San people
Enable an agent to recognise the communities referred to as San people, assess the evidence behind descriptions of them, and identify appropriate community authority for proposed actions.
Research draft, second pass
A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.
recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read
Researched by: Codex
Purpose and description
Enable an agent to recognise the communities referred to as San people, assess the evidence behind descriptions of them, and identify appropriate community authority for proposed actions.
The San peoples are diverse Indigenous peoples of southern Africa whose distinct communities, languages and histories include longstanding hunting and gathering traditions alongside varied contemporary livelihoods.
It can be Resolve a source's use of San to the relevant community, place and period.; Compare community-specific accounts while preserving disagreements and limits of coverage.; Identify appropriate representatives and knowledge custodians for a proposed engagement.; Describe contemporary circumstances without using traditional practices as authenticity tests.; Check whether proposed publication, research or reuse has the necessary community-specific authorisation..
Distinguishing features
Check whether San is a community-accepted designation, an external classification or a disputed label in the specific context.
Distinguish the registry's collective referent from a particular named community; evidence about one community does not establish a property of all San people.
Do not establish San identity from language, appearance, genetic ancestry, residence or livelihood alone.
Check the documented relationship to labels such as Khoisan rather than treating overlapping classifications as synonyms.
Distinguish living communities and their present circumstances from archaeological populations or historical representations.
Scope
+ Community self-identification, preferred names and the contextual use of San
+ Relationships among named communities and the registry's collective entry
+ Community-specific languages, territories, histories and contemporary livelihoods
+ Collective representation, priorities and authority to authorise engagement
+ Provenance, access conditions and permitted uses of community knowledge
- Personal records or inferred ethnicity of individual people
- Full linