Tom Güldemann

The genetic prehistory of southern Africa

Southern and eastern African populations that speak non-Bantu languages with click consonants are known to harbour some of the most ancient genetic lineages in humans, but their relationships are poorly understood. Here, we report data from 23 populations analysed at over half a million single-nucleotide polymorphisms, using a genome-wide array designed for studying human history. The southern African Khoisan fall into two genetic groups, loosely corresponding to the northwestern and southeastern Kalahari, which we show separated within the last 30,000 years. We find that all individuals derive at least a few percent of their genomes from admixture with non-Khoisan populations that began ∼1,200 years ago. In addition, the East African Hadza and Sandawe derive a fraction of their ancestry from admixture with a population related to the Khoisan, supporting the hypothesis of an ancient link between southern and eastern Africa.

Unraveling the Complex Maternal History of Southern African Khoisan Populations

The Khoisan populations of southern Africa are known to harbor some of the deepest-rooting lineages of human mtDNA; however, their relationships are as yet poorly understood. Here, we report the results of analyses of complete mtDNA genome sequences from nearly 700 individuals representing 26 populations of southern Africa who speak diverse Khoisan and Bantu languages. Our data reveal a multilayered history of the indigenous populations of southern Africa, who are likely to be the result of admixture of different genetic substrates, such as resident forager populations and pre-Bantu pastoralists from East Africa. We find high levels of genetic differentiation of the Khoisan populations, which can be explained by the effect of drift together with a partial uxorilocal/multilocal residence pattern. Furthermore, there is evidence of extensive contact, not only between geographically proximate groups, but also across wider areas. The results of this contact, which may have played a role in the diffusion of common cultural and linguistic features, are especially evident in the Khoisan populations of the central Kalahari.

Structural Isoglosses between Khoekhoe and Tuu: The Cape as a Linguistic Area

In historical times, the wider Cape region, including the Orange River area, hosted languages of two very different Khoisan language families, namely of Tuu (specifically its !Ui branch) and Khoe (specifically its Khoekhoe branch). Khoekhoe displays a number of linguistic features that do not exist in the languages of its genealogical sister, the Kalahari branch of Khoe. A comparison beyond the limits of this family shows that the innovative structures in Khoekhoe often have a great similarity to properties of the Tuu family, particularly its !Ui branch. This observation leads to the hypothesis that the genuine linguistic character of Khoekhoe vis-a-vis Kalahari Khoe is to a considerable extent the result of contact with Tuu languages, which have been in the relevant area for a longer time. This chapter will (a) outline briefly the historical context of the contact situation; (b) identify commonalities of the two groups, with a particular focus on the assumed Tuu substrate interference in the morphosyntax of Khoekhoe; and (c) discuss a few implications of the data for the population history in southern Africa and for historical and contact linguistics in general.

Are There “Khoisan” Roots in Body-Part Vocabulary? On Linguistic Inheritance and Contact in the Kalahari Basin

Lexical evidence has played an important role in trying to establish a “Khoisan” language family. With respect to the southern African languages there is indeed a considerable amount of shared vocabulary across all three major established non-Bantu families subsumed under “Khoisan,” viz. Khoe-Kwadi, Kx’a, and Tuu. A historical reevaluation of this phenomenon is presented in a first comparative treatment of body-part vocabulary, including newly collected data. While our research provides support for the above three main lineages (this evidence is not discussed in this paper), it contradicts the view that vocabulary shared across them should also be interpreted in genealogical terms. Such vocabulary can rather largely be explained as the result of different types of language contact, supporting the current dominant view among specialists about the untenability of a “Khoisan” family. From a general perspective, the article argues against superficial unqualified lexical comparison and for a canonical historical-comparative procedure, whereby one reconstructs bottom-up and evaluates at every step whether genealogical relations should be built up further. Although such an approach is deeply entrenched in the traditional method, it is often neglected in many areas of historical language research. We apply it for the first time to the evaluation of the purported “Khoisan” language family and, in addition, venture that contact scenarios should be given more scope in the assessment of historical relations between languages, both in the Kalahari Basin and in general.

