Environmental Anthropology in the Kalahari: Development, Resettlement, and Ecological Change Among the San of Southern Africa

Home , Irven DeVore

vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 170-188. vav.library.utoronto.ca This article © 2009 Robert K. Hitchcock, Megan Biesele, and Wayne Babchuk. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada license.

Robert K. Hitchcock, Megan Biesele, and Wayne Babchuk

ABSTRACT

This paper addresses the ways in which environmental anthropology has affected – and been affected by – the San (Bushmen) of southern Africa, particularly the Ju/’hoansi of northwestern Botswana and northeastern Namibia. Anthropological research and development work carried out in the Kalahari Desert over the past 50 years has shed considerable light on issues ranging from the ecology of hunting and gathering to the impacts of sedentism, and from demography of small-scale societies to the effects of globalization and climate change. Eco- logical anthropology and conservation biology have focused a great deal of attention on the Ju/’hoansi and other San, who today are some of the best-known and most intensively stud- ied populations on the planet. A wide range of variation exists among the lifestyles of San peoples, all of whom have undergone substantial socioeconomic changes. Here, particular emphasis is placed on the ways in which development, resettlement, and ecological change have affected the Ju/’hoansi and their neighbors. The lessons learned from these studies have affected both academic writing in ecological anthropology and policies aimed at enhancing the well-being of the San and conserving their environments.

nthropologists have worked intensively with the San (Bushmen, Basarwa) for over 50 years, although there had been studies conducted among San peoples since the Aearly to mid-19th century (Schapera 1930; Lee 1976; Barnard 1992, 2007:23-52). San, like other peoples in southern Africa, were affected greatly by colonization and pro- cesses of sociopolitical and environmental change. In spite of efforts to ensure the well- being of San by well-meaning anthropologists and development workers, many San are worse off today that they were in the 1950s by almost every measure – standard of living, mortality rates, degree of dependency on state support, and land ownership (Suzman 2001a, b; Lee et al 2002; Lee 2003; Hitchcock et al 2006). At the same time, San are more outspoken than they used to be, pointing out their concerns of how they are being treated

Robert K. Hitchcock, Michigan State University Megan Biesele, Kalahari Peoples Fund Wayne Babchuk, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

171 Environmental Anthropology in the Kalahari • vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology and the degree to which they have a say over their own futures. While many of the anthropological text books and cultural ecological studies tend to focus on the Ju/’hoan San, assuming that their patterns are characteristic ones for all San or for savannah foragers and food producers, there is, in fact, significant variation among San. This is demonstrated in the ethnographic research among other San groups in southern Africa. Table 1 contains a summary of the numbers of San in the various countries in southern Africa. It can be seen that there are some 100,000 San in six different southern African countries: Angola, Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. The largest populations of San are found in Botswana and Namibia. Tables 2-5 provide an overview of some of the interdisciplinary research groups and individuals that have worked with San and topics that they have addressed. As Richard Lee (2003:176, personal communication, 2007) has noted, these studies have had substantial impacts, not only on the fields of anthropology and indigenous peoples’ studies, but also on development and especially on the San themselves.

Table 1. Numbers of San in Southern Africa

Country Size of Country (sq km) Number of San Angola 1,246,700 3,500 Botswana 581,730 47,675 Namibia 824,290 34,000 South Africa 1,221,040 7,500 Zambia 752,610 1,300 Zimbabwe 390,580 2,500 TOTAL 5,016,950 sq km 96,475

Note: Data obtained from James Suzman (2001a:4), the Working Group of Indigenous Minorities in Southern Africa (WIMSA), and from Roger Chennels of Chennels-Albertyn, South Africa.

171 vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology • Volume 9, Number 2 May 2009

Table 2. Members of the Marshall Expeditions (Peabody-Harvard Smithsonian Kalahari Expeditions)

Researcher Date(s) of Research Topic(s) Investigated Daniel Blitz 1955 Photography, sound recording Robert H. Dyson 1951 Archaeology Nicholas England 1958, 1959, 1961 Music recording Hans Ernst 1953 Sound recording Robert Gardner 1958 Film making Robert Gestelamd 1957-58 Photography Robert Gordon 1983 Social anthropology Wolf Haacke 1961 Zoology Charles Handley, Jr. 1952 Zoology Frank Hesse 1953 Sound recording Charles Koch 1951, 1958 Entomology Brian Maguire 1953 Botany Laurence K. Marshall 1950, 1951, 1952-53, 1955, 1956, Photography, project 1957-58, 1961 administration Lorna Marshall 1951, 1952-53, 1955, 1961 Social anthropology John Marshall 1950, 1951, 1952-53, 1955, 1957- Social anthropology, 58, 1972, 1978, 1980-82, 1984, film making 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990s, 2003 Elizabeth Marshall Thomas 1951, 1952-53, 1955 Social anthropology Claude McIntyre 1951, 1959-61 Development administration Fritz Metzger 1951 Ethnology O.P.M. Prozesky 1961 Ornithology Claire Ritchie 1980-82 Social anthropology, development Anneliese Scherz 1953 Photography Robert Story 1955, 1958 Botany Eric Williams 1951 Anatomy

