'Khoisan' Kinship Classifications: Geographical Distribution and Historical Interpretation

'Khoisan' kinship classifications: Geographical distribution and historical interpretation

Gertrud Boden Kalahari Basin Area CRP, IP 5 University of Edinburgh

With support from Alan Barnard, Falko Berthold, Martina Ernszt, Linda Gerlach, Tom Güldemann, Blesswell Kure, Bill McGregor, Christfried Naumann, Lee James Pratchett. Kinship classifications: - 'Kinship classifications' refers to the way how people group their relatives terminologically into kin classes (e.g. English kin class ‘aunt’ comprises mother’s sisters, father’s sisters, uncles’ wives, etc.). - The way how relatives are grouped into kin classes differs across cultures and languages (e.g. mother’s sisters can be in the same class as mother instead of being in the same class as father’s sister).

Features analyzed in this talk: - Sibling classifications - Cousin classifications - Classifications of parents’ siblings - Classifications of grandparents and grandchildren Internal classification of 'Khoisan' (adapted from Güldemann 2008:98) Lineages and branches Language(s) or dialects (DC = Dialect Cluster, † = extinct)

KHOE-KWADI Kwadi single language† Khoe Khoekhoe North Eini†, Nama, Damara, ǂAkhoe-Hai||om South !Ora†, Cape varieties† Kalahari Khoe East Shua Deti†, Cara, |Xaise, Danisi, Ts'ixa, etc. Tshwa Shua, Kua, Cua, Tsua, etc. West Khwe Khwe, ||Ani, Buga, G|anda, etc. G||ana G||ana, G|ui, ǂHaba, etc. Naro Naro, etc. KX'A Eastern ǂHoan single language Ju (DC) Northwest !Xun (Angola), !Xun (Ekoka) Southeast Ju|'hoan, ǂKx'au||'en TUU Taa-Lower Nossob Taa (DC) West N|u||'en†, West !Xoon East N|amani†, Kakia†, 'N|oha, East !Xoon, Tshasi, ǂHuan, etc. Lower Nossob (DC?) |'Auni†, |Haasi† !Ui ||Xegwi†; |Xam† (DC); ǂUngkue†; N||ng (DC) Language sample !Xun

!Xun Khwe

ǂAkhoe- Hai||om Ju|'hoan Shua ǂKx'au||ein Damara Naro G|ui E-!Xoon 'N|oha Tshasi W-!Xoon Eastern ǂHuan ǂHoan Nama ||Xegwi

N||ng

!Ora

|Xam Khoe Kx'a Tuu Angola !Xun Kx'a Hunter/Gatherers Bleek 1929, Fieldwork Boden (West Caprivi) 2012 Ekoka !Xun Kx'a Hunter/Gatherers Takada 2008 Ju|'hoan Kx'a Hunter/Gatherers Marshall 1957, Lee 1984, 1993, Dickens 1994 ǂKx'au-||ein Kx'a Hunter/Gatherers Bleek 1929, Fieldwork Boden/Pratchett 2011 ǂHoan Kx'a Hunter/Gatherers Gruber 1973, Fieldwork Barnard/Berthold/Boden/Gerlach/ Kure 2011 ǂAkhoe-Hai||om Khoe Hunter/Gatherers Widlok 1999, Haacke & Eiseb 2002 Damara Khoe Hunter/Gatherers/Pastoralists Lebzelter 1934, Barnard 1992, Haacke & Eiseb 2002 Khwe Khoe Hunter/Gatherers Köhler 1966, Kilian-Hatz 2003, Boden 2005, Fieldwork Boden 2012 Shua Khoe Hunter/Gatherers McGregor, IP1, KBA, Manuscript 2012 G|ui Khoe Hunter/Gatherers Ono 1996, 1997 Naro Khoe Hunter/Gatherers Barnard 1976 Nama Khoe Pastoralists Hoernlé 1985 [1925], Haacke & Eiseb 2002 !Ora Khoe Pastoralists Engelbrecht 1936 Taa-West !Xoon Tuu Hunter/Gatherers Fieldwork Boden 2004-2011 Taa-'N|oha Tuu Hunter/Gatherers Fieldwork Boden 2004-2011 Taa-East !Xoon Tuu Hunter/Gatherers Heinz 1994 [1966], Traill 1994, Fieldwork Boden 2010 Taa-Tshasi Tuu Hunter/Gatherers Fieldwork Boden 2010 Taa-ǂHuan Tuu Hunter/Gatherers Fieldwork Boden 2010 N||ng Tuu Hunter/Gatherers Bleek Notebooks, Bleek 1929, Fieldwork Boden/Ernszt/ Güldemann 2010 ||Xegwi Tuu Hunter/Gatherers Potgieter 1955 |Xam Tuu Hunter/Gatherers Bleek 1924 Feature 1: Sibling classifications

