'Khoisan' kinship classifications: Geographical ... · 'Khoisan' kinship classifications:...

24
'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.

Transcript of 'Khoisan' kinship classifications: Geographical ... · 'Khoisan' kinship classifications:...

'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

Lineages and branches Language(s) or dialects (DC = Dialect Cluster, † = extinct) KHOE-KWADI Kwadi Khoe Khoekhoe

North

South

Kalahari Khoe

East Shua Tshwa

West Khwe

G||ana Naro

single language†

Eini†, Nama, Damara, ǂAkhoe-Hai||om !Ora†, Cape varieties†

Deti†, Cara, |Xaise, Danisi, Ts'ixa, etc. Shua, Kua, Cua, Tsua, etc.

Khwe, ||Ani, Buga, G|anda, etc. G||ana, G|ui, ǂHaba, etc. Naro, etc.

KX'A Eastern ǂHoan

Ju (DC) Northwest Southeast

single language

!Xun (Angola), !Xun (Ekoka)

Ju|'hoan, ǂKx'au||'en TUU Taa-Lower Nossob

Taa (DC) West East Lower Nossob (DC?)

!Ui

N|u||'en†, West !Xoon N|amani†, Kakia†, 'N|oha, East !Xoon, Tshasi, ǂHuan, etc. |'Auni†, |Haasi†

||Xegwi†; |Xam† (DC); ǂUngkue†; N||ng (DC)

Internal classification of 'Khoisan' (adapted from Güldemann 2008:98)

Language sample

Khoe Kx'a Tuu

||Xegwi

!Ora

|Xam

N||ng

Eastern ǂHoan

Ju|'hoan

Nama

!Xun Khwe

Shua

Damara Naro

E-!Xoon G|ui

ǂKx'au||ein

ǂAkhoe- Hai||om

!Xun

W-!Xoon 'N|oha Tshasi

ǂHuan

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

Type Number of terms

Social Dimensions

Referents

1 2 Sex of referent sister (Z) brother (B)

2 2 Relative Age younger sibling (yG) elder sibling (eG)

3 3 Relative age Sex of referent

younger sibling (yG) elder sister (eZ) elder brother (eB)

4 4 Relative age Sex of referent

younger sister (yZ) elder sister (eZ) younger brother (yB) elder brother (eB)

5 3 Relative gender Relative age

opposite-sex sibling (osG) younger same-sex sibling (yssG) elder same-sex sibling (essG)

Feature 1: Sibling classifications

Sibling classification

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

Khoe Kx'a Tuu

1

1

1

1

2

3

1

4

5

4 4

4

4

4

4

2 2

2 2

2

4

Sibling classification

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

Khoe Kx'a Tuu

1

1

1

2

3

1

4

5

4 4

4

4

4

4

2 2

2 2

2

4

1

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 Name

Terms Equivalence

1 Generational Same terms for siblings and cousins

G = PGC

2 Lineal/ Collateral

Siblings distinguished from cousins

G ≠ PssGC = PosGC

3 Cross/ Parallel

Siblings and parallel cousins distinguished from cross cousins

G = PssGC ≠ PosGC

Cousin classification

1: G=PGC

2: G≠PssGC= PosGC

3: G=PssGC≠ PosGC

Khoe Kx'a Tuu

3 (?)

3

1

2

3

2

3

3

3

3 3

3

1 (?)

3

1

3 3

3 3

3

1

Cousin classification

1: G=PGC

2: G≠PssGC= PosGC

3: G=PssGC≠ PosGC

Khoe Kx'a Tuu

3 (?)

3

1

2

3

2

3

3

3

3 3

3

1

3

1

3 3

3 3

3

1

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 2: P ≠ PssG ≠ PosG=PP

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

Khoe Kx'a Tuu

0

3c

1

0

3b

1

3c

3d

3e

3c 3a

3b

1

3c

?

3a 3b

3a 3b

3b

2a

Classification of parents‘ siblings

0: Descriptive 1: P ≠ PssG=PosG 2: P ≠ PssG ≠ PosG=PP

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

Khoe Kx'a Tuu

0

3c

1

0

3b

1

3c

3d

3e

3c 3a

3b

1

3c

?

3a 3b

3a 3b

3b

2a

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/colla-teral 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)

Khoe Kx'a Tuu

?

0a

0b

0b?, 1c?

2b

1a

0

0a

0a

0a 1a

0a

0a

0a

1a

1c 1c

1c 1c

1c

1b

Grandparent-Grandchild Equivalence

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

1: Equivalence 1a: CD=PM, CS=PF 1b: CC=PM 1c: CC=PM (ws), CC=PF (ms)

Khoe Kx'a Tuu

?

0a

0b

0b?, 1c?

1b

1a

0a

0a

0a

0a 1a

0a

0a

0a

1a

1c 1c

1c 1c

1c

1b

Grandparent-Grandchild Equivalence

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

1: Equivalence 1a: CD=PM, CS=PF 1b: CC=PM 1c: CC=PM (ws), CC=PF (ms)

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.