Note: Adapted from Marshall (1976:ix-xv, 1-3, 10-11)

172 173 Environmental Anthropology in the Kalahari • vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology

Table 3. Members of the Harvard Kalahari Research Group (HKRG), Date(s) of Research, and Subjects That Were Investigated

Researcher Date(s) of Research Topic(s) Investigated Meghan Biesele 1970-72, 1975-76 Folklore, healing, social change, language Nicholas Blurton Jones 1971 Ethology, social organization Sue Bucklin 1964 Rock art Irven DeVore 1963, 1964, 1968-1968 Ethology, hunting behavior Patricia Draper 1968-1969, 1975, 1987, 1991 Childhood, gender relations John D.L. Hansen 1967, 1968 Medicine, nutrition Henry Harpending 1968-1969, 1975, 1987 Population structure, genetics Nancy Howell 1967-1969, 1990-91 Demography, social networks Richard Katz 1968 Ritual healing, traditional medicine Trefor Jenkins 1967, 1968, 1969 Serogenetics, health Brian Kennelly 1969 Cardiology Melvin Konner 1969-1971, 1975 Infant behavior, ethology Richard Lee 1963-1964, 1967-1969, 1973, Ethnology, ecology, social 1980, 1999, 2006 organization, social change Marjorie Shostak 1969-1971. 1975, 1989 Life histories, gender Jiro Tanaka 1967-1968, 1971-1972, 1975 Subsistence ecology, social organization Stewart Truswell 1967, 1968, 1969 Medicine, nutrition John Yellen 1968-1970, 1975-1976 Settlement patterns, archaeology, ethnoarchaeology

172 173 vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology • Volume 9, Number 2 May 2009

Table 4. Members of the University of New Mexico Kalahari Project, Date(s) of Research, and Subjects That Were Investigated

Researcher Date(s) of Research Topic(s) Investigated Elizabeth Cashdan 1975-76 Social anthropology William J. Chasko, Jr. 1975-76 Demography, serogenetics Patricia Draper 1975 Social anthropology James I. Ebert 1975-76, 1985 Archaeology, development Henry Harpending 1975 Demography, population structure, serogenetics Robert K. Hitchcock 1975-76, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1981, Ethnoarchaeology, 1982, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, cultural anthropology, 1991, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2005 development, environmental impact assessment Melinda Kelly 1975-76 Social anthropology, development Gakemodimo M. Mosi 1975-76, 1980-82 Education, community development

Note: Adapted from Hitchcock (see www.kalaharipeoples.org)

174 175 Environmental Anthropology in the Kalahari • vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology

Table 5. Japanese Anthropological, Ecological, and Geographic Research among San in Southern Africa

Researcher Address Topic(s) Jiro Tanaka Kyoto University, Center for Social anthropology, African Area Studies human ecology Masakazu Osaki Himeji-Dokkyo University Social Anthropology, hunting behavior Kazuyoshi Sugawara Kyoto University, Faculty for Social Anthropology, Integrated Studies Sociolinguistics Kenichi Nonaka Mie University, Department of Ethnoentomology, Geography Ethnogeography Kaoru Imamura-Hayaki Nagoya Gakuin University Behavior, Plant gathering Kazunobu Ikeya National Museum of Ethnology Social Change, Development Hirosi Nakagawa Tokyo University of Foreign Linguistics, Phonology Studies Hitomi Ono Reitaku University Kinship studies, Ethnosemantics Akira Takada Kyoto University, Center for Social anthropology, African Area Studies human ecology Note: Data obtained from Jiro Tanaka, Kazuyoshi Sugawara, and Kazunobu Ikeya

Overview of Anthropological Research among the San Intensive anthropological work among the Ju/’hoansi San has been conducted since 1950, beginning with the Marshall family (1951-1961) in the Nyae Nyae region of Namibia and the Harvard Kalahari Research Group (1963-1971) in the Dobe-/Xai/Xai area of Botswana (Marshall 1976:1-11; Thomas 1980; Lee 2003). Ethnoarchaeology, the study of contemporary societies with the purpose of better understanding the past, was a major focus of the work of John Yellen among the Ju/’hoansi of northwestern Botswana (1977). In the 1970s, development work was carried out by Megan Biesele in the Dobe-/Xai/Xai area. This work has continued to the present with the assistance of a number of non-government organizations, donors, development workers, and individual (Biesele, Hitchcock, and Daggett, in process). The Marshall family managed to carry out an impressive series of visits to the Kala- hari that drew on a large number of disciplines (Hitchcock 2004; Speeter-Blaudszun 2004). Some of the work of Lorna Marshall, though she was not a trained anthropologist, was in- fluenced by the cultural ecology of Julian Steward and the work of ethnographers including Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, Isaac Schapera, Alfred Kroeber, and Clyde Kluckhohn. It is

