Names
Southern African foragers are known as Bushmen, Basarwa, Bojesman, G|wi, G||ana, Hai||om, Khoi, Kxoe (Makwengo), Nharo (Naro), !Koõ (!Xoõ), Masarwa, San, Sangua, Sarwa, Soaqua, !Xu, Zhu|õasi (!Kung).
The name "San" comes from the Khoi people (of the same geographic area but who are not foragers) and means "aborigines" or "settlers proper". When Dutch explorers reached the Cape of Good Hope in the seventeenth century, they called the San people "Bushmen". This term stuck for centuries but is now considered both racist and sexist (2003: 9).1
The San are defined as "a cluster of indigenous peoples in southern Africa who speak a click language and who have a tradition of living by hunting and gathering" (2003: 11).2 There are different groups of San peoples who vary greatly in physical appearance and in culture. The Ju/'hoansi is one unique, distinct foraging group among the numerous others defined as San.3
The !Kung have always referred to themselves as Ju/'hoansi (pronounced "zhut-wasi"), which means "real people". Ju/'hoan is an adjective, and Ju is a bit more informal and refers to "person" or "people". The spelling of "Ju/'hoansi" was chosen by the Ju. The terms "!Kung", "San", and "Bushmen" are older and should be avoided whenever possible, particularly among anthropologists and students.4
Location
Map of Ju/'hoansi Territory (http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/pol_2.htm)
Population
For the most part, the San live in Angola, Namibia, and Botswana; some populations are found in South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.5
As of January 2001, the San are estimated to be around 112,000 and their numbers are rising.6
Environment
The Ju/’hoansi live in the Kalahari Desert of Southern Africa. Their habitat is divided into four different types: dunes, flats, melapo, and hardpan/dry river valley. Each habitat is unique and grows different trees and shrubs, including Mongongo nut trees, Grewia berry bushes, Acacia trees, and Baobab trees. Despite being a semi-desert with scarce water resources, the Kalahari is home to a large array of fauna, which include lions, leopards, cheetahs, hyenas, wild dogs, elephants, kudu, wildebeest, gemsbok, giraffes, eland, roan antelope, and hartebeest. There are five main seasons identified by the Ju/’hoansi: !Huma, the spring rains; Bara, the main summer rains; Tobe, autumn; !Gum, winter; and !Gaa, the spring dry season. Temperatures range from 86 to 104 degrees Fahrenheit in summer and from 75 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit in winter (2003: 23-27).7
Economy
Gathering
Ju women are usually the gatherers, and in Ju/’hoansi society gathering makes up the majority of the calories in the diet, which is about 70%. Women have extensive knowledge of plant types, when they are ripe and where they can be found. The gathering women use only a single tool called a digging stick. It is used to dig roots and bulbs as well as burrowed animals. The single most important food gathered by Ju/’hoansi women comes from the mongongo tree, which produces both fruit and nuts. The mongongo is the second most desired food, just behind meat, and is valued because it tastes good; it is abundant; the fruit and nuts are gathered easily (usually collected from the ground); and it is full of nutrients. However, there are over 100 plant species that the Ju/’hoansi consider edible, which include the Baobab and the Marula. Both plants are commonly found at waterholes but are seasonal and thus not heavily relied upon (2003: 40-47).8
Mongongos and Optimal Foraging Theory
There has been a debate about whether or not the extent to which the mongongo is utilized by the Ju/’hoansi is maladaptive. One argument is that the Optimal Foraging Model is inadequate when examining human populations and possible maladaptation. As such, the mongongo seems maladaptive because the theory does not apply to humans properly.9 However, others argue that the time it takes to find and process mongongos is disproportionate to the calories and nutrients they provide, especially to the extent that the Ju/’hoansi gather them, to be the best adaptation.10 For further reading check out the articles below, both of which are available on JSTOR. Also see Optimal Foraging Theory.
