CHAPTER 1

Khoisan Peoples

[H]e saw the fate of history in popular culture as conditional on its self-appointed masters being prepared to reacquaint themselves with the imaginative skills of the storyteller.
- Simon Schama, in The New Yorker, 1998

'I've found one!' exclaims a young learner from a school in rural South Africa on a field trip to see where Palaeolithic stone tools come from. The learners have been given clues on how to recognise flaked stone, and the site they are walking across is an open path inside a nature reserve. Such excitement underlines the fact that archaeology is everywhere, if you know how to see it.

To this group of pre-teen children, these tools are a first awareness of people in the distant past having lived in the same space that they themselves inhabit today. The next step is to ask how prehistoric people lived, and what would have been important to them. To answer this question, one child quickly says, 'Water' - and, yes, their stone tools are not far from a permanent stream. Discussion about food, hunting and gathering, then, is a logical addition to understanding the cultural ecology of early Khoisan people in their area, even if a time depth of 50 ??? to 100 000 years might be difficult for them to envision. Middle Stone Age artefacts dated to this period are widespread across the South African landscape, sometimes in the most unusual places, such as in the high country and on steep slopes.

The importance of leaving the stone tools where they are found is stressed by the archaeologist. The learners quickly understand that the tools are important clues to the past, and if removed without proper documentation and recording, would be lost to scientists in the future.

In this book I would like to introduce the archaeology and genetic background of the First People of southern Africa: the Khoisan. This is not purely an isolated academic exercise, as there is a good chance that we all, in our distant past, are ultimately descended from these people who lived at the southernmost end of Africa.

The Khoisan peoples of southern Africa have a long history of being pushed to the social periphery. The Bushmen were often considered as just animals who stole cattle, and so deserved to be shot, while Khoekhoen were regarded as convenient labour as herdsmen. In the 'new' South Africa Khoisan peoples have been pushed aside by 'black' aspirations, and no Khoisan language has been given the status of an 'official' language (even though the South African coat of arms bears a saying in a Khoisan language). There is a common complaint among Khoisan descendants: 'We were not white enough under apartheid, and are not black enough for the new South Africa'. So it is understandable that so-called coloured descendants of the Khoisan should feel marginalised. This is a theme that permeates all ex-colonial countries. The Aborigines of Australia, the Native Americans of North America and the isolated peoples of the Amazon also feel the heavy hand of historical colonial exploitation and neglect.

It is not always easy to bridge the gap between science and what the general public know about their society and where it comes from. There is a tendency for academics to focus too much on their closed world, as historian Yuval Harari describes: 'Scientists hope to dispel wrong views by better science education . by presenting the public with accurate facts and expert reports . Most of our views are shaped by communal groupthink rather than individual rationality, and we hold on to these views out of group loyalty . Even scientists are not immune to the power of groupthink . The scientific community believes in the efficacy of facts, hence those loyal to the community continue to believe that they can win public debates by throwing the right facts around, despite much empirical evidence to the contrary' (Harari 2018: 219-220).

There has been some attempt by archaeologists in South Africa to close the gap. John Parkington of the archaeology department at the University of Cape Town (UCT) and his colleagues at the Krakadouw Trust have made fine steps to open that part of the academy to a wider audience (Parkington et al. 2015). It is over 90 years since Isaac Schapera (1930) wrote his seminal work on the social anthropology of the Khoisan. In the quarter century since the publication of The Cape Herders (Boonzaier et al. 1996), and later the companion work on the Bushmen (Smith et al. 2000), ideas on Khoekhoe history have changed. I am aware that we do not have all the answers, and I hope that this book, designed for students and Khoisan descendants interested in early southern African history, will show how the research into their history keeps evolving in the 21st century. I will try to build up a picture of the archaeological, linguistic and genomic history to make sense of this complexity, and to describe the lives of these people, many of whom have lost their language and culture in the modern world. We are all the poorer for the loss of stories, experiences and skills that can never be replaced.

To develop this picture of the history of Khoisan people, we will travel back to the beginnings of early modern humans, then take a timeline to the direct Stone Age ancestors of the Bushmen and continue up to the present. We will look at the way of life of hunter-gatherers in the recent history of southern Africa, and then introduce the first herders who later became known as the Khoekhoen at the Cape. We also want to see what modern genomics can tell us about how the various linguistic and economic groups related to each other. Finally, we will ask about the Khoisan today, and where they find themselves in the modern world of independent African states.

Names

The names Europeans called indigenous people they met on their travels often were the result of assumptions created by ancient geographers, such as the Greek Herodotus (5th century BC) and the Roman Pliny the Elder (1st century AD), who attempted to describe the peoples who lived beyond the circum-Mediterranean (or the then known world). Such fantastic creatures were the source of myth, and many of those described were assumed to be Anthropophages (man-eaters). So influential were these early writers that their ideas held sway until the Portuguese voyages of exploration at the end of the 15th century.

In southern Africa, these assumptions also held, and the 'savages' described by the early travellers fitted their assumptions. Franck van der Does, who sailed on the Hollandia as part of the Cornelis de Houtman expedition of 1595, offered this description: '[W]e feared that . the African savages would kill and eat us' (Raven-Hart 1967: 19).

The naming of southern Africa's First People was done by early colonists, and, of course, because it was written down, achieved authenticity (see Brink 2004). The names the various groups used for themselves would have been their own ethnonyms (who they were in their own language, usually at the band or group level). They seldom had general collective names, and these, when they existed, such as 'Khoekhoen = Hottentot', were usually seen as a shorthand by colonial interests. For example, Khoe means 'people'; therefore Khoekhoe means 'people/people', but with the subtext of 'real people', which they probably used to distinguish themselves from hunter-gatherers. Let us look more closely at these names.

Khoisan: What does this name represent, and where does it come from? The word was first coined in 1928 by Schultze as a way of collectively describing the click-language users of southern Africa. The assumption was that these people were in some ways connected to each other through their languages. This name was also used to mean the small, brown-skinned people who were quite distinct from black Africans, the Bantu-speakers of southern Africa. Thus, it had both a genetic and a linguistic assumption built in. The word 'Khoisan' is a colonial artefact but is in common use by descendants today.

Recent research among linguists (Güldemann 2008) has shown that there are two distinct Bushman languages, Kx'a (Ju) and Tuu, which are mutually unintelligible, that is, they cannot speak to each other, and are genetically distinct. Khoe is a quite separate language group and may well have origins outside southern Africa.

Strandloper: This means 'beach ranger' and refers to foraging people living along the coast and subsisting off marine resources. They apparently had no domestic animals, so may have been either Soaqua or impoverished Khoekhoen.

Hottentot: This was the name given to the herders of the Cape by the Dutch. The derivation of the name is not clear, but it may have been a commentary on the clicks in their language. All Khoe groups had their own ethnonyms, for example Goringhaicona (!Uri-//'ae, a group living around the Cape Peninsula), Cochoqua (whose territory included Saldanha Bay), Chainoqua and Hessequa (who lived beyond the Hottentots-Holland Mountains), etc. These were clan names recorded at the time of the first colonial observers in the 17th century. These names would probably have been flexible, as there was a great deal of fluidity in who was the leader, and how the groups changed over time (for more detail, see Fauvelle-Aymar 2008).

Khoekhoen is the collective name used by the Nama-speakers of Namibia today, but variants include Khoikhoi and Quena. Khoekhoe would be the language spoken, and like Khoe could be used as an adjective (Smith 1998).