Type Number Social Referents of terms Dimensions 1 2 Sex of referent sister (Z) brother (B) 2 2 Relative Age younger sibling (yG) elder sibling (eG) 3 3 Relative age younger sibling (yG) Sex of referent elder sister (eZ) elder brother (eB) 4 4 Relative age younger sister (yZ) Sex of referent elder sister (eZ) younger brother (yB) elder brother (eB) 5 3 Relative gender opposite-sex sibling (osG) Relative age younger same-sex sibling (yssG) elder same-sex sibling (essG) Sibling classification 4

4 4

1 = Z/B 4 3 2 = yG/eG 5 4 4 3 = yG/eZ/eB 4 4 4 = yZ/eZ/ 2 yB/eB 2 2 2 2 5 = yssG/essG/ 2 1 osG 1 1

1 Khoe Kx'a Tuu Sibling classification 4

4 4

1 = yG/eG 4 3 2 = Z/B 5 4 4 3 = yG/eZ/eB 4 4 4 = yZ/eZ/ 2 yB/eB 2 2 2 2 2 5 = yssG/essG/ 1 osG 1 1

1 Khoe Kx'a Tuu Sibling classifications: - Type 1 is shared by languages of the Khoe (Nama, !Ora) and Tuu (| Xam, ||Xegwi, N||ng) families in the southern part of the area. - Type 2 is shared by the Taa dialects (Tuu) and Eastern ǂHoan (Kx'a) family in a small central part of the area. - Type 3 is exceptional in Ju|'hoan (Kx'a), surrounded by type 4 terminologies, intermediary stage between types 2 and 4. - Type 4 is shared by languages or dialects of the Khoe (Khwe, Naro, G| ui, ǂAkhoe-Hai||om, Damara) and Kx'a (Ekoka !Xun, Angola !Xun, ǂKx'au||ein) families in in the northern part of the area. - Type 5 is exceptional among the Shua as sole representatives of the Kalahari Khoe East branch, described as „acculturated“ in the anthropological literature; possibly effect of contact with Tswana. - All possible combinations of language families: Tuu-Khoe (type 1), Tuu- Kx'a (type 2), Khoe-Kx'a (type 4). - In the KBA, types of sibling classifications do not trace language family boundaries (contra Murdock 1968). - Some sort of relative age distinction (types 2-5) in most groups with a (formerly) predominantly hunter/gather economy except for the Tuu languages spoken in South Africa which were already close to extinction when first documented. - Note that even the hunter/gatherer societies who speak a variety of Khoekhoe, a language otherwise spoken by pastoralists have a type 4 sibling terminology. Feature 2: Cousin classifications Parallel cousins: Children of parents' same-sex siblings (PssGC) Mother's sisters' children (MZC) Father's brothers' children (FBC) Cross cousins: Children of parents' opposite-sex siblings (PosGC) Mother's brothers' children (MBC) Father's sisters' children (FZC)

Type Type Terms Equivalence Name 1 Generational Same terms for G = PGC siblings and cousins 2 Lineal/ Siblings distinguished G ≠ PssGC = PosGC Collateral from cousins 3 Cross/ Siblings and parallel G = PssGC ≠ PosGC Parallel cousins distinguished from cross cousins Cousin classification 1

1: G=PGC 1 3

3 2 2: G≠PssGC= 3 1 (?) PosGC 3 3 3 3: G=PssGC≠ 3 3 3 PosGC 3 3 3

3 3 (?)