174 175 vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology • Volume 9, Number 2 May 2009 interesting to note that when the Marshall family made plans to go to the Kalahari in 1950, not a single anthropologist expressed any interest in accompanying them (Lorna Marshall, personal communication, 1990). But by the late 1960s and 1970s, Lorna Marshall was considered the ‘grande dame of hunter-gatherer anthropology’ (Thomas 2006:50). The Marshalls were followed by Richard Lee and the Harvard Kalahari Research Group (HKRG) who worked in the Dobe-/Xai/Xai area of western Ngamiland (North West District), Botswana. The research by Lee and his colleagues was distinctly interdisciplinary and was both ecologically and socially oriented (Lee and DeVore 1976; Lee 1979). This work came at a time when ecological anthropology was transitioning toward a focus on interactions between variable ecosystems and humans, and on humans as a dynamic part of an ecosystem. (For a discussion of changes over time in ecological anthropology, see Kottak 1999; Moran 2006; Sponsel 2007). In the 1980s, the conclusions drawn from the work on the Ju/’hoansi were the subject of considerable debate (see, for example, Wilmsen 1989, 2003; Lee and Guenther 1993; Lee 2003, 2006). The Kalahari Debate, as it has become known, had two very different perspectives on the Ju/’hoansi. One perspective was that the Ju/’hoansi were largely hunters and gatherers ‘living under changed circumstances and maintaining an old but adaptable way of life’ (Lee and Guenther 1993:185). The other perspective was that the Ju/’hoansi were people who had been affected greatly by their interactions over time with other groups and by their incorporation into a global system of production, consumption, and distribution. This approach sees the Ju/’hoansi as having been incorporated historically into a complex, inclusive class structure as what can be termed an underclass (Wilmsen 1983:17, 1989). Rather than being autonomous actors, then, the Ju/’hoansi are viewed as being part of a much larger system of commodity capitalism. Overviews of the relationships among San and anthropologists have shed light on the complexity of the interactions that have taken place (Barnard 2007). These interactions have included close collaborative relationships in which San groups and anthropologists work on development projects, as seen, for example, in the work of Megan Biesele (2003) among the Ju/’hoansi in Ngamiland, the efforts of the University of New Mexico Kalahari Project on the Nata River and Western Sandveld region of Central District, Botswana in 1975-76 (Hitchcock 1978, 1988), and the work of John Marshall and Claire Ritchie (Mar- shall and Ritchie 1984) among the Ju/’hoansi of Nyae Nyae. They also included detailed demographic and other kinds of research. The San have said that they did not want to see ‘research for research’s sake’ – that instead, they preferred research to have direct impacts on their needs and well-being (see, for example, the discussions in Motshabi and Saugestad 2004). Members of San groups have spoken out not just in conferences and workshops in southern Africa but at international meetings as well, including those of the Working Group of Indigenous Populations in Geneva and the World Bank. They have said that they want to collaborate with social scientists, ecologists, economists, human rights activists and others in seeking to promote development and human rights.

176 177 Environmental Anthropology in the Kalahari • vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology

Changes among the San In many ways, changing research interests mirrored the changes taking place among the San themselves. As a result of government development policies, settlement, and land reform efforts, Ju/’hoansi underwent major transformations over time. Many groups moved into settlements where the government provided physical and social infrastructure (water, schools, and health posts) and development assistance. San in areas designated as commercial leasehold ranches either moved to places known as communal service centers or stayed on the ranches as herders and domestic workers. By the 1980s, the Botswana Ju/’hoansi were living in 8 settlements (see Table 6). They, like their kin right across the border in Namibia, were making their living using a mix of activities, including food and cash distributions from the Botswana government’s Remote Area Development Program. People in remote areas in Botswana were also able, thanks to government legislation passed in 1979 (the Unified Hunting Regulations), to hunt specified numbers and types of animals using Special Game Licenses, although admittedly people sometimes had difficulty in getting access to these licenses (Hitchcock and Masilo 1995). The right to engage in subsistence hunting, however, was done away with in Ngami- land by the North West District Council and the Department of Wildlife and National Parks in 1996. Anthropologists and NGO workers lived among and worked closely with San groups throughout this time of socioeconomic upheaval. As first-hand witnesses to the changes occurring, researchers like Richard Lee recognized how important it was to look at San for the world citizens that they were. He and others realized that the needs of the San could be filled in part by a combination of academic advocacy and the application of academic research. Because of the situations facing San and efforts of the Botswana government to involve anthropologists more in monitoring and development work, research shifted in the mid-1970s toward more applied-oriented kinds of anthropological studies (Hitchcock 2004). Topics investigated included land reform impacts and adaptations to drought and environmental stress. Applied and development work was carried out with an eye toward addressing some of the social justice issues that the San were facing, including lack of secure access to land, water, and other natural resources. Some of this work was done by personnel associated with the Kalahari Peoples Fund, an advocacy organization that had grown out of the work of the Marshall family and the Harvard Kalahari Research Group (see Biesele 2003). There was also anthropological work sponsored directly by the government of Botswana aimed at assessing the impacts of projects such as those involving livestock development and land reform (Wily 1979).

176 177 vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology • Volume 9, Number 2 May 2009

Table 6. Ju/’hoan San Communities in Western Ngamiland (North West District), Botswana

Name of Controlled Hunting Area San Population and Activities Community Number, Size Total Population (square kilometers) and Composition Tsodilo Hills NG 6, 225 sq km 70 (of 140, 50%) tourism, farming, Mbukushu small stock, crafts, foraging Nxau Nxau NG 2, 7,448 sq km 488 (of 813, 66%) foraging, farming, Herero crafts, livestock Dobe NG 3, 5,760 sq km 100 at Dobe, 350 (of foraging, farming, 550, 63%) in Dobe crafts, livestock localities, Herero Goshe (Qoshe) NG 3, 5,760 sq km 107 (of 153, 70%) foraging, farming, Herero crafts, livestock !Xangwa NG 3, 5,760 sq km 416 (of 833, 50%), foraging, farming, (Qangwa) Herero, Tawana crafts, livestock /Xai/Xai NG 4, 9,293 sq km and access 345 (of 431, 80%), foraging, farming, (Cgae Cgae) to NG 5, 7,673 sq km (16,966 Herero (Mbanderu) crafts, livestock sq km total) Chuchumuchu NG 1, 2,970 sq km 29 (of 289, 10%), foraging, farming, Mbukushu, Herero crafts, livestock //Kaudum NG 1, 2,970 sq km 40 (of 162, 25%), foraging, farming, (Xaudum) Mbukushu, Herero crafts, livestock 8 communities 33,369 sq km (6 CCHAs) 1,845 Ju/’hoansi, 3,371 total (55%) Note: Data obtained from the Remote Area Development Program, government of Botswana and from Cassidy et al (2001:A-38, Table A.30). Three of these villages are gazetted (i.e. recognized by the Botswana government as official settlements): Nxau Nxau, !Xangwa, and /Xai/Xai, CCHA = Community Controlled Hunting Area; there are also some Ju/’hoansi in Kauri, Gomare, and No- kaneng

A baseline study of the status of the San in southern Africa, conducted under the direction of James Suzman, provided important information on the human rights and development issues throughout the southern African region (Suzman 2001a, b; Cassidy et al 2001; Robins et al 2001). There is now greater interplay between research and development in southern Af- rica. Social scientists are engaging more directly in development-oriented, collaborative, participatory research. This kind of research has a number of positive benefits, including maintaining close contacts between people on the ground and researchers, which helps increase trust. Also, local people have been able to see directly some of the benefits of

178 179 Environmental Anthropology in the Kalahari • vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology

research, as was the case, for example, with San and other rural communities in southern Africa that received support for development projects and land claim efforts that they themselves identified as being of importance to them. Social scientists and San have both provided information that has been useful in framing innovative development strategies, as seen, for example, in education and language training (Biesele and Hitchcock 2000). A major difference between present and past research is that many of the current studies are short-term in nature, while some past anthropological studies involved fieldwork that lasted for a year or more at a time. Some of the recent studies are also consultancy- based rather than participant observation-based, meaning that the government researchers use questionnaires, and the research generally does not go much beyond short-term visits with questions being asked through translators. The implication of these changes is that participant observation and the build-up of trust and reciprocity tend to be less likely. Nevertheless, the short-term investigations are valuable in that they provide snapshots of situations facing San at particular points in time.

San Responses to Outside Involvement and Global and Local Challenges San groups, with the help of applied anthropology and NGOs, have become more orga- nized and active in working to secure their economic and cultural rights. In the 1970s and 1980s, San were involved extensively with the political process, voting and seeking office in national elections, establishing their own community councils and non-government organizations, and dealing with government officials at the national, district, and local levels (Hitchcock and Holm 1993). Even so, they constantly face challenges on all levels, from the government, to demands by other ethnic groups wanting the use of their land, to maintaining cohesion among themselves. One of the most serious challenges to San land rights came from the Attorney General of Botswana in the late 1970s. In 1978, a legal opinion, issued by the litigation consultant to the Attorney General’s Chambers regarding land rights of San, recognized the San’s right to hunt for sustenance, but labeled them as ‘true nomads,’ and misinterpreted no- madism as a lack of territoriality, and as such concluded that the San could have no rights to land ownership. (“Opinion in Re: Common Leases of Tribal Land”, Ministry of Local Government and Lands file 2/1/2). In other words, the government’s main legal body had decided that the San could be denied land rights simply on the basis of their ethnic affiliation. Some of the San who heard about the ruling said that they were deeply disturbed by the fact that Botswana, a state that prided itself on being democratic and multiracial, was taking a position that was reminis- cent of the apartheid policies of neighboring South Africa. Though the Botswana government was quick to disavow the position of its Litiga- tion Consultant, stressing that Botswana was a country which by law did not discriminate against anyone, the problem was that the ministry generally refused to overturn district- level land board decisions. In response to this situation, the San engaged in a number of

178 179 vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology • Volume 9, Number 2 May 2009 different strategies in an effort to obtain full-fledged rights to land, resources, and public participation in southern Africa. These strategies included (1) direct action such as strikes and demonstrations to underscore their need for land and resources, (2) legal action, via appearances in court and efforts to get national or international legislation passed which would grant them rights over resources, (3) grassroots action, seeking local level access to land and resources including attempts to obtain customary rights over land from traditional authorities and land boards, (4) self-allocation, occupying areas of their own accord without seeking permission from anyone else, and (5) commercial action, seeking to obtain funds in order to purchase freehold land (for a discussion of these strategies, see Suzman 2001a, b; Hitchcock et al 2006). San requested formally that land be given to them by the Botswana Government and by district land boards such as the Tawana Land Board in Ngamiland under the Tribal Land Act. Unfortunately, these requests often fell on deaf ears. At a special meeting of land use planning advisory group members in Central District in January, 1977, for example, a high ranking district official said that San, “If they are in the way, should be gotten out of the way so that we can put up our fences” (Hitchcock 1978:xix). San also voiced their sentiments about their situations at national and local level meetings in the period between 1975 and 2005. They also described in detail their needs and desires to researchers and government officials (see, for example, Sanders 1995; Cassi- dy et al 2001; Robins et al 2001). Considerable reservations were expressed about the ways in which development was being carried out in their communities, including strategies that essentially amounted to government welfare, and the singular emphasis on community- based natural resource management to the exclusion of other, more diversified, types of development assistance that might better strengthen their livelihoods (Wiessner 2003). A major factor that brought about changes in the northern Kalahari was the expansion and contraction in the numbers and distribution of domestic livestock populations over time. In northwestern Botswana, livestock, especially cattle, had long been an important source of support for Ju/’hoansi and their neighbors (Wilmsen 1989). In 1991, there were some 21,000 cattle in western Ngamiland. By late 1996, however, there were no cattle in the area, all of them having been killed by the Botswana government in an effort to contain lungsickness or Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia. The loss of livestock had significant socioeconomic impacts on local people in northwestern Botswana. Some people fell back on foraging, going into the bush to collect wild foods. Others crossed the border into Na- mibia to live with relatives and friends in the Nyae Nyae region. Still others moved to the towns around the Okavango Delta such as Gomare, Nokaneng, Tsau, and Maun. The lack of livestock had major social impacts, with local people not being able to exchange livestock with one another or to pay bride price in the form of cattle. There were also difficulties because people had to rely on donkeys for pulling plows, something that affected agricultural production. Access to cows’ milk was reduced, which affected the nutritional well-being of the local populations in western Ngamiland (Hitchcock 2002b).

180 181 Environmental Anthropology in the Kalahari • vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology

In order to counteract the negative impacts of the cattle eradication, the Botswana government established a cash compensation program for those people whose livestock were killed. The government paid some 500 Pula per animal for 70% of the animals be- longing to a cattle owner, with the other 30% of the compensation given in kind. A CBPP relief program resembling the successful drought relief efforts of the Botswana Govern- ment was implemented in Ngamiland, with some 44 million Pula budgeted for the efforts. Some of these funds were devoted to labor-based relief and development projects (LBRDPs) in which people were paid to work on projects such as the debushing of roads. People were also given food, including maize, sorghum, beans, and oil. This food was distributed fairly widely, with some of it being circulated to relatives across the border in Namibia or sold to people who were better off, including government officials working in the region. In spite of the difficulties facing people due to the loss of livestock, there were some positive spin-off effects. One of these was that the grazing and browse resources had a chance to recover, as did the wildlife populations. The complications of the cattle eradication campaign also had the effect of bringing people together who in the past were at log- gerheads over issues such as land use. The debate over the best approach to development and over in whose hands the deci- sion-making should be can perhaps best be seen in the case of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve, where in 1997 the Botswana government began removing people (mainly San and Bakgalagadi) and relocating them in settlement on the peripheries of the reserve. In 2002, the government of Botswana shut down water sources and removed several hundred people who were taken to settlements on the periphery of the reserve. In response to this situation, the San and Bakgalagadi filed a legal claim against the government of Botswana in the High Court of Botswana, a legal case that they won in December, 2006 (Saugestad 2005; Hitchcock and Babchuk 2007; Taylor 2007). Some of the data obtained by researchers are being used in land claims and legal cases in southern Africa, as seen in the Nama-Richtersveld case in South Africa, where the Nama got land and mineral rights in the Richterseld National Park in a court case heard by the Constitutional Court in October, 2003 (Chan 2004), and in the ‡Khomani case re- lating to the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park in South Africa, which was settled out of court in 1998, with the ‡Khomani receiving land and some cash compensation (Chennels and Du Toit 2004). Without detailed, on-the-ground data on land use, population, oral history, and social systems and the close collaboration between researchers, development workers, lawyers, and local people, it is unlikely that these cases would have been as successful as they were.

Community Based Natural Resource Management as a Land Acquisition Strategy The San of Botswana realized early on that they needed to gain greater control over their areas if they were to be able to remain on the land. One way that they did this was to opt