Hunting
In Ju/’hoansi society men are usually the hunters, and about 30% of the total calories in the diet come from meat and hunting. Ju/’hoansi men hunt with a wide range of tools, including bow and arrow, spear, knife, springhare hook, and rope snare. There are four types of hunting practiced by the Ju/’hoansi: first is the classic bow and poisoned arrow hunting of large game on open planes; second is hunting with dogs and using them to bring down smaller game; third is the practice of digging out burrowing animals underground; and fourth is the snaring of small animals, which is used by older hunters and young boys. The Ju/’hoansi have mastered the skill of tracking animals, and they must utilize their ability when hunting, especially when hunting with bow and poisoned arrow. Because the poisoned arrows do not kill the animals right away, hunters must track the poisoned, wounded, and dying animals for several days at a time (2003: 48-51).11
Sharing and the Practice of Insulting the Meat
The fair distribution and sharing of meat is extremely important in Jo/’hoansi culture, and several methods have been adopted to ensure proper sharing. For example, the meat from a kill is not owned by the hunter, but rather the man who made the arrow the hunter used. The arrow maker then becomes responsible for distributing the meat amongst the rest of the group. Another cultural rule is that of insulting the meat. When a hunter makes a kill he is not praised for his efforts, and in fact he will often insult and belittle his own kill. Other men and villagers insult the meat as well, regardless of how good the kill is. It is thought that this practice occurs as a way to maintain an egalitarian society by preventing successful hunters from gaining too much status (2003: 45-53).12
Why hunt?
Because meat makes up so little of the Ju/'hoansi diet, some anthropologists question why men choose to pursue large game when it is smaller game and nutritious plants that would be more beneficial to the hunter's immediate family. Polly Wiessner explored four different hypotheses for this phenomenon: first, there is the idea of reciprocity. This hypothesis concerns the return on investment a hunter can expect with large game. This includes not only the receiving of game from other hunters in the future, but also the exchange of other services, such as assistance, in times of need; second is the showing off or “costly signaling” hypothesis, which states that a hunter kills large game in order to gain social status and respect; third is the inclusive fitness hypothesis. Because Ju/’hoansi generally live in groups of related kin, this idea states that a large proportion of meat will be given to kin, and thus increase the hunter’s fitness; and the final hypothesis that Wiessner explores is the long-term political goals of cooperative breeding. Although Wiessner found support for all four hypotheses, she could not draw any conclusions based on her sample size.13
Marriage and Kinship
The Ju/'hoansi have three distinct kinship systems. Kinship I refers to the immediate family and is the system that gives the names for father (ba), mother (tai), son, daughter, and so on. Some names are different for relatives of a certain age, such as older brother (!ko) and younger brother (tsin). There is no distinction between the patrilineal and matrilineal siblings of the ego's parents or their children (2003: 64-66).14
Another important feature of Kinship I are joking (k"ai) and avoidance (kwa) relationships. In a joking relationship, interactions are relaxed and informal. An avoidance relationship is characterized by respectful interaction and more formal language. Joking and avoidance relationships are found in alternating generations from the ego. For example, the ego would have an avoidance relationship with his parents and children and a joking relationship with his grandparents and grandchildren. Ju/'hoansi may not marry someone with whom they have an avoidance relationship (2003: 66-69).15
Kinship II is characterized by the name relationship. Because there are very few names available and every child is named for someone, there are often several people in an area, both related and non-related, that share a single name. Again, relative age distinctions are made; an older person that shares the ego's name is called !kun!a, or old name, while a younger person is called !kuma (young name). Furthermore, the ego applies Kinship I terms to anyone that shares a name with close relatives (i.e., the ego calls a man that shares his father's name "father"). Kinship II can also contradict the joking and avoidance relationships outlined in Kinship I, as any person with the same name as the ego instantly becomes part of a joking relationship, regardless of age or generation (2003: 69-72).16
The last kinship system, Kinship III, allows the Ju/'hoansi to reconcile the contradicting kinship terms that often arise in Kinships I and II. The system relies on the principle of Wi, which is the use of relative age to exert power over kinship terms. In an interaction between two people where different kinship terms could be used, the older person chooses the term that will apply to the relationship (2003: 72-74).17
The Ju/’hoansi have strict rules against marrying within a bilateral circle of relatives that reaches as far as second cousins. Also, an individual cannot marry someone who shares the same name as his/her parent or sibling, as well as anyone who falls into the avoidance kin group. The couple’s parents usually arrange first marriages while the betrothed are children, a process that includes negotiations and gift giving.
Polygyny is permissible but uncommon in Ju/’hoansi society, and men who do take multiple wives seldom surpass two. Husbands and wives live together, and husbands are usually much older than their wives. Men’s responsibilities include hunting and manufacturing crafts, while women forage, raise children, and manage chores. Divorce is common and easily attainable, and second marriages are frequent. When couples do separate, children live with their mother (2003: 77-84).18
Language
Ju languages are characterized by a clicking sound. Four clicks are used: dental, alveolar, alveopalatal, and lateral. Other sounds include nasalization and glottal flap.19 Click here to hear Ju/'hoansi guttaral sounds.
Detailed tables of Ju phonetics can be found here.
Settlement and Group Structure
Traditionally, the Ju/’hoansi live in camps of about 10-30 people. These settlements are non-cooperative and bilaterally organized (neither paternal or maternal descent groups). Each group is usually centered around a sibling pair (regardless of sex) who are loosely recognized as owning the waterhole and the surrounding area, which is called the n!ore. Normally, the group consists of the sibling pair, each sibling’s spouse, the spouse’s sibling(s) and their spouse(s), and all of the couples' children. Ju/’hoansi groups are generally very fluid. Members leave and join groups often due to marriage, exhaustion of local resources, conflicts within the group, joining and leaving visitors, and changes in sex/dependency ratios.20
Naming Rules
Researchers once believed that naming rules for the Ju/'hoansi were strictly adhered to. In theory, the first-born son is named after the paternal grandfather, and the first-born daughter is named after the paternal grandmother. Second-born sons and daughters are named after the maternal grandfather and grandmother, respectively. Additional children are named for patrilineal aunts and uncles, followed by matrilineal ones (2003: 69).21 However, recent research has indicated that this is not always the case.
Patricia Draper and Christine Haney used ethnographic data from the late 1960s to study naming rules among the Ju/’hoansi. In a society known for its egalitarianism, men have the exclusive right of naming children in order to establish fictive kin relationships. Not only does this contradict the standards of Ju/’hoansi society, it is contrary to what researchers concluded in past studies. The authors investigate naming patterns of the first child born to a couple to determine if, in fact, children are named for their paternal grandparent, as the rule implies. Results of the study indicate that not all children are named accordingly, which means that the Ju/’hoansi do not always conform to their own rules. Draper and Haney believe the patrilateral bias is an exception to the rule of Ju/’hoansi customs. However, it is important because the naming practice implies a strong connection between a father and his parents, and it suggests that it is a social strategy used by fathers to benefit themselves and their children.22
Religious Beliefs
Anthropologists who have studied the Ju/'hoansi are familiar with the healing ceremony known as !kia healing, and Richard Katz wrote an article about it after he observed this unique Ju/'hoansi ritual. Through the use of !kia healing ceremonies, the Ju/'hoansi can cure the illnesses of others. The ceremony usually begins in the evening and commences with women singing. The men join in by dancing around the singers until the entire village is participating in the ritual. These healing dances often last until dawn or early morning. The energy created through the dancing and singing is called n/um. Everyone has n/um inside of them, but it is those who can control it that have the ability to become healers. With an increase, or "boiling", of n/um in a person, the ability to enter into !kia is increased. !Kia has been described as an enhanced consciousness and can often be perceived as a frightening experience. Observers at the dance are sometimes scared as they may witness a loved one transform from their normal state to one of !kia. When a healer enters into !kia, they have the ability to heal all those present at the dance. In this state, it is the healer's job to contact the gods and dead ancestors who are responsible for sickness and death. !Kia healers are responsible for fighting on behalf of the sick, to make sure they are not taken by these spirits. The healers must persuade the spirits to allow the sick person to live and to convince the dead that it is not the ill person's time to leave this domain. !Kia healing is a very religious and spiritual ritual and is very important to the Ju/'hoansi.23
History
Also see The Kalahari Debate
The Ju/'hoansi Today
When anthropological studies of the Ju/’hoansi commenced in the 1950s and 1960s, it was noted that their kinship, productive, and land-tenure systems were mostly intact. As time passed, however, the Ju/’hoansi became less isolated and their knowledge of the outside world grew quickly, which led to fundamental changes within their traditional sociocultural system. One of the major problems, as Richard B. Lee addressed, is that “in the 1970s the tempo of change accelerated, and new changes kept arriving before the previous ones could be absorbed. The capacity of the Ju to absorb these developments without shattering was being tested to the limit” (2003: 152).24 The Ju/’hoansi were fully exposed to western technology in less than a decade, and the Ju didn’t have the coping skills or the knowledge to respond to those changes.
The Ju/’hoansi were introduced to farming and herding, which restricted their mobility and changed the structure of society. Children became involved in household chores and tending animals, and men and women were separated in daily work. Not only did the subsistence strategy change, but also the concept of sharing, the core of foraging life.
Many men became migrant workers, traveling to Johannesburg, South Africa, to seek employment as miners. Ju/’hoansi men earned cash, albeit very little, and thus were able to purchase goods such as sugar, kerosene, soap, clothing, dry goods, etc. With the introduction of sugar, the Ju/’hoansi learned to brew beer. Making and selling beer created businesswomen and alcoholics, which led to fighting and neglecting daily tasks.
In one generation, the Ju/’hoansi shifted from an exclusively foraging society to one struggling to get by with herding, farming, craft production, and some hunting and gathering. As the Ju/’hoansi continue to integrate into the modern world, poverty and conflict fueled by alcohol are still problematic. Outside groups have tried to control their economic resources, but the Ju/’hoansi have mobilized to fight against this. The Ju/’hoansi continue to grapple with issues of autonomy, land possession, alcoholism, subsistence, identity, and poverty.25
A Success Story
The Ju/’hoansi of Botswana have been successful in their response to land encroachment and a lack of legal rights to ancestral land and resources. While the Ju/’hoansi have been hunter-gatherers in the past, they now mix foraging with agriculture (some have livestock) and have integrated into the market economy. After years of unsuccessful government lobbying for their rights, the Ju/’hoansi realized the power of mapping their land and used it to garner financial support and international interest. They used the maps to unite community members and to spark their interest in learning about their collective past and resource management patterns. Because the Botswana government does not look favorably upon indigenous groups, the Ju/’hoansi found ways to gain land and resource rights by digging wells, for example, which entitled them to claim the land for land and water allocations. The Ju/’hoansi took proactive measures to protect their cultural identity, and they have been extremely successful with this strategy. Global processes, such as the expansion of economic development and the international trade of goods and services, forced the hunter-gatherer Ju/’hoansi to develop alternative subsistence strategies, and their accomplishments are important to understanding where they stand today and what the future may hold for them.26
Future Challenges
Ida Susser worked with Richard Lee to examine issues of poverty and women’s autonomy to gauge the impact of HIV among the Ju’hoansi in Namibia and Botswana. The consequences of colonialism, wars, and agricultural encroachment have destroyed much of the Ju’hoansi’s traditional way of life. Susser found that in villages where foraging is still possible and the people there are protected from the “exploitative incursions of capitalism”, there is more stability in personal relationships, women are independent, and there is less HIV prevalence. However, development brings the possibility of HIV, and while foraging societies in the Kalahari, such as the Ju’hoansi, have been protected from the epidemic through their resilience, increased tourism and development plans are seriously threatening their survival strategies.27
The Changing Role of Children
Anthropologists Raymond Hames and Patricia Draper examined the use of Ju/’hoansi children as helpers and concluded that their value as workers is determined by the economic roles, i.e., subsistence strategies, of their parents. These roles have changed significantly in recent years because the Ju/’hoansi are no longer full-time hunter-gatherers; they have implemented much agriculture into their subsistence methods, and it is believed that this change contributed to increased fertility and population growth. While children were not included in hunting and gathering work, they are useful helpers in horticulture. The expectations of children (as workers and as child care providers) have changed among the Ju/’hoansi, which is indicative of the changing dynamics within their society as survival strategies change.28
Changing Norms
Polly Wiessner used data from her fieldwork in the mid-1970s, when the Ju/’hoansi were primarily foragers, and in the 1990s, when foraging was no longer the most important subsistence strategy, to examine how social norms are enforced and what the cost of punishment is to society. When norms are broken and consequences are implemented, they reflect the cultural values that are critical to understanding social dynamics. She found that the methods and outcomes of punishments were relatively unchanged after 20 years, though punishable acts were somewhat different; thus, the Ju’hoansi have undergone changes in their social values system. For example, the shift from hunting and gathering to more agriculture-based subsistence means that people moved to permanent villages, which resulted in less focus on kinship obligations. Norms are what define and regulate society, and they reflect changing attitudes and values among the Ju/’hoansi. Wiessner found that in the past few years, crime has risen significantly with the introduction of alcohol, and the costs of punishment are so high that councils have been created to offset traditional punishment methods that have become, in some instances, obsolete.29
Pictures
Documentary Educational Resources (DER), an organization founded for the purpose of producing and distributing cross-cultural documentary film for educational use, posted the John Marshall Photo Archive on Flickr. Thousands of photos from 50 years of working with the Ju/'hoansi are accessible to the public, free of charge. All photos posted on this page were taken from that archive.
