parenté. Parmi autres choses, on affirme que les Bushman Khoi de l'Ouest ont acquis les règles d'appellation alternée de leurs générations et d'équivalence d'homonymes des !Kung (qui possèdent autrement un système de parenté très différent), et qu'ils ont, en conséquence directe, adopté les principes de la classification de la famille Khoi à leur extrême le plus simple.

Type
Kinship dynamics, past and present
Information
Africa , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 29 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © International African Institute 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barnard, Alan. 1976. ‘Nharo Bushman Kinship and the Transformation of Khoi Kin Categories’, PhD thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Barnard, Alan. 1978. ‘Universal systems of kin categorisation’, African Studies, 37 (1), 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard, Alan. 1980a. ‘Kin terminology systems of the Khoe-speaking peoples’, in Snyman, J. W. (ed.) Bushman and Hottentot Linguistic Studies 1979, pp. 107–33. Pretoria: University of South Africa.Google Scholar
Barnard, Alan. 1980b. ‘Convergent structures in Nama and Dutch-Afrikaans kinship terminologies’, VOC: a journal for overseas studies, 1 (1), 25–34.Google Scholar
Barnard, Alan. 1981. ‘Universal kin categorisation in four Bushman societies’, L'Uomo, 5 (2), 219–37.Google Scholar
Barnard, Alan. 1985. A Nharo Wordlist, with Notes on Grammar. Durban: Department of African Studies, University of Natal.Google Scholar
Barnard, Alan. 1987. ‘Khoisan kinship: regional comparison and underlying structures’, in Holy, Ladislav (ed.) Comparative Anthropology, pp. 189–209. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bleek, D. F. 1924. ‘Bushman terms of relationship’, Bantu Studies, 2 (2), 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleek, D. F. 1928. The Naron. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bleek, D. F. 1929. Comparative Vocabularies of Bushman Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carstens, Peter. 1983. ‘The inheritance of private property among the Nama of Southern Africa reconsidered’, Africa, 53 (1), 58–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, C. K. 1965. ‘Evidence of human migrations from rock art of Southern Rhodesia’, Africa, 35 (3), 262–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denbow, James, and Campbell, Alec. 1986. ‘The early stages of food production in Southern Africa and some potential linguistic correlations’, Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika, 7 (1), 83–103.Google Scholar
Ehret, Christopher. 1982. ‘The first spread of food production to Southern Africa’, in Ehret, Christopher and Posnansky, Merrick (eds.), The Archaeological and Linguistic Reconstruction of African History, pp. 158–81. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elphick, Richard. 1977. Kraal and Castle. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Elphick, Richard. 1985. Khoikhoi and the Founding of White South Africa (revised edition of Kraal and Castle). Johannesburg: Raven Press.Google Scholar
Engelbrech, J. A. 1936. The Korana. Cape Town: Maskew Miller.Google Scholar
Fourie, L. 1928. ‘The Bushmen of South West Africa’, in Hahn, C. H. L., Vedder, H. and Fourie, L., The Native Tribes of South West Africa, pp. 79–105. Cape Town: Cape Times.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1950, ‘Studies in African linguistic classification: VI. The Click languages’, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 6 (3), 223–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1973. ‘=Hðã kinship terms’, Linguistic Inquiry, 4 (4), 427–49.Google Scholar
Hall, Martin, and Smith, Andrew B. (eds.) 1986. Prehistoric Pastoralism in Southern Africa (Goodwin Series, vol. 5). Vlaeberg: South African Archaeological Society.Google Scholar
Harpending, Henry, and Jenkins, Trefor. 1973. ‘Genetic distance among Southern African populations’, in Crawford, M. H. and Workman, P. L. (eds.), Methods and Theories of Anthropology, pp. 177–99. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Heinz, H. J. 1966. ‘The Social Organisation of the !kõ Bushmen’, MA thesis, University of South Africa.Google Scholar
Heinz, H. J. 1972. ‘Territoriality among the Bushmen in general and the !ko in particular’, Anthropos, 67 (3/4), 404–16.Google Scholar
Heinz, H. J. n.d. ‘The people of the Okavango delta’. Unpublished series of six manuscripts.Google Scholar
Hoernlé, A. Winifred. 1925. ‘The social organisation of the Nama Hottentots of Southwest Africa’, American Anthropologist, 27 (1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inskeep, R. R. 1969. ‘The archaeological background’, in Wilson, Monica and Thompson, Leonard (eds.), The Oxford History of South Africa, vol. I, pp. 1–39. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kane, Eileen. 1968. ‘Non-unilineality in Oceania: review and alternative hypotheses’, in Helm, June (ed.), Essays in the Problem of the Tribe, pp. 209–20. Seattle and London: American Ethnological Society.Google Scholar
Klein, Richard G. 1986. ‘The prehistory of Stone Age herders in the Cape Province of South Africa’, in Hall, Martin and Smith, Andrew B. (eds.), Prehistoric Pastoralism in Southern Africa (Goodwin Series, vol. 5), pp. 5–12. Vlaeberg: South African Archaeological Society.Google Scholar
Köhler, Oswin. 1962. ‘Studien zum Genussystem und Verbalbau der zentralen Khoisan-Sprachen’, Anthropos, 57 (3/6), 529–46.Google Scholar
Köhler, Oswin. 1966. ‘Die Wortbeziehungen zwischen der Sprache der Kxoe-Buschmänner und dem Hottentottischen als geschichtliches Problem’, in Lukas, Johannes (ed.), Neue Afrikanistische Studien, pp. 144–65. Hamburg: Deutsches Institut für Afrika-Forschung.Google Scholar
