A Stronger Khoisan Presence

[Kriegdämmerung]

As you may be aware, the Bantu expansion brought an influx of central Africans who used their knowledge of metalworking and their skills as farmers to displace the natives of South and East Africa. As a result, the Bantu language group is the dominant one of sub-saharan Africa. But there was of course a side effect...

By 1000 AD, the Bantu peoples had either dislocated or made extinct the Khoisan hunter-gatherers that has formerly inhabited those areas. But what if that wasn't so? What if the Khoisan had, for reasons through diffusion or independent discovery, become farmers, sedentary, and perhaps also developed metalworking?

My logic to that is that the Bantu languages of South Africa, at least from what I understand, are mutually intelligible. As a result, the major factionalization evolved through the actions of individuals like Shaka and the mfecane (easily the greatest example of forced migration in history), then through already known differences.

So could the existence of major Khoisan, as well as Bantu, peoples living in southern and eastern Africa forment a more problematic and complex African situation? Could this have left room for more great states like Great Zimbabwe, and the trade-cities of East Africa? And what might the effect of large, ethnicaly-conflicted states have had when European powers eventually emerged?

(As an after-note, if I've misunderstood how the Bantu expansion and the removal of the Khoisan occured, my mistake. A correction would also be lovely.)

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

As you may be aware, the Bantu expansion brought an influx of central Africans who used their knowledge of metalworking and their skills as farmers to displace the natives of South and East Africa. As a result, the Bantu language group is the dominant one of sub-saharan Africa. But there was of course a side effect...

By 1000 AD, the Bantu peoples had either dislocated or made extinct the Khoisan hunter-gatherers that has formerly inhabited those areas. But what if that wasn't so? What if the Khoisan had, for reasons through diffusion or independent discovery, become farmers, sedentary, and perhaps also developed metalworking?

My logic to that is that the Bantu languages of South Africa, at least from what I understand, are mutually intelligible. As a result, the major factionalization evolved through the actions of individuals like Shaka and the mfecane (easily the greatest example of forced migration in history), then through already known differences.

So could the existence of major Khoisan, as well as Bantu, peoples living in southern and eastern Africa forment a more problematic and complex African situation? Could this have left room for more great states like Great Zimbabwe, and the trade-cities of East Africa? And what might the effect of large, ethnicaly-conflicted states have had when European powers eventually emerged?

(As an after-note, if I've misunderstood how the Bantu expansion and the removal of the Khoisan occured, my mistake. A correction would also be lovely.)

1) SOME of the languages of South Africa are mutually intelligible. However, the fact that a pidgin language 'Fanagalo' emerged in the Gold Mines shows that there was a wide range of languages.

OTOH, I have witnessed Sesotho (east end of SA) and Setswana (from west of SA) being mutually intelligible (i.e. my brother speaking in Sesutu with a friend of Dad's from Botswana).


2) Khoisan farmers/herders/metallurgists would certainly change things, alright. OTOH, I'm not sure how much of a change it would be. I mean the various Bantu tribes didn't work together 'because we're all Bantu' or anything like that. You'd still get different local tribes.

3) maybe the biggest change would be the initial white settlement. If there are settled people at the Cape, maybe the Dutch have a harder time/take longer to get a good foothold?

 

[terence]

Almost all of the ATLs on Southern Africa miss the point about the climate, the shortage of arable land and the difficulty of supporting large populations.
Southern Africa was never glaciated, so there is no loess. The topsoil is very, very thin. There are no big rivers or floodplains, so no areas of fertile alluvial mud-- both of which can explain why no great civilisation grew up and why agriculture took off so late and had to wait until the introduction of South East Asian and New World crops before it could promote major population growth.
Only a few areas are any good for pastoralism and things were worse in history when there were period of massive drought. Even where goats, sheep and cattle can be raised there is the competition from indigenous game. (look for point about the sheep). Although iron working, and therefore weapons reached West Africa c.2500 BC it only reached South East Africa around 500AD. The BIG expansion of the Bantu appears to be around the same time as the arrival of * [FONT=&quot]new foodstuffs from SE Asia.

The Khoisan name is one of those terms chosen to be Politically Correct and based on the premise that the San (Bushmen) and KhoiKhoi (Hottentots) are ethnically related--they are, but so are Arabs and Finns. Their perceived unity is based on linquistic affinity--yet the most of the KhoiSan languages are mutually unintelligible and unrelated, only seeming similar because they contain click sounds-as some Bantu languages do (though not so many). The Strandloopers, (beachrunners), who were encountered by early Europeans landing at the Cape for water are well extinct. These people had no clothes, no possessions and no dwelling structures and lived by scavaging. It is speculated that may have been Khoi outcasts, but we will never know now.[/FONT]

I know that this is politically incorrect, but perhaps the Khoi and the San were just less to adapt than their competitors. San never evolved into large tribes, they lived only in very small family units and if it got too large, some would just spilt off. the Khoi too, did not seem to have a tribal structure, but lived in family groups---maybe the tribal/extended family system and thus organisation was a factor.

Here's an idea for you.
When the first European settlers arrived at the Cape they traded copper wire for 'Fat-tailed sheep'. Now start looking for sheep in Africa before European settlement---where the F**K did the animals come from? The Bantu tribes had only goats and cattle and there is no such thing as a wild sheep in sub-saharan Africa and its a survival no no to have thick wooly fur on the veld. As one of those yet to be explained mysteries, the only similar sheep is to be found in Arabia where it has a VERY long heritage.
Discounting the odd chance that one of the lost tribes of Israel drove a flock of sheep down the nile valley, through the mountains of Ethiopia, across the semi deserts of Northern Kenya and...well, you get the picture.
Rather, around 600BC, Pharoh Neccho hired a Phonecian fleet for a voyage of exploration. Typically, they took on board with them livestock and corn seed, including Durum wheat. Travelling down the Red sea, they wintered in a sheltered lagoon, planting wheat which grew well in the coolish, but sunny conditions. Their fat-tailed sheep also multiplied (Lambing in the southern Hemisphere is in September/October). Making contact with very primitive natives, they traded some of their corn and sheep for the only thing the natives had to offer-women.
By the time Spring came around communication had become possible and the Phonecians had seen that the Natives had some clear stones and shiny pieces of rock to decorate themselves with.
When the fleet sailed on, they left a small contingent behind to explore further.
Nearly five years later, veterans of the first Fleet, having returned to Egypt through the Pillars of Hercules set out on a second voyage. They never found their shipmates, but they did find and intercepted the trade route from Ophir and helped themselves to the gold and the Ivory.
Around 300BC Bantu tribes moving South across the Zambezi encounter great stone cities built by gods and guarded by small, light skinned men so rich that they could cover their bodies with iron impervious to any spear.


nb Southern African languages are not normally mutually intelligible.
Setwana (from Botswana) and Sesotho are related and most word forms are interchangeable. But they are totally different from the Nguni group--Zulu, Xhosa and Ndebele---all languages use loan words from each other but South Africa alone has 13 different OFFICIAL languages and there is probably about 20 other dialects.