1 Khoe Kx'a Tuu Cousin classification 1

1: G=PGC 1 3

3 2 2: G≠PssGC= 3 1 PosGC 3 3 3 3: G=PssGC≠ 3 3 3 PosGC 3 3 3

3 3 (?)

1 Khoe Kx'a Tuu Cousin classifications - Type 1 is to be found in most Ju dialects (Kx'a) and |Xam (Tuu). - Type 2 is found in Ju|'hoan (Kx'a) and N||ng (Tuu). - Type 3 is shared by all Khoe languages plus Eastern ǂHoan (Kx'a), all Taa varieties and ||Xegwi (Tuu); ||Xegwi: data only available for MBC and FBC.

- Kx'a: Generational type is possibly proto-Kx'a type; Ju|'hoan type again exceptional both, within the dialect cluster/language family and the neighborhood; isolated Eastern ǂHoan language shares type 3 with neighbors. - Khoe: Cross/parallel type seems to be common ancestry of the whole family. - Tuu: 3 different types in 4 languages do not allow to suggest a proto-Tuu type; Taa shares cross/parallel type with neighbors; N||ng possibly adopted lineal/collateral type from Afrikaans.

- KBA cousin classifications trace language boundaries at least better than sibling classifications. - Terms for cross cousins in Taa and Eastern ǂHoan seem to be secondary recruitments: loan terms (Eastern ǂHoan, ǂHuan), terms for CEP (West !Xoon), term „friend“ ('N|oha, East !Xoon, Tshasi). This might be seen as evidence that these languages did formerly not distinguish cross cousins. Note: not true for ||Xegwi terms (and N||ng cousin terms). Feature 3: Classifications of parents' siblings Type Type name Formula 0 Descriptive e.g. „mother's sister”, „father’s brother” 1 Lineal/Collateral P ≠ PssG=PosG (≠ PP) 2 Bifurcate/Collateral P ≠ PssG ≠ PosG (= PP) 3 Cross/Parallel Variety of P=PssG ≠PosG a) ‘classic’: P(marker)=PssG ≠ PosG=PP b) ‘split nuncle’: P(marker)=PyssG ≠ PessG=PosG=PP c) ‘asymmetric‘ (Khoekhoe): F(marker)=FB ≠ MB=PF; M(marker)=MZ ≠ FZ=separate term d) ‘asymmetric‘ (Khwe): F(marker)=FB ≠ MB=PF M(marker)MZ=FZ e) ‘unskewed‘ (Shua) P(marker)=PssG ≠ PosG ≠ PP Classification of parents‘ siblings

? 0: Descriptive 1: P ≠ PssG=PosG 2a 3d 2: P ≠ PssG 3c ≠ PosG=PP 1 3e 1 3a: P=PssG 3c 3a ≠PosG=PP 3b 3b: P=PyssG 3a 3b 3b ≠ PessG=PosG=PP 3a 3b 3c: F=FB≠MB=PF 3b M=MZ≠FZ≠PM 3c 0 3d: F=FB ≠ MB M=MZ=FZ 0 3e: P=PssG ≠ PosG ≠ PP 3c

1 Khoe Kx'a Tuu Classification of parents‘ siblings

1 Khoe Kx'a Tuu Classifications of parents' siblings: - Kx'a: data for Angola !Xun ambiguous; Ju|'hoan and ǂKx'au||ein share lineal/collateral type; Ekoka !Xun exceptional in having bifurcate/collateral type and PosG/PP equivalence as do many Khoe terminologies; Eastern ǂHoan shares cross/parallel sub-type with Taa (Tuu) and G|ui (Khoe) neighbors. - Khoe: some sort of cross/parallel principle present in all Khoe PG terminologies; great internal variety; unclear whether PosG/PP equivalence feature of the proto-language; Khwe shares asymmetrical sub-type with Mbukushu (Bantu) neighbors, PP term literally means „old-parent“; Shua type exceptional; G|ui shares sub-type with Taa (Tuu) and Eastern ǂHoan (Kx'a) neighbors; Naro is the only Khoe language with a pervasive cross/parallel type, only one term for all joking relatives, shares the type of classification with some Taa varieties (Tuu). Note that all Khoekhoe varieties share same type irrespective whether (formerly) hunter/gatherers or pastoralists; - Tuu: Some Taa varieties share sub-type with Naro (Khoe), others share sub-type with G|ui (Khoe) and Eastern ǂHoan (Kx'a); ||Xegwi and N||ng descriptive; data for |Xam unclear.