180 181 vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology • Volume 9, Number 2 May 2009 to take part in the Botswana government’s community-based natural resource management program (CBNRMP). The current wildlife policy of Botswana empowers the Department of Wildlife and National Parks to work out arrangements with local communities and district authorities on how the wildlife resources within their areas will be handled. Local communities can not only apply for a quota, but they can also lease out some or all of that quota to private safari operators. Alternatively, they can keep the quota for themselves and use it for subsistence purposes or not use it at all, making the choice instead to conserve it for the future. While wildlife ownership resides with the state in Botswana, this is not the case for wild plants on communal land. The laws of Botswana do not specify ownership or use rights of wild plant (veld) products. The only restriction on veld products relates to one species, devil’s claw (also known as grapple plant, sengaparile, Harpagophytum procum- bens). One must obtain a license from the Agricultural Resources Board (ARB) to harvest grapple plant commercially. In Botswana, therefore, veld products are essentially an open access resource. Thus, controlling access, a basic responsibility of management, is a very difficult issue. CBNRM does not, and cannot under the law in Botswana, promote community ownership of either wildlife or veld products. The only way a community can obtain de jure (legal) ownership rights over land and natural resources is to purchase freehold land, something that is impossible for most rural residents, who generally lack sufficient cash to pay for the land. Local communities, non government organizations, District Councils, and central government ministries in Botswana have made efforts to initiate a variety of development and natural resource management programs. There are over 120 communities engaged cur- rently in a number of different types of rural development activities, ranging from hunting to tourism and from handicrafts and other rural industries to agriculture and pastoralism. At this point, many rural communities are working hard to set up projects, and they are continuing to seek the right to protect their assets and natural resources. One of the activities of San and other communities in southern Africa has been the mapping of their traditional territories using Geographic Positioning Systems (GPS) in- struments, a process sometimes referred to as ethnocartography. This has been done in several areas in Botswana, including (1) the Dobe area (NG 3) (Albertson 1998, 2000a) (Ju/’hoansi), (2) the Ncwaagom area (NG 10 and 11) areas in Ngamiland (Teemashane Trust 2002) (Khwe), and (3) the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (Albertson 2000b) (G/wi, G//ana). These mapping exercises enabled local groups to participate extensively in the identification and demarcation of their traditional areas. The impacts of these efforts range from enhanced knowledge of groups’ resources to greater degrees of social political cohesion because people were able to discuss the ways in which their identities were tied to their land. The maps produced are being used for various purposes, including education of local people and of government officials. The Ju/’hoansi of western Ngamiland were concerned by what they saw happen to the G/wi, G//ana, and Bakgalagadi in the Central Kalahari. They said that they would be

182 183 Environmental Anthropology in the Kalahari • vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology

more than willing to support the establishment of conservation zones in Ngamiland on the condition that the government passed a new piece of national monuments legislation that (1) allowed local people access to the areas for subsistence purposes, (2) enabled local people to be granted a portion of the benefits that were produced (e.g. gate receipts), and (3) allowed to continued use of resources inside protected areas. They said that they hoped that areas close to them, such as the G/wihaba Caves, could be designated as a World Heri- tage Site, much as happened with the tsodilo Hills in northern Ngamiland in 2002. They believed that the numbers of tourists would increase exponentially if the area were to be received international recognition from UNESCO – the United Nations Education, Cultural and Scientific Organization. Overall, it was clear to the Ju/’hoansi that community-based natural resource management programs, habitat conservation, and scientific research can be combined in efforts to ensure the long-term conservation and development of places for the benefit of both local people and the international community.

Conclusions As Kottak (1999:23) has argued, ‘the new ecological anthropology is located at the inter- section of global, national, regional and local systems, studying the outcome of the interac- tion of multiple levels and multiple factors.’ He also notes that contemporary ecological anthropology combines theoretical and empirical research with applied, policy-directed and critical work. This is in essence what is occurring among San in southern Africa today. Anthropologists, ecologists, and community development workers are working directly with governments and non-government organizations and, importantly, local people themselves, in attempting to address human rights, development, and environmental issues. There is greater emphasis on large-scale issues facing local people, including poverty, resettlement, and HIV/AIDS. Many more local researchers and development workers are involved in research and monitoring of San-related projects and policies (see, for example, Mogwe 1992; Masilo-Rakgoasi 2002). The studies and documentation of the San over time have been beneficial in a number of ways, not least because it has been possible to track changes in population, health, nutrition, economics, and social organization and to assess the costs and benefits of development programs. What began as work on societies that foraged for a living evolved into long-term studies of social and economic change and eventually into investigations of the politics of indigenous struggle. Many of these changes were documented in film (see Marshall 2003) as well as books, articles, and reports. The Ju/’hoansi and other San are now drawing on that information for their own curriculum development and mother tongue language training purposes and for promoting human rights and cultural preservation (Lee, Hitchcock, and Biesele 2002; Lee 2006). Thanks to the fine work of the Marshall family, of Richard Lee and his colleagues, and of the San themselves, many challenges facing the peoples of southern Africa are far more manageable today.

182 183 vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology • Volume 9, Number 2 May 2009