Köhler, Oswin. 1971. ‘Die Khoe-sprachigen Buschmänner der Kalahari. Ihre Verbreitung und Gliederung’, in Kölner geographische Arbeitennen (Festschrift Karl Kayser), pp. 373–411. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Köhler, Oswin. 1981. ‘Les langues khoisan’, in Perrot, Jean (ed.), Les langues dans le monde ancien et moderne, pp. 455–615. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
Lebzelter, Viktor. 1934. Eingeborenenkulturen in Südwest- und Südafrika. Leipzig: Karl W. Hiersemann.Google Scholar
Lee, Richard B. 1965. ‘Subsistence Ecology of !Kung Bushmen’, PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Lee, Richard B. 1972. ‘The !Kung Bushmen of Botswana’, in Bicchieri, M. G. (ed.), Hunters and Gatherers Today, pp. 327–68. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Lee, Richard B. 1984. The Dobe !Kung. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Lee, Richard B. and DeVore, Irven. 1968. ‘Problems in the study of hunters and gatherers’, in Lee, Richard B. and DeVore, Irven (eds.), Man the Hunter, pp. 3–12. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Maingard, L. F. 1931. ‘The lost tribes of the Cape’, South African Journal of Science, 28 (November), 487–504.Google Scholar
Maingard, L. F. 1932. ‘Studies in Korana history, customs and language’, Bantu Studies, 6 (2), 103–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maingard, L. F. 1957. ‘Three Bushman languages’, African Studies, 16 (1), 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maingard, L. F. 1963. ‘A comparative study of Naron, Hietshware and Korana’, African Studies, 22 (3), 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, Shula. 1972. ‘Khoisan resistance to the Dutch in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries’, Journal of African History, 13 (1), 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Lorna. 1957. ‘The kin terminology system of the !Kung Bushmen’, Africa, 27 (1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Lorna. 1976. The !Kung of Nyae Nyae. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauny, Raymond. 1967. ‘L'Afrique et les origines de la domestication’, in Bishop, Walter W. and Clark, J. Desmond (eds.), Background to Evolution in Africa, pp. 583–99. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nurse, G. T., and Jenkins, T. 1977. Health and the Hunter-Gatherer. Basel: S. Karger.Google ScholarPubMed
Nurse, G. T., Weiner, J. S., and Jenkins, T. 1985. The Peoples of Southern Africa and Their Affinities. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Parkington, J. E. 1984. ‘Changing views of the Later Stone Age of South Africa’, Advances in World Archaeology, 3, 89–142.Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1952 [1924]. Structure and Function in Primitive Society. London: Cohen & West.Google Scholar
Robertshaw, P. T. 1978. ‘The origin of pastoralism in the Cape’, South African Historical Journal, 10, 117–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Robert. 1975. ‘The !Kora wars on the Orange River, 1830–1880’, Journal of African History, 16 (4), 561–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schapera, I. 1930. The Khoisan Peoples of South Africa. London: George Routledge & Sons.Google Scholar
Silberbauer, George B. 1972. ‘The G/wi Bushmen’, in Bicchieri, M. G. (ed.), Hunters and Gatherers Today, pp. 271–326. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Silberbauer, George B. 1981. Hunter and Habitat in the Central Kalahari Desert. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Snyman, J. W. 1975. Žul'hõasi Fonologie en Woordeboek. Cape Town: A. A. Balkema.Google Scholar
Steward, Julian. 1955. Theory of Culture Change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Stow, George W. 1905. The Native Races of South Africa. London: Swan Sonnenschein.Google Scholar
Theal, George McCall. 1902. The Beginning of South African History. London: T. Fischer Unwin.Google Scholar
Theal, George McCall. 1907. History and Ethnography of Africa South of the Zambesi, vol. I. London: Swan Sonnenschein.Google Scholar
Tobias, P. V. 1956. ‘The evolution of the Bushmen’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology (n.s.), 14 (2), 384.Google Scholar
Vedder, H. 1928. ‘The Berg Dama’, in Hahn, C. H. L., Vedder, H. and Fourie, L., The Native Tribes of South West Africa, pp. 37–78. Cape Town: Cape Times.Google Scholar
Vedder, H. 1938 [1936]. South West Africa in Early Times (translated and edited by Hall, C. G.). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vierich, Helga. 1977. Interim Report on Basarwa and Related Poor Bakgalagadi in Kweneng District. Gaborone: Ministry of Local Government and Lands.Google Scholar
Vossen, Rainer. 1984. ‘Studying the linguistic and ethno-history of the Khoespeaking (Central Khoisan) peoples of Botswana, research in progress’, Botswana Notes and Records, 16, 19–35.Google Scholar
Werner, H. 1906. ‘Anthropologische, ethnologische und ethnographische Beobachtungen über die Heikum- und Kungbuschleute’, Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 38, 241–68.Google Scholar
Westphal, E. O. J. 1963. ‘The linguistic prehistory of Southern Africa: Bush, Kwadi, Hottentot and Bantu linguistic relationships’, Africa, 33 (3), 237–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, E. O. J. 1971. ‘The click languages of Southern and Eastern Africa’, in Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 7: Linguistics in Sub-Saharan Africa, pp. 367–420. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Westphal, E. O. J. 1980. ‘The age of Bushman languages in Southern African pre-history’, in Snyman, J. W. (ed.), Bushman and Hottentot Linguistic Studies, 1979, pp. 59–79. Pretoria: University of South Africa.Google Scholar
Wilmsen, Edwin N. n.d. ‘Those who have each other: land tenure of Kalahari foragers’, unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Wilson, Monica. 1969. ‘The hunters and herders’, in Wilson, Monica and Thompson, Leonard (eds.), The Oxford History of South Africa, vol. I, pp. 40–74. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar