Variability in mobility and land use strategies among the Ju/’hoansi of the North Western Kalahari and the G/ui and G//ana in the Central Kalahari Region, Botswana
p. 279-293
Résumés
This paper examines variability in mobility and land use strategies of the Ju/’hoansi San in the Dobe-/Xai/Xai and Nyae Nyae regions of the north western Kalahari and those of the G/ui and G//ana of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve in central Botswana. Important factors in the mobility and land use include spatial and temporal variability in rainfall, the presence or absence of pans (playas) that contain water year-round, the availability of water-bearing melons and roots, group size and composition, technology, government development programs and policies, including those relating to hunting and gathering, agriculture, and food provision. The archaeological implications of the differences in mobility and land use practices in the northwestern and Central Kalahari are explored.
Variabilité des stratégies de mobilité et d’occupation des terres des Ju/’hoansi du nord-ouest du Kalahari et des G/ui et des G//ana du Kalahari central, au Botswana
L’évolution dans le temps et l’espace des stratégies de mobilité et d’occupation des terres des San Ju/’hoansi de la région de Dobe - /Xai/Xai, dans le nordouest du Kalahari, est comparée à celles des G/ui et des G//ana de la Réserve de gibier du Kalahari central. Il existe une différence majeure entre ces deux régions, puisque qu’il y a au moins une douzaine de cuvettes (dépressions à fond argileux qui retiennent l’eau de la saison des pluies) dans le nord-ouest du Kalahari, alors qu’il n’y en a aucune qui contienne de l’eau toute l’année dans le Kalahari central. Les pratiques de mobilité passés des Ju/’hoansi voyaient l’agrégation en grands groupes autour des trous d’eau permanents à la saison sèche et la dispersion en petites unités familiales à la saison humide. Cela eu pour conséquence l’accumulation et la stratification d’ensembles de matériels culturels et naturels dans les zones à proximité des trous d’eau permanents et la présence d’un matériel beaucoup plus dispersé et rare dans les campements de la saison sèche. Dans le Kalahari central, en revanche, les G/ui, les G//ana et d’autres San et Bakgalagadi se rassemblaient en grands groupes à la saison des pluies, près des lieux où poussaient les melons sauvages (Citrullus lanatus), et se dispersaient en petits groupes familiaux à la saison sèche, pendant laquelle ils se contentaient de racines et trouvaient de l’eau dans l’estomac des animaux. Au-delà de ces agrégations et de ces dispersions saisonnières, l’une et l’autre région démontraient des variations à plus long terme des pratiques de mobilité et d’occupation des terres correspondant à l’alternance cyclique de périodes de sécheresse et de fortes pluies. Les populations locales modulaient alors leurs stratégies d’adaptation et changeaient leurs modes d’occupation des terres et leurs pratiques de subsistance afin de s’adapter aux nouvelles conditions climatiques. Les Ju/’hoansi, dont les territoires couvrent plus de 70 000 km2 à cheval sur la frontière entre le nord-ouest du Botswana et le nord-est de la Namibie, ont subi des processus de sédentarisation et de diversification des moyens de subsistance au cours des soixante-dix dernières années. Dans le Kalahari central, les G/ui, les G//ana et leurs voisins occupent un territoire de 80 à 85 000 km2, dont une partie est située en dehors des 52 730 km2 de la Réserve de gibier du Kalahari central (CKGR). Le regroupement en villages s’est produit après que des puits ont été forés à New Xade dans les années 70, puis ailleurs dans la réserve dans les années 1980. Dans l’ensemble, les populations du Kalahari central sont plutôt plus mobiles que les Ju/’hoansi et couvrent des territoires plus vastes. C’est sans doute dû en partie à une plus grande aridité de la région et à la dépendance vis-à-vis de plantes sauvages telles que le marama (Tylosema esculentum) et les melons (ex. Citrillus lanatus et Acanthosicyos naudiniana). La différence entre le nord-ouest du Kalahari et le Kalahari central s’explique peut-être, entre autres raisons, par ce que Richard Lee a décrit comme « la surabondance » d’une ressource végétale de grande qualité, le mongongo ou mangetti (Schinziophyton rautanenii), qui pousse dans le nord-ouest. Des expéditions logistiques de courte durée étaient entreprises pour la collecte de plantes sauvages par les femmes G/ui et G//ana aussi bien que Ju/’hoan, souvent en compagnie de leurs enfants. Dans l’une et l’autre partie du Kalahari, des groupes organisaient des expéditions de chasse à longue distance, généralement à dos d’âne ou de cheval. Dans le Kalahari central, l’utilisation des chevaux par les chasseurs a entraîné une explosion du nombre d’oryx gazelles (Oryx gazella) abattus en 1983. A !Xade, le forage d’un nouveau puits et la mise en place d’infrastructures sociales telles qu’une école et un dispensaire ont entraîné une hausse de la densité de population qui, combinée à l’efficacité accrue des techniques de chasse et au nombre croissant d’animaux sauvages tués, a contribué à la décision prise par le gouvernement du Botswana de relocaliser la grande majorité des habitants à l’extérieur de la Réserve de gibier du Kalahari central en 1997, puis en 2002 et en 2005. Au terme d’une bataille juridique débutée en 2004 et considérée comme la plus longue et la plus coûteuse de l’histoire du Botswana, les populations du Kalahari central ont obtenu le droit de retourner sur leurs terres ancestrales en décembre 2006. En février 2007, les gens qui vivaient dans les camps de « relocalisation » de New !Xade, Kaudwane et Xere ont commencé à regagner le Kalahari central. Confrontés entre autres problèmes à la pénurie d’eau, ils ont à nouveau intenté un procès à l’État pour réclamer leur droit à l’eau. La cour d’appel du Botswana leur a donné raison en 2011. En mai 2020, on comptait environ 370 individus répartis en cinq communautés dans la Réserve de gibier du Kalahari central. Ils souffraient du manque d’eau potable en quantité suffisante et des dégâts faits par les éléphants (Loxondonta africana) dans leurs jardins et leurs champs. Il existe plusieurs différences notables entre la situation du Kalahari central et celle du Nyae Nyae, en Namibie. Pour commencer, la chasse de subsistance n’est pas autorisée dans le Kalahari central, alors que les Ju/’hoansi du Nyae Nyae ont le droit à un quota limité de proies à condition de les chasser avec leurs armes traditionnelles. Ensuite, des éleveurs venus d’autres régions se sont installés dans la zone de Tsumkwe, dans le Nyae Nyae, en avril 2009. Tout comme les peuples autochtones du Kalahari central, qui ont déjà gagné trois procès portant sur les terres et les ressources, mais attendent toujours la pleine application des verdicts rendus par la Haute Cour du Botswana, les Ju/’hoansi ont fait appel à la justice pour entériner leurs droits sur les terres et les ressources. Toutefois la Haute Cour de Namibie n’a pas encore statué sur l’action collective intentée en 2015 pour obtenir l’éviction des éleveurs illégaux de Nyae Nyae. Bien qu’ils apprécient la voie légale, les Ju/’hoansi et les populations du Kalahari central la considèrent comme une stratégie coûteuse et risquée.
Les sites résidentiels du Kalahari central et du nord-ouest du Kalahari témoignent de changements qui ont fait l’objet d’études ethnoarchéologiques et ethnographiques. On constate ainsi une augmentation de la taille des sites, l’apparition de constructions plus permanentes, la présence de clôtures autour des habitations et, dans certains cas, des terres cultivées, ainsi que le recours à des techniques d’une complexité croissante — y compris des appareils aussi modernes que la voiture, le téléphone cellulaire et, pour les Ju/’hoansi, l’ordinateur. La technologie moderne s’avère précieuse pour mobiliser les gens et faire circuler des informations importantes — à commencer, depuis 2020, par les informations sur la nécessité de la distanciation sociale, de l’utilisation de savon et de gel hydroalcoolique et du port de masques pour lutter contre la pandémie de coronavirus dans les jardins, les champs et les points d’eau permanents. Autre changement notable à souligner, à la fois dans le nord-ouest du Kalahari et dans le Kalahari central, le nombre croissant de récipients en plastique pour l’eau, de casseroles en fer pour la cuisine, de vêtements, de couvertures et d’outils agricoles variés. Tout indique en outre un déclin dans les échanges d’objets socialement importants tels que des colliers et des bracelets en perles de coquille d’oeuf d’autruche et d’autres biens autrefois essentiels aux interactions sociales et au maintien des alliances sociales. Grâce à l’utilisation des assistants de navigation (GPS), des cartes ethnologiques ont pu être dressées pour appuyer les revendications territoriales auprès de la Haute Cour à la fois du Botswana et de la Namibie. Les Ju/’hoansi, les G/ui et les G//ana déclarent tous que la technologie moderne leur est extrêmement utile, en particulier pour maintenir les liens sociaux et se familiariser avec le système juridique de chacun des deux pays. Autre procédé précieux, le forage de puits pour l’usage domestique, qui a connu moins de succès au Kalahari central qu’à Nyae Nyae, en partie à cause des différences de géologie. Les San considèrent les techniques contemporaines comme un outil fondamental pour leur bien-être à long terme. La documentation et l’échange d’informations ont joué un rôle central dans les procès qui se sont tenus en Namibie et au Botswana. Les populations locales de ces deux régions du Kalahari veulent exercer plus de contrôle sur leurs terres et leurs ressources et espèrent faire mieux reconnaître leur droit à la terre, à l’autodétermination et à la participation publique dans les pays où elles résident.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : mobilité, utilisation du territoire, moyens d’existence, campements, sédentarisation, changement technologique
Keywords : mobility, land use, livelihoods, campsites, sedentarization, technological change
Texte intégral
Introduction
1The San (Bushmen) of Southern Africa were considered by observers, including travelers, missionaries, and colonial officers in the 19th century to be ‘nomads’ (Gordon & Douglas 2000; Guenther 2005). This concept was used against the San when decisions were made about land allocation —the San ‘nomadism’ being used to justify removals from land because they supposedly were not using it ‘productively’— that is, they were moving about the landscape in search of wild natural resources for their livelihoods (Hitchcock 1980).
2Hunter-gatherer mobility has long been a focus of interest for archaeologists and anthropologists (see, for example, Binford 1980, 2001; Kelly 1983, 2013; Whallon 2006; Salazar and Smart 2011; Hamilton et al. 2016; Morgan et al. 2018; Haas & Kuhn 2019). Foraging peoples position themselves on the landscape, mapping on to natural resources, gearing their mobility and land use to the important geographic locations such as water points and patches of wild foods, and adjusting to the locations of other groups. Human groups also map resources on to people —sharing the results of their foraging activities.
3Human groups seek matter (materials), energy (in the form of food and fuel) and information (the latter to reduce risk and increase economic returns) (Binford 2001). For purposes of analysis, I distinguish between two kinds of mobility, residential and logistical. Residential moves include those of both producers and consumers (adults and children) from one place to another on the landscape. Often residential moves are made seasonally, depending on the availability of wild natural resources and water. Logistical moves include those where producers (e.g. hunters) go out from a residential location for a period of time for purposes of collecting, transforming, and utilizing resources (Binford 1980: 5-9, 10-12).
4In order to address issues of hunter-gather mobility and their archaeological signatures, I examine populations in two different areas in the Kalahari Desert region of Botswana and Namibia. The mobility and land use strategies of the Ju/’hoansi San in the Dobe-/Xai/Xai (/Kae/Kae) and Nyae Nyae regions of the north western Kalahari over time and space are compared to those of the G/ui and G//ana of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. The Ju/’hoansi (formerly labeled the !Kung, see Marshall 1976; Lee 1979) are some of best-known and most intensively studied people in the world. At the same time, they are also some of the most remote and marginalized people in the two countries in which they live (Hitchcock and Sapignoli 2019; Hays and Hitchcock 2020).
5The people of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve, a protected area founded in 1961 in what is now Botswana, comprise at least half a dozen groups, including the G/ui, G//ana, Tsila, Tsassi, and G//olo San and Babalaongwe Bakgalagadi who lived there for hundreds of years (Tanaka 1980, 2014; Silberbauer 1981; Valiente-Noailles 1993; Sapignoli 2018; Hitchcock and Sapignoli 2019). The people of the Central Kalahari, too, are in many ways remote and disadvantaged relative to other sets of people in Botswana. Both sets of populations have undergone a significant shift, from high to low residential mobility. People in both areas also now make much longer logistical trips to obtain key resources and to gain access to markets, health facilities, and places of employment.
Ju/’hoan and Central Kalahari San Mobility and Land Use Patterns
6The Ju/’hoansi, whose territories stretched over a 70,000 km2 area in the borderland region of north western Botswana and north eastern Namibia (figure 14.1), have undergone processes of sedentarization and livelihood diversification over the past 70 years (Marshall 1976; Wilmsen 1989; Marshall Thomas 2006; Biesele & Hitchcock 2013; Lee 2013).
Figure 14.1

Map of Nyae Nyae and Dobe-/Kae/Kae Area, map Marieka-Brouwer-Burg.
7In the 1950s and 1960s the Ju/’hoan San in Nyae Nyae and Dobe-/Xai/Xai were mobile, moving from one residential location to another between 5 and 15 times a year (Yellen 1977; Lee 1979). Mobility strategies were geared to the distribution of water points (pans and springs), patches of valuable plant resources, including mongongo or mangetti (Schinziophyton rautanenii) groves, locations of lithic materials for use in the manufacture of tools, and the distribution of other groups. The northwestern Kalahari consists of tree-bush savanna which is affected by seasonal and longer-term changes in rainfall, temperature, and wind. The landscape is cross-cut by east-west trending alab sand dunes, fixed with vegetation, and between them there are valleys, known locally as molapos (dry river beds, also called mekgacha), in which there are places containing stone materials (Marshall 1976: 52, 54; Lee 1979: 87-115; Yellen & Lee 1976). Soils are sandy, with pockets of black cotton (clay) soils which expand and contract, depending on moisture conditions, and outcrops of calcrete. There are also important physiographic features known as pans, low-lying playa-like (depressions) places that have clay bottoms where water accumulates after rains. These pans were important to the adaptations of both animal and human populations, serving as places where water, minerals, and nutrients could be obtained, and they were places that could be utilized for hunting and resource collection purposes. In most cases, Ju/’hoansi lived some distance away from the pans in order to avoid scaring wild animals that came to utilize them (Yellen 1977).
8Ju/’hoansi in Botswana from Dobe, /Kae/Kae (/Xai/Xai), and !Ube were known to have undertaken long-distance treks to the Tsodilo Hills, two hundred kilometers to the north, in order to obtain specularite (hematite, sebilo), a micaceous schist that was used for coloring an individual’s hair and for exchange with other groups (for a discussion of this product and its exploitation, see Robbins 2016). Ju/’hoansi also undertake long distance trips to towns where they seek jobs and get products that they cannot obtain locally such as parts for borehole equipment and automobiles.
9A major difference between the two parts of the Kalahari is that the northwestern Kalahari region has at least two dozen pans that have water in them throughout the year, whereas there are no pans in the Central Kalahari that have water in them that last for the entire year. In the Nyae Nyae region of Namibia, there were 16 pans that were permanent, holding water throughout the year (Marshall 1976: 64). The northwest Kalahari has slightly more rainfall on average (400-450 mm per annum) than is the case for the Central Kalahari (300-350 mm per annum) (Thomas & Shaw 2010; Kapolo 2014; Manthe-Tsuaneng 2014). The rainy season in both areas runs roughly from November to April, but rain can also fall outside of this period. The critical season for humans, wildlife, and plants in the two areas is the late dry season (August-October) saosa (G/ui), tsao seka (G//ana) !ga (Ju/’hoan); this period is that of the highest stress, and sometimes people simply lie in the shade during the day and do little if any work because of high temperatures and thirst.
10Both the Ju/’hoansi and the Central Kalahari groups would aggregate and disperse, depending on rainfall and availability of plant and animal resources. The Ju/’hoansi mobility patterns in the past saw aggregation of large groups around permanent water holes in the dry season, and dispersal into small-family-sized units in the wet season (Marshall 1976; Lee 1979). The consequence was the build-up of overlapping sets of cultural and natural materials in the areas around permanent water holes, and a much more dispersed and scanty set of materials in the dry season camps (Yellen 1977).
11Yellen mapped a set of 16 Ju/’hoan camps that were occupied periodically between January and June 1968. This period covered both the wet season (January-April, known as bara and ≠tobe) and the dry season (May-June, known as /gum. Yellen (1977: 86) says that rainy season huts were about 2 meters high and 2 meters in diameter. Huts generally housed a nuclear family (married adults and children). Some of the wet season camps were located in places away from permanent water so that people could take advantage of wild plant availability and could get water from holes in trees such as baobabs (Adansonia digitata, ≠’òm) and marula (Sclerocarya caffra, kàké). Dry season huts usually consisted of a semicircular arrangement of upright sticks about 1.5 meters in height and 1.5 meters in diameter.
12In the Central Kalahari, on the other hand, G/ui, G//ana, Tsila and other San and Bakgalagadi would aggregate in large groups (bands) during the rainy season near places that had melons (e.g. Citrullus lanatus) and disperse into small, family-sized groups during the dry season. Both the Ju/’hoansi and the Central Kalahari groups were made up of social units, sometimes called bands (see Marshall 1960: 338; Tanaka 1980: 94, 168-169) that are characterized by (a) kinship (i.e. blood) relationships, (b) marital ties, (c) economic ties (e.g. reciprocity), (d) labor-sharing, (e) locality (i.e. they have a common territory), and (f) a collective perception of unity. Bands, or as Tanaka (2014: 82) terms them, camps, can also be seen as units within which information is circulated and stored.
13As Silberbauer (1981: 139) notes, bands are not closed communities; non-band members can be brought in, as can members of other ethnic groups. Members of bands often visit other communities and places, sometimes for purposes of renewing friendships, procuring resources, or engaging in work for other people. G/ui informants say that they prefer marriage outside of one’s band (i.e. band exogamy). One can also claim band membership in a band from either one of an individual’s parents (i.e. bilaterality). The founder of a G/ui band is the !u:ma (owner) (male) or !u:sa (female). This is the person from whom one is supposed to seek permission to join the band or to gain access to a band’s resources (i.e. ‘to drink their water’) (Silberbauer 1981: 140).
14In both the northwestern and central Kalahari regions San residents have areas that they recognize as ones over which they have long-term rights of use and occupation. These areas are units of land that contain natural resources upon which people depend, including water, wild food and medicinal plants, trees for shade, fuel wood, and construction, and materials such as stone used in the manufacturing of tools and other goods. In general, the size of the territory is based on the types and amounts of resources it contains, which theoretically at least should be sufficient to meet the needs of a group in an average year. Boundary-marking of territories is unusual, but some if not all people in a band or group know roughly where the boundaries are. Property rights among the San are tied up these territories or places of historical and social significance (Marshall 1976: 71-72, 93, 103, 131-32, 184, 187-189; Yellen 1977: 37-41, 54-64; Lee 1979: 58-61, 117-19, 334; Tanaka 1980: 121-122, 145-146, 169; Barnard 1992: 14, 55, 66-67, 81, 103, 129, 139, 141, 146, 166, 191, 202-203, 241-243). The San territorial unit is known as a n!ore (Ju/'hoan) and a gu (G/ui) and g!u (G//ana). The average territorial area in the past varied, but among the Ju/’hoansi it was approximately 250 km2 in size while among the G/ui and G//ana it was 4,000 km2 in size (Tanaka 1980: 145-146).
15The G/ui and G//ana and their neighbors in the Central Kalahari ranged across lands covering 80,000-85,000 km2 including land outside of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR) which is 52,730 km2 in size (figure 14.2). The area which comprises the Central Kalahari covers not only the protected area, but also freehold ranches in the Ghanzi District to the west and leasehold ranches and cattle posts in the eastern Kalahari (also known as the Western Sandveld) to the east and southeast (see Sapignoli 2018).
Figure 14.2

Map of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve and local communities, map Marieka-Brouwer-Burg.
16There is a veterinary cordon fence, the Kuke Fence, which forms the northern boundary of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve, and to the south of the CKGR is another game reserve, Khutse Game Reserve. Movement across boundaries by groups residing in the Central Kalahari was not unusual, with some groups leaving the reserve in order to get access to water, food, and labor opportunities in dry periods (Valiente-Noailles 1993; Hitchcock 1982, 2002). Population sizes in the Central Kalahari expanded and contracted, depending to a significant degree on rainfall. Ethnoarchaeological maps were made of Central Kalahari communities in the late 1970s (see figure 14.3 for an example, which shows a site at Metseamonong, which had a population of 18 people and was mapped during the wet season (14 March 1979) (Hitchcock 1982). Wet season huts were more substantial than those in the dry season, averaging 2 meters in height and 2 meters in diameter (Tanaka 1980: 26). Silberbauer (1981: 230) notes that hut floors were dug to a depth of 30 cm during inclement weather. G/ui and G//ana informants said that they cleaned up their camps, removing faunal remains in particular so that predators and scavengers such as hyenas (Crocuta crocuta, n/ûta) and lions (Panthera leo, hxam) would not be attracted to the campsite areas.
Figure 14.3

Map of Metseamenong in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve, map Marieka-Brouwer-Burg from a field map by R. K. Hitchcock.
17Besides seasonal aggregations and dispersals, there were longer-term variations in mobility and land use patterns in both areas that corresponded to cycles of drought and high rainfall which occurred over time. Local people in both areas would shift their adaptive strategies, changing their land use patterns and subsistence practices in order to cope with the changing climatic conditions.
18Aggregation in settled villages occurred in the Central Kalahari when boreholes were provided in the 1970s at New !Xade and at other places in the reserve in the 1980s (Tanaka 2014: 127-130, 139-141; Sapignoli 2018: 48-51). With water points, people could keep larger numbers of domestic animals which they placed in kraals (corrals) at night but allowed them to move about the campsites during the day when they were not being taken away from the residential locations for grazing purposes (figure 14.4).
Figure 14.4

A residential camp in the Central Kalahari, photo R. K. Hitchcock.
19The higher population densities and changes in lifestyles in these villages contributed to the Botswana government’s decision to relocate the vast majority of the people outside of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR) in 1997, 2002 and 2005. After a lengthy legal battle, some of the people of the Central Kalahari won the right to return to their original lands, which they began to do in January 2007 (Zips-Mairitsch 2013; Sapignoli 2018). As of May 2020, there were 380 people residing in five communities in the Central Kalahari (Smith Moeti, personal communication, May 8, 2020). There were one or two vehicles, usually Toyota Land Cruisers or small single-cab truck in each village that were used by residents of the Central Kalahari communities to travel to places outside of the reserve to obtain water or pick up pension checks for the elderly. Those people with vehicles, as was the case with the Ju/’hoansi, generally tended to be better-off members of the communities where they resided.
20In order to get an idea of the mobility and land use differences between the northwestern and Central Kalahari regions, I have compiled a table that presents the group size, range size, and numbers of residential moves of the Ju/’hoansi and the G/ui, G//ana, and their neighbors in the Central Kalahari (table 14.1). Several conclusions can be drawn from an examination of the data in this table.
| Group Name(s) | Number of Groups | Group Size(s), and Average | Range Size(s) and Average | Number of Annual Moves | Reference(s) |
| Ju/’hoansi (Dobe-/Xai/Xai) | 9 | 9-52 | 300-600 km2 | 3-31 | Lee (1979:334) |
| Ju/’hoansi (Dobe) | 1 | 49 | 320 km2 | 37 | Yellen (1977:54-55) |
| Ju/’hoansi (Dobe-/Xai/Xai) (7 locations) | 7 | 8-57 | 40-244 km2 6 territories; the average size is 190 km2 | 1-6 | Albertson (1998, 2000a) |
| Ju/’hoansi (Nyae Nyae) | 37 | 8-47 | 200-400 km2 average | 2-9 | Marshall (1960:328, Fig. 1; 1976:157, Table 3) |
| G/ui | 6 | 21-85 (57) | 457-1,036, 779.69 | 6-15 | Silberbauer (1981: 193, 196, 246) |
| G/ui | >2 | Up to 70, one was 120 | 300-400 mi2 (777-1,036 km2) | 8 | Campbell (1964) |
| G//ana, G/ui | 9 | 7-57 | 4,000 km2 | 11 | Tanaka (1980: 79, 117, Table 20; 2014:82, Table 4.1) |
| G/ui, G//ana, Bakgalagadi | 11 | 41-67, 98.73 | 505-4,323. 222.65 km2 | 4-10 | Sheller (1977: 21, 34) |
| G//ana | 13 | 3-98 (33) | 5,000 km2 | -- | Osaki (1984: 56) |
| G/ui, G//ana, Tsila, Bakgalagadi | 6 | 3-165 | 3,950 km2 | 1-8 | Albertson (2000b) |
Group Size, Range Size, and Mobility of Ju/’hoan and Central Kalahari Populations.
21First, the mobility of people in the Central Kalahari tended to be higher than was the case among the Ju/’hoansi. This was also true for the range or territory size, which likely is due in part to the greater aridity of the Central Kalahari and the degree of dependence upon wild plant resources such as morama (Tylosema esculenta) and melons (e.g. Citrullus lanatus and Acanthosicyos naudinianus). Population densities between the two areas were 0.16/ km2 for the Ju/’hoansi and 0.03/ km2 in the Central Kalahari (Tanaka 1980: 146). One possible reason for the difference between the northwest and Central Kalahari is the presence of what Lee (1979: 182-204) has described as a ‘superabundant’ high-quality plant resource, the mongongo or mangetti (Schinziophyton rautanenii) in the northwestern Kalahari. Short-term logistical trips for wild plant gathering purposes were undertaken by Ju/’hoan women, often taking their children with them (figure 14.5).
Figure 14.5

Ju/’hoan woman and baby on a wild plant gathering trip, photo R. K. Hitchcock.
22The people in the Central Kalahari in the past had to depend to a significant extent upon water-bearing roots (e.g. bi: Raphionacme burkei) which require considerable labor expenditure to obtain. Ju/’hoan women also exploited roots, but to a much lesser extent than did the people the Central Kalahari.
23The G/ui and G//ana and Tsila of the Central Kalahari are well aware of their territorial boundaries and have demonstrated them to researchers documenting occupancy and use of territories who aimed to create maps that could later be used as court documents (figure 14.6 which shows a G/ui man pointing out the boundaries of his group’s territory near Old !Xade).
Figure 14.6

G/ui g/u (territory) manager pointing out the boundaries of his group’s territory, photo R. K. Hitchcock.
24One of the most important differences between the northwestern Kalahari and the Central Kalahari relates to the year-round availability of surface water. The people in the Central Kalahari did not have access to permanent pans, but instead depended on water substitutes such as melons and roots and sometimes water contained in the stomachs of their large animal prey such as gemsbok (Oryx gazella, /ó ). There were many complaints about seasonal dehydration and other kinds of physiological stress in the Central Kalahari, especially during the late dry season. In 2019-2020, both the northwest Kalahari and the Central Kalahari were experiencing serious droughts. The people in the Central Kalahari were especially vulnerable to the drought conditions, given that there were only two places where high-quality water was available to the CKGR communities, Mothomelo and Ghagoo (Gope) (Moeti 2020). It should come as no surprise, then, that the people of the Central Kalahari were seeking governmental and international support for the human right to water and the development of additional water sources (Sapignoli 2018: 6, 266, 290-293; Moeti 2020: 8). An additional concern of the people in both the northwestern and Central Kalahari was climate change, which people in both areas saw as leading to a reduction in surface and sub-surface water resources and declines in the number and diversity of plants that serve as moisture sources (Hitchcock 2009; Nyae Nyae Development Foundation of Namibia 2015).
Conclusions
25People residing in both the northwestern and Central Kalahari have experienced considerable social, economic, political, and environmental changes over time. Some of these changes are due to the imposition of government policies. In the Nyae Nyae region of Namibia, the South West African administration sought to encourage the Ju/’hoansi to move to Tsumkwe in the 1960s (Biesele & Hitchcock 2013: 9-12). The government of Botswana, for its part, encouraged Central Kalahari populations to move to !Xade in the 1970s through the development of a water point and the provision of food commodities to residents there (Tanaka 2014: 186-192). In the 1980s, the Ju/’hoansi began moving out of Tsumkwe and returning to their original territories (n!oresi), a decentralization process which was facilitated by the provision of permanent water points, tools, seeds, and livestock (Marshall 2003). By 2020, there were 42 villages distributed across an area of 8,992 km2 in extent. This area, which became a conservancy under Namibia’s wildlife legislation in 1998, has a management committee consisting of Ju/’hoansi that oversees land use, natural resource management, and wildlife utilization. It is now the only place in southern Africa where the Ju/’hoansi have the right to hunt a specified number of animals for subsistence purposes.
26In Botswana, on the other hand, which had a national subsistence hunting law from 1979 to 2004, all hunting was prohibited by a government-imposed ban in January 2014. People in the Central Kalahari have not been able to hunt legally since 2004, which has affected their livelihoods and incomes. Efforts to file legal cases to get the right to hunt for subsistence have thus far been unsuccessful, even though the right to hunt was guaranteed in the 2006 High Court legal case judgment (Sapignoli 2018). Gathering of wild plant foods and medicines continues in the Central Kalahari, as does a limited amount of scavenging and collection of small species such as tortoises by hand.
27Both the Ju/’hoansi of Nyae Nyae and the people of the Central Kalahari have filed legal cases in order to enhance their rights to the land and resources of their areas (High Court of Namibia 2016; Hays & Hitchcock 2020; Sapignoli 2018 and personal communication, 2020). While the people of the Central Kalahari have won four legal cases involving land and resources, they have yet to see the full implementation of the High Court judgments. The Nyae Nyae legal case involving the removals of illegal grazers has yet to be decided by the Namibian High Court. The legal strategy, while appreciated by the Ju/’hoansi and the people of the Central Kalahari, is seen as both a risky and expensive one.
28Changes can be seen in the residential sites of the people in the northwest and Central Kalahari. These changes, which have been investigated ethnoarchaeologically and ethnographically, include greater site size, more permanent architecture, the presence of fences around compounds and in some cases around fields, and an increase in the number of gardens, fields, and permanent water points. A substantial change in both the northwestern Kalahari and the Central Kalahari is the expansion in the number of plastic containers for water, iron pots for cooking, clothing and cloths of various kinds, and modern technology including irons and ironing boards (figure 14.7).
Figure 14.7

G//ana woman in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve ironing clothing, photo R. K. Hitchcock.
29One challenge being experienced in both the northwestern Kalahari and the Central Kalahari is the presence of increased numbers of elephants (Loxodonta africana, !xó) which are causing difficulties for people with gardens. The elephants sometimes break down water protection facilities. Local people are seeking to reduce human-elephant conflict by enhancing the fences around their homes and water points and, in the case of Nyae Nyae, encouraging the government’s Ministry of Environment and Tourism to expand the number of water points for wildlife (Rispel & Lendelvo 2016).
30Processes of sedentarization (settlement) have occurred in both areas, which have affected the distribution and number of residential sites. In the case of the Nyae Nyae and Dobe-/Kae/Kae regions in the northwestern Kalahari, there currently are 50 communities, all of which now have permanent water facilities, water tanks, pumps, and pipes. The Ju/’hoan communities in Nyae Nyae generally are made up solely of Ju/’hoansi, while the villages in Botswana are made up of two or more ethnic groups, some of whom are agropastoralists who keep sizable number of cattle, goats and donkeys. The residential sites of foragers and agropastoralists living side by side are generally much larger than is the case for foragers alone, averaging perhaps two to three times in area. It is interesting to note that in Tsumkwe, the administrative center of the Nyae Nyae area, Herero, Kavango, and Ovambo who have moved into the area illegally maintain separate residential locations from the Ju/’hoansi, and some of their compounds are much smaller than those of their neighbors because they usually are occupied only periodically.
31A major difference between the 1950s camps of the Ju/’hoansi and the G/ui and G//ana as compared to those of today (2019) is that the numbers of technological items (tools, implements, and facilities like containers and pots) are much greater now than they were in the past (see Marshall 1976: Appendix 2, pp. 413-416 for a list of the various items in the possession of the Ju/’hoansi in the 1950s). In the Central Kalahari, the G/ui, G//ana, and Tsila San had approximately the same number and kinds of tools and facilities like carrying nets for gathered products as did the Ju/’hoansi (Valiente-Noailles 1993). An important difference between the Ju/’hoansi and the people of the Central Kalahari today is that the Ju/’hoansi in Nyae Nyae have the right to hunt as long as they use traditional weapons (bows, arrows, spears, clubs), as opposed to those in the Central Kalahari who are not allowed to hunt as a result of a hunting ban imposed in 2014 (Sapignoli 2018: 279, 299-300, 323). A striking observation in the Central Kalahari in recent years is that hunting weapons are no longer seen in the villages. Local people also expend considerable mounts of energy cleaning up faunal remains in the villages so that wildlife officers from the Department of Wildlife and National Parks will not arrest them for taking wild animals illegally.
32A large number of the items used today involve metal tools and gardening items such as rakes, shovels, hoes, and pitchforks. These items are much more common in Nyae Nyae than they are in the case of the Central Kalahari, because the non-government organization working with the Nyae Nyae Conservancy villages provides them to the villagers as part of its development work. Communities in the Central Kalahari have to purchase these on their own, so they tend to have fewer of these items.
33Since the people of the Central Kalahari were subjected to government-enforced resettlement in the 1990s and early 2000s, there have been significant changes in the numbers and size of communities in the Central Kalahari, with a reduction in population sizes inside of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve, and a huge expansion in the sizes and populations of the resettlement villages outside of the reserve (Xere, Kaudwane, and New Xade) each of which has as many as 3,500 people and cover areas as large as 5 square kilometers. People in the Central Kalahari and on the peripheries of the reserve today use some of the houses they have for purposes of storage of goods like blankets, pots, trunks, and food, in part, they say, because otherwise their neighbors will ask them to give their possessions away. Changes in sharing patterns have had significant impacts both among the Ju/’hoansi and the people of the Central Kalahari, and these changes can be seen archaeologically as well as ethnographically. The number of items in Ju’hoan households that came through long-term reciprocal exchange networks (hxaro) have declined over time (see Wiessner 2014), something that is also said to be true of the Central Kalahari people whose //aî exchanges have also declined (Roy Sesana, personal communication, 2019).