References

Albertson, Arthur 1998. Dobe Land Mapping Project. Report to Kuru Development Trust, D’Kar, Botswana. Albertson, Arthur 2000a. Traditional Areas (N!oresi) of the !Goshe Community. Shakawe, Botswana: Trust for Okavango Cultural and Development Initiatives. Albertson, Arthur 2000b. Traditional Land-Use Systems of Selected Traditional Territories in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. Report to First People of the Kalahari, Ghanzi, Botswana. Barnard, Alan 1992. Hunters and Herders of Southern Africa: A Comparative Ethnography of the Khoisan Peoples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barnard, Alan 2007. Anthropology and the Bushman. Oxford and New York: Berg. Biesele, Megan 1993. “Women Like Meat”: Ju/’hoan Bushman Folklore and Foraging Ideology. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press and Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. Biesele, Megan 2003. The Kalahari Peoples Fund: Activist Legacy of the Harvard Kalahari Research Group. Anthropologica 45(1):79-88. Biesele, Megan, Mathias Guenther, Robert Hitchcock, Richard Lee, and Jean Macgregor 1989. Hunters, Clients, and Squatters: The Contemporary Socioeconomic Status of Botswana Basarwa. African Study Monographs 9(3):109 151. Biesele, Megan and Robert K. Hitchcock 2000. Ju/’hoan Language Education in Namibia and its Relevance for Minority-Language Education in Botswana. In Botswana: The Future of the Minority Languages, Herman M. Batibo and Birjit Smieja, eds. Pp. 227-265. Basel: Peter Wang. Biesele, Megan and Robert K. Hitchcock, with Adrianne Daggett In process. The Ju/’hoansi San of Nyae Nyae since Independence: Development, Democracy, and Indigenous Voices in Namibia. New York: Berghahn Books. Cassidy, Lin, Kent Good, Isaac Mazonde, and Roberta Rivers 2001. An Assessment of the Status of the San in Botswana. Windhoek, Namibia: Legal Assistance Center. Chan, T.M. 2004. The Richtersveld Challenge: South Africa Finally Adopts Aboriginal Title. In Indigenous Peoples Rights in Southern Africa, R. Hitchcock and D. Vinding eds. Pp. 114-133. Copenhagen, International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. Chennels, Roger and Aymone du Toit 2004. The Rights of Indigenous Peoples in South Africa. In Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Southern Africa, Robert K. Hitchcock and Diana Vinding, eds. Pp. 98-113. Copenhagen, Denmark: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. Hitchcock, Robert K. 1978. Kalahari Cattle Posts. Gaborone, Botswana: Ministry of Local Government and Lands.

184 185 Environmental Anthropology in the Kalahari • vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology

Hitchcock, Robert K. 1988. Monitoring, Research, and Development in the Remote Areas of Botswana. Gaborone, Botswana: Ministry of Local Government and Lands. Hitchcock, Robert K. 2002a. ‘We Are the First People’: Land, Natural Resources, and Identity in the Central Kalahari, Botswana. Journal of Southern African Studies 28(4):797-824. Hitchcock, Robert K. 2002b Coping with Uncertainty: Adaptive Responses to Drought and Livestock Disease in the Northern Kalahari. In Sustainable Livelihoods in Kalahari Environments, Deborah Sporton and David S.G. Thomas, eds. Pp. 169-192. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hitchcock, Robert K. 2004. Human Rights and Anthropological Activism among the San. In Human Rights, Power, and Difference: The Scholar as Activist, Carole Nagengast and Carlos Velez Ibanez, eds. Pp. 169-191. Norman, Oklahoma: Society for Applied Anthropology. Hitchcock, Robert K. and Wayne Babchuk 2007. Kalahari San Foraging, Territoriality, and Land Use: Implications for the Future. Before Farming: The Archaeology and Anthropology of Hunter-Gatherers 2007/3:1-14. Hitchcock, Robert K. and John D. Holm 1993. Bureaucratic Domination of African Hunter-Gatherer Societies: A Study of the San in Botswana. Development and Change 24(1): 1-35. Hitchcock, Robert K., Kazunobu Ikeya, Megan Biesele, and Richard B. Lee, eds. 2006. Updating the San: Image and Reality of an African People in the 21st Century. Senri Ethnological Studies 70. Osaka, Japan: National Museum of Ethnology. Hitchcock, Robert K. and Rosina Rose B. Masilo 1995. Subsistence Hunting and Special Game Licenses in Botswana. Gaborone, Botswana: Department of Wildlife and National Parks. Hitchcock, Robert K. and Diana Vinding, eds. 2004. Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Southern Africa. Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. Howell, Nancy 2000. Demography of the Dobe !Kung. Second Edition. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Kottak, Conrad 1999. The New Ecological Anthropology. American Anthropologist 101(1):23-35. Lee, Richard B. 1976. Introduction. In Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers: Studies of the !Kung San and Their Neighbors, Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore, eds. Pp. 3-24. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Lee, Richard B. 2003. The Dobe Ju/’hoansi. Third Edition. Toronto and South Melbourne: Thomson Learning Lee, Richard B. 2006. Indigenism and Its Discontents. In Inclusion and Exclusion in the Global Arena, Max Kirsch, ed. Pp. 129-160. New York and London: Routledge. Lee, Richard B. and Mathias Guenther 2003. Problems in Kalahari Historical Ethnography and the Tolerance of Error. History in Africa 20:185- 235.