- Khoe terminologies seems to have had effect on Kx'a and Tuu terminologies (Ekoka !Xun, Taa, Eastern ǂHoan). - High diversity of this feature within Khoe family suggests that it is particularly susceptible to change. Feature 4: Grandparent-grandchild term equivalence

Type Explanation Formula

0 No equivalence a) different terms for CC b) descriptive terms for CC

1 Equivalence a) according to sex of referent CC=PP (CD=PM, CS=PF) b) grandmother term used for all grandchildren CC=PM (CD=PM, CS=PM) c) according to sex of speaker CC=PM (female speaker CC=PF (male speaker) Grandparent- Grandchild Equivalence 1a

0: No equivalence 1b 0a

0a: different terms 0a for CC 1a 0a 0b: descriptive terms 0a 0a for CC 1a 0a 1c 1: Equivalence 1c 1c 1a: CD=PM, CS=PF 1c 1c 2b

1b: CC=PM 0 1c: CC=PM (ws), ?

CC=PF (ms) 0b?, 1c?

0b Khoe Kx'a Tuu Grandparent- Grandchild Equivalence 1a

0: No equivalence 1b 0a

0a: different terms 0a for CC 1a 0a 0b: descriptive terms 0a 0a for CC 1a 0a 1c 1: Equivalence 1c 1c 1a: CD=PM, CS=PF 1c 1c 1b

1b: CC=PM 0a 1c: CC=PM (ws), ? CC=PF (ms) 0b?, 1c?

0b Khoe Kx'a Tuu Grandparent/grandchild equivalence: - Kx'a: one sub-type of PP/CC equivalence shared by Angola !Xun and Ju|'hoan probably related to PP>CC naming rules (Note: Ju|'hoan & Angola !Xun terms for PF & CS literally mean „big/small name“); another sub-type shared by Ekoka !Xun and Eastern ǂHoan where no PP>CC naming rules; ǂKx'au||ein exceptional and Khoe-like. - Khoe: no PP/CC equivalence except for Naro which uses same term for PP, PosG, PosGC, osGC, CC. - Tuu: Taa varieties show different sub-type than Kx'a languages although Taa has similar naming rules like Ju|'hoan; for N||ng, data in Bleek‘s diaries suggest that they might also have had sub-type 1c, nowadays they use descriptive terms as were also recorded for |Xam; unfortunately no data for ||Xegwi CC terms.