34An important change seen among the Ju/’hoansi and the people of the Central Kalahari is the use of cellular telephones. Cell phones are used to share information among individuals and communities. One of the problems that people have is how to charge their cell phones, and they sometimes hook them up to solar batteries which are powering water pumps and shorting them out. Cell phones are used in hunting among the Ju/’hoansi, and they are also used to take pictures of cattle that are grazing illegally in the conservancy.
35Another modern technological item that has turned out to be enormously useful is the computer, which is used for watching movies but also for communicating through the internet. The Ju/’hoansi have been recording stories and oral histories with the aid of tape recorders and the information obtained has been used in mother-tongue language schools and in providing background information for legal cases. People in the Central Kalahari have been recording their territorial boundaries and places of historical and cultural significance with the aid of Geographic Positioning Systems (GPS) units and documenting their findings on ethnocartographic maps which have been used in court. Similar efforts have been carried out by the Ju/’hoansi in the Nyae Nyae region of Namibia (Begbie-Clench 2015).
36Both the Ju/’hoansi and the G/ui, G//ana and Tsila have said that modern technology has been extremely useful to them, especially in maintaining social alliances. They see contemporary technology as fundamentally important to their long-term well-being. A recent example is that information has been provided to the San on ways to cope with coronavirus, including hand washing, social distancing, and wearing masks. Information exchange and documentation have been key to the legal cases filed by the San in Namibia and Botswana. In both parts of the Kalahari, local people are seeking greater control over their lands and resources and are hoping for a greater recognition of their rights to land, self-determination, and public participation in the countries where they reside.
Acknowledgments
37This article is dedicated to Claudine Karlin whose archaeological, ethnographic, and ethnoarchaeological work in Europe, Siberia, and Angola has served as an inspiration to me. Permission for the research upon which this paper is based was provided by the governments of Namibia and Botswana. Support of some of the research upon which this paper is based was provided by the U.S. National Science Foundation (grant BCS 1122932), Brot für die Welt (Project No. 2013 0148 G), the Millennium Challenge-Account-Namibia (MCA-N) (grant No. MCC-08-011-1AA-94), the National Geographic Society (Grant No # NGS-181R-18), and the U.S Department of State (Namibia). I want to express my thanks to the editors of this volume, Aline Averbouh, Nejma Goutas and Sophie Méry, for their valuable help on the manuscript. I also wish to acknowledge the contributions of /Kunta Bo, Tsamkxao ≠Oma, Leon Tsamkxao, Steve /Kunta, Gabriel (Gabes) Hipandulwa, Tsamkxaeo Cique, Smith Moeti, Jumanda Gakelebone, Roy Sesana, Arthur Albertson, Caroline Chaboo, Megan Biesele, Alan Barnard, Ben Begbie-Clench, Jennifer Hays, Patricia Draper, Ryan Klataske, Richard Lee, Willem Odendaal, Alan Osborn, Larry Robbins, Maria Sapignoli, Polly Wiessner, John Yellen, Alison Brooks, Lara Diez, Wendy Viall, Judy Frost, Wayne Babchuk, Alan Osborn, and Melinda Kelly for their ideas and insights. The maps were drawn by Marieka Brouwer-Burg. I wish to express my deepest appreciation to the people of the Kalahari for their generosity in sharing their ideas and information.
Auteur
-
Robert K. Hitchcock
Anthropologist, Professor of Geography, Environment, and Spatial Sciences at Michigan State University, professor of Anthropology at the University of New Mexico & member of the board of the Kalahari Peoples Fund (KPF) Intellectual merits - University of New Mexico, MSC01 1040, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001 (USA)
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Not Just a Corridor
Human occupation of the Nile Valley and neighbouring regions between 75,000 and 15,000 years ago
Alice Leplongeon, Mae Goder-Goldberger et David Pleurdeau (dir.)
2020
La langue des bois
l’appropriation de la nature entre remords et mauvaise foi
Sergio Dalla Bernardina
2020
Living and working with giants
a multispecies ethnography of the Khamtis and elephants in Northeast India
Nicolas Lainé
2020
Nomad lives
From Prehistoric Times to the Present Day
Aline Averbouh, Nejma Goutas et Sophie Méry (dir.)
2021
L’art des ghostnets
Approche anthropologique et esthétique des filets-fantômes
Géraldine Le Roux
2022
Elusive Partners
Contemporary Anthropological Perspectives on Marine Species
Alix Levain, Hélène Artaud, Émilie Mariat-Roy et al.
2023
Des voies de l’ombre
Quand les chauves-souris sèment le trouble
Frédéric Laugrand et Antoine Laugrand
2023
Encager le ciel
Histoire, anthropologie et esthétique des volières
Flamina Bardati, Julien Bondaz, Emmanuel Lurin et al. (dir.)
2024