184 185 vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology • Volume 9, Number 2 May 2009

Lee, Richard B. and Irven DeVore, eds. 1976. Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers: Studies of the !Kung San and Their Neighbors. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Lee, Richard B., Robert Hitchcock, and Megan Biesele, eds. 2002. Foragers to First Peoples: The Kalahari San Today. Cultural Survival Quarterly 26(1):8-61. Marshall, John 2003. A Kalahari Family. (5 videos). Watertown, Massachusetts: Documentary Educational Resources (DER). Marshall, John and Claire Ritchie 1984. Where Are the Ju/Wasi of Nyae Nyae? Changes in a Bushman Society: 1958 1981. Communications No. 9, Center for African Area Studies, University of Cape Town. Cape Town: University of Cape Town. Marshall, Lorna 1976. The !Kung of Nyae Nyae. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Masilo-Rakgoasi, Rosinah 2002. An Assessment of the Community-Based Natural Resource Management Approach and Its Impact on the Basarwa: Case Study of /Xai/Xai and Gudigwa Communities. M.A. thesis in Development Studies, University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana. Mogwe, Alice 1992. Who Was (T)here First? An Assessment of the Human Rights Situation of Basarwa in Selected Communities in the Gantsi District, Botswana. Gaborone, Botswana: Botswana Christian Council. Moran, Emilio F. 2006. People and Nature: An Introduction to Human Ecological Relations. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. Motshabi, Kgosi and Sidsel Saugestad, eds. 2004. Research for Khoe and San Development: International Conference, University of Botswana, 10-12 September 2003. Gaborone, Botswana: University of Botswana and University of Tromso. Robins, Steven. Elias Madzudzo, and Mathias Brenzinger 2001. An Assessment of the Status of the San in South Africa, Angola, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Windhoek, Namibia: Legal Assistance Center. Sanders, A.J.G.M., ed. 1995. Speaking for the Bushmen. Gaborone, Botswana: The Botswana Society. Saugestad, Sidsel 2001. The Inconvenient Indigenous: Remote Area Development in Botswana, Donor Assistance, and the First Peoples of the Kalahari. Uppsala, Sweden: Nordic Africa Institute. Saugestad, Sidsel 2005. ‘Improving their Lives’: State Policies and San Resistance in Botswana. Before Farming 2005/4:1- 11. Schapera, Isaac 1930. The Khoisan Peoples of South Africa: Bushmen and Hottentots. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Speeter-Blaudszun, Sonia 2004. Die Expeditionen der Familie Marshall: Eine Untersuchung zur Ethnographischen Erforschung der Nyae Nyae !Kung. Mainzer Beitraege zur Afrika-Forschung. Muenster: LIT Verlag.

186 187 Environmental Anthropology in the Kalahari • vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology

Sponsel, Leslie 2007. Ecological Anthropology. In Encyclopedia of Earth, J. Cleveland, ed. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment. http:// www.eoearth.org/article/Ecological_anthropology Suzman, James 2001a. An Introduction to the Regional Assessment of the Status of the San in Southern Africa. Windhoek, Namibia: Legal Assistance Center. Suzman, James 2001b. An Assessment of the Status of San in Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia: Legal Assistance Center. Sylvain, Renee 2002. ‘Land, Water, and Truth’: San Identity and Global Indigenism. American Anthropologist 104(4):1074-1085. Sylvain, Renee 2004. San Women Today: Inequality and Dependency in a Post-Foraging World. Indigenous Affairs 1-2/04:8-13. Sylvain, Renee 2005. Disorderly Development: Globalization and the Concept of ‘Culture’ in the Kalahari. American Ethnologist 32(3): 354-370. Taylor, Julie J. 2007. Celebrating Victory too Soon? Reflections on the Outcome of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve Case. Anthropology Today 23(5):3-5. Teemashane Trust 2002. The Khwe of the Okavango Panhandle: The Past Life, Part One: Origin, Land, Leaders, and Traditions of the Bugakhwe People Shakawe, Botswana: Teemashane Trust. Thomas, Elizabeth Marshall 1980. Over a Span of Thirty Years, An American Family Records the Disappearing Culture of the Kalahari Bushmen. Smithsonian 11(1):86-95. Thomas, Elizabeth Marshall 2006. The Old Way: A Story of the First People. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux. Van den Berghe, Pierre L. 1979. Human Family Systems: An Evolutionary View. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press. Wiessner, Polly 1977. Hxaro: A Regional System for Reducing Risk among the !Kung San. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Wiessner, Polly 2003. Owners of the Future? Calories, Cash, Casualties, and Self-Sufficiency in the Nyae NyaeArea between 1996-2003. Visual Anthropology Review 19(1-2):149-159. Wilmsen, Edwin N. 1983. The Ecology of Illusion: Anthropological Foraging in the Kalahari. Reviews in Anthropology 10:9 20. Wilmsen, Edwin N. 1989. Land Filled with Flies: A Political Economy of the Kalahari. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wilmsen, Edwin N. 2003. Further Lessons in Kalahari Ethnography and History. History in Africa 30:327-420.

186 187 vis-à-vis: Explorations in Anthropology • Volume 9, Number 2 May 2009

Wilmsen, Edwin N., ed. 1997. The Kalahari Ethnographies (1896-1898) of Siegfried Passarge. Nineteenth Century Khoisan and Bantu-Speaking Peoples. Koln, Germany: Rudiger Koppe Verlag. Wily, Elizabeth 1979. Official Policy towards San (Bushmen) Hunter-Gatherers in Modern Botswana: 1966-1978. Gaborone, Botswana: National Institute of Research. Yellen, John E. 1977. Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models for Reconstructing the Past. New York: Academic Press.

Author contact information: Robert Karl Hitchcock [email protected]

vis-à-vis is online at vav.library.utoronto.ca

188