- Feature traces language family boundaries quite close: Khoe terminologies distinct from those of Kx'a and Tuu languages with respect to basic type; Kx'a and Tuu terminologies differ with respect to sub-type. - Note: Taa (Tuu) and Eastern ǂHoan (Kx'a) neighbors do not share same sub-type. Summary and general conclusions - Some features of kinship classifications trace language boundaries better than others; in KBA sibling classifications show a very weak fit with language family boundaries (contra Murdock 1968), all other features show better fits > check for other language families. - Individual features do not change in lockstep > general types („Eskimo“, „lineal/collateral“) are unsuitable for the study of historical processes. - The kinship classification of the most prominent San in anthropological literature (Ju|'hoansi) is anomalous in several respects not only within the Kalahari Basin Area but even within the Ju dialect cluster > pan-dialectal research necessary to discuss Khoisan kinship systens and understand historical developments. - The most highly endangered languages (Eastern ǂHoan, N||ng) share highest number of features with neighbors > be careful in using data from highly endangered languages for reconstruction of kinship classifications. - Diverse similarities with neighboring Bantu and Indo-European kinship classifications suggest historically more recent contact effects beyond ‚simple‘ loan terms > kinship classifications are less conservative than often claimed in kinship studies (contra e.g. Trautmann 2008: 310). > untangling historical relationships in 'Khoisan' kinship systems cannot be successful without taking into account contact effects in the more recent history. References: Barnard, A. (1976). Nharo Bushman Kinship and the Transformation of Khoi Kin Categories. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Anthropology. University College London. --- (1992). Hunters and Herders of Southern Africa: A Comparative Ethnography of the Khoisan People. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Bleek, D.F. (1924). Bushman Terms of Relationship. Bantu Studies 2: 57-70. --- (1929). Comparative Vocabularies of Bushman Languages. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Boden, G. (2005). Prozesse sozialen Wandels vor dem Hintergrund staatlicher Eingriffe. Eine Fallstudie zu den Khwe in West Caprivi/Namibia. Dissertation. Institut für Ethnologie. Köln, Universität zu Köln. Dickens, P. (1994). English – Ju/'hoan, Ju/'hoan - English Dictionary. Cologne, Rüdiger Köppe. Engelbrecht, J. A. (1936). The Korana: An Account of their Customs and their History, with Texts. Cape Town, Maskew Miller. Gruber, J. (1973). ǂHoa Kinship Terms. Linguistic Inquiry IV(4): 427-49. Güldemann, T. (2008). A Linguist's View: Khoe-Kwadi Speakers as the Earliest Food-Producers of Southern Africa. Sadr, Karim & Francois-Xavier Fauvelle-Aymar: Khoekhoe and the Origins of Herding in Southern Africa 20(1): 93-132. Haacke, W. & E.Eiseb (2002). A Khoekhoegowab Dictionary with an English-Khoekhoegowab Index. Windhoek, Gamsberg Macmillan Publishers. Heinz, H.-J. (1994 [1966]). Social Organization of the !Ko Bushmen. Edited by Klaus Keuthmann. Cologne, Rüdiger Köppe. Hoernlé, W.A. (1985 [1925]). The Social Organization of the Nama Hottentots of Southwest Africa and Other Essays. Edited by P. Carstens. Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press. Kilian-Hatz, C. (2003). Khwe Dictionary. Cologne, Rüdiger Köppe. Köhler, O. (1966). Die Wortbeziehungen zwischen der Sprache der Kxoe-Buschmänner und dem Hottentottischen als geschichtliches Problem. Lukas, J. Neuere Afrikanistische Studien (Festschrift A. Klingenheben). Hamburg, Deutsches Institut für Afrikaforschung: 144-65. Lebzelter, V. (1934). Rassen und Kulturen in Süd-Afrika, Vol. 2: Eingeborenenkulturen in Südwest- und Südafrika. Leipzig, Karl W. Hiersemann. Lee, R.B. (1984). The Dobe !Kung. Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology. New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston. --- (1993). The Dobe Ju/'hoansi. 2nd Edition. Fort Worth, Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Marshall, L. (1957). The Kin Terminology System of the !Kung Bushmen. Africa 27: 1-25. Murdock, G.P. (1968). Patterns of sibling terminology. Ethnology 7: 1-24. Ono, H.(1996). An Ethnosemantic Analysis of /Gui Relationship Terminology. African Study Monographs(Suppl. 22): 125-44. --- (1997). How do the |Gui Categorize People? Gengo Kenkyu Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan 111: 42-57. Potgieter, E. F. (1955). The Disappearing Bushmen of Lake Chrissie: A Preliminary Survey. Pretoria, J.L. van Schaik. Takada, A. (2008). Kinship and naming among the Ekoka !Xun. Ermisch, S.: Khoisan languages and linguistics: Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium, January 8-12, 2006, Riezlern/Kleinwalsertal. Cologne, Rüdiger Köppe: 303-22. Traill, A. (1994). A !Xóõ Dictionary. Cologne, Rüdiger Köppe. Trautmann, T.R. (2008). Lewis Henry Morgan and the Invention of Kinship. Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press: 308-33. Widlok, T. (1999). Living on Mangetti. Bushman Autonomy and Namibian Independence. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Acknowledgements: Thanks are due to the San communities in Namibia and Botswana for their cooperation and support. This work, as part of the European Science Foundation EUROCORES Programme EuroBABEL, was supported by funds from the British Economic and Social Research Council.