Ju/'hoansi Tribe Photos, 1950s-1970s
Error fetching flickr image (id: 273384229) info. The file does not exist, is private or other problem.John Marshall Photo Archive: A Hunter with Bow and Arrows
John Marshall Photo Archive: Foraging for Berries
John Marshall Photo Archive: A Ju/'hoansi Camp
John Marshall Photo Archive: Farming
Ju/'hoansi Tribe Contemporary Photos
Error fetching flickr image (id: 283933361) info. The file does not exist, is private or other problem.Error fetching flickr image (id: 283933637) info. The file does not exist, is private or other problem.John Marshall Photo Archive
John Marshall Photo Archive: Gautcha, Permanent Watering Hole in Village
John Marshall Photo Archive: A Political Rally in the late 1980s.
John Marshall Photo Archive
References cited
Draper, Patricia, and Christine Haney
2005 Patrilateral bias among a traditionally egalitarian people: Ju/'hoansi naming practice. Ethnology 44(3): 243-259.
Hames, Raymond, and Patricia Draper
2004 Women’s Work, Child Care, and Helpers-at-the-Nest in a Hunter-Gatherer Society. Human Nature 15(4): 319-341.
Hawkes, Kristen, and James F. O’Connell.
1985 Optimal Foraging Models and the Case of the !Kung. American Anthropologist, New Series 87(2): 401-405.
Hitchcock, Robert K.
2003 Land, livestock and leadership among the Ju/’hoansi San of North Western Botswana. Anthropologica 45(1): 89-94.
Katz, Richard
1982 Accepting "Boiling Energy": The Experience of !Kia-Healing among the !Kung. Ethos 10(4): 344-368.
Lee, Richard B.
2003 The Dobe Ju/'hoansi. Belmont (CA): Thompson Wadsworth Learning (3rd edition).
Sih, Andrew, and Katharine A. Milton.
1985 Optinal Diet Theory: Should the !Kung Eat Mongongoes?. American Anthropologist, New Series 87(2): 395-401.
Susser, Ida
2003 Ju’hoansi survival in the face of HIV: questions of poverty and gender. Anthropologica 45(1): 121-128.
Wiessner, Polly
2002 Hunting, haling, and hxaro exchange: a long-term perspective on !Kung (Ju/’hoansi) large-game hunting. Evolution and Human Behavior 23:407-436.
Wiessner, Polly
2003 Owners of the Future?:Calories, Cash, Casualties and Self-Sufficiency in the Nyae Nyae Area between 1996 and 2003. Visual Anthropology Review 19(1&2): 149-159.
Wiessner, Polly
2005 Norm Enforcement among the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity? Human Nature 16(2): 115-145.
External links
The Ju/'hoansi of the Kalahari website contains detailed information about Ju/'hoansi marriage and kinship systems.
Check out the Kalahari Peoples Fund for information on how the organization is helping indigenous peoples of the Kalahari Desert. Lee refers to this site in The Dobe Ju/'hoansi (2003: 192).
For an interesting article on the San Cultural Center, see San Cultural Center Opens in South Africa, from the Cultural Survival Quarterly in June 2006.