The relation between focus and theticity in the Tuu family

The paper presents first results of the documentation of Tuu languages regarding information structure, based on the analysis of coherent texts, partly supplemented by elicitated utterances. Unmarked clauses display a fairly strict verb-medial structure; the clause-initial subject can be characterized as a conflation of topic function and agent role-complex and the material after it contains the assertive focus. Pragmatically more marked clauses display an initial nominal which is morphosyntactically set off from the rest of the sentence. These cleft-like constructions are typical for utterances involving contrastively focused items as well as constituent question words. At least in some languages, these structures are also associated with another pragmatic function, namely the expression of so-called entity-central thetic statements in the sense of Sasse (1987). This polyfunctionality of cleft-like sentences is motivated, because both of these functions need to expose a nominal: while it must be more salient than the predicate in the case of term focus, it must be “up-graded” from the status of topical predication base in the case of thetic utterances

Genetic structure and sex-biased gene flow in the history of southern African populations

Abstract Objectives We investigated the genetic history of southern African populations with a special focus on their paternal history. We reexamined previous claims that the Y‐chromosome haplogroup E1b1b (E‐M293) was brought to southern Africa by pastoralists from eastern Africa, and investigated patterns of sex‐biased gene flow in southern Africa. Materials and methods We analyzed previously published complete mtDNA genome sequences and ∼900 kb of NRY sequences from 23 populations from Namibia, Botswana, and Zambia, as well as haplogroup frequencies from a large sample of southern African populations and 23 newly genotyped Y‐linked STR loci for samples assigned to haplogroup E1b1b. Results Our results support an eastern African origin for Y‐chromosome haplogroup E1b1b (E‐M293); however, its current distribution in southern Africa is not strongly associated with pastoralism, suggesting more complex demographic events and/or changes in subsistence practices in this region. The Bantu expansion in southern Africa had a notable genetic impact and was probably a rapid, male‐dominated expansion. Our finding of a significant increase in the intensity of the sex‐biased gene flow from north to south may reflect changes in the social dynamics between Khoisan and Bantu groups over time. Conclusions Our study shows that the population history of southern Africa has been complex, with different immigrating groups mixing to different degrees with the autochthonous populations. The Bantu expansion led to heavily sex‐biased admixture as a result of interactions between Khoisan females and Bantu males, with a geographic gradient which may reflect changes in the social dynamics between Khoisan and Bantu groups over time.

The Kalahari Basin area as a “Sprachbund” before the Bantu expansion

Güldemann (1998 and following publications) not only challenged the “Khoisan” family hypothesis established by Greenberg (1950, 1963) and popular among non-specialists ever since, but also proposed the areal concept “Kalahari Basin” comprising the indigenous nonBantu languages of southern Africa. If the linguistic isoglosses shared by these languages are compatible with a historical assessment in terms of multiple and partly long-standing contact, the areal approach is a viable explanation for the emergence of the modern linguistic panorama, as opposed to the genealogical hypothesis. Since the areal approach was proposed more than a decade ago research on linguistic isoglosses and contact-induced convergence across the Kalahari Basin has increased considerably. This article summarizes the earlier results, supplements them with new findings, thus giving more substance to the “Kalahari Basin” concept, and embeds it in the general discussion about linguistic areas.

Casting a Wider Net over Nǁng: The Older Archival Resources

Abstract:Nǁng is a moribund language complex that is a member of the Tuu family and used to be spoken widely across the southern portion of the Kalahari in the north of South Africa. While its modern linguistic remnants have been studied intensively, there are nevertheless many gaps in our knowledge about Nǁng. This article surveys the older records that began to be collected in the second half of the nineteenth century, arguing that these can inform our modern analysis of the linguistic and nonlinguistic data and complement our overall perception of this extinct ethnolinguistic group and its wider geographical and historical context.

Quantifying geographical determinants of large-scale distributions of linguistic features

In the recent past the work on large-scale linguistic distributions across the globe has intensified considerably. Work on macro-areal relationships in Africa (Guldemann, 2010) suggests that the shape of convergence areas may be determined by climatic factors and geophysical features such as mountains, water bodies, coastlines, etc. Worldwide data is now available for geophysical features as well as linguistic features, including numeral systems and basic constituent order. We explore the possibility that the shape of areal aggregations of individual features in these two linguistic domains correlates with Koppen-Geiger climate zones. Furthermore, we test the hypothesis that the shape of such areal feature aggregations is determined by the contour of adjacent geophysical features like mountain ranges or coastlines. In these first basic tests, we do not find clear evidence that either Koppen-Geiger climate zones or the contours of geophysical features are major predictors for the linguistic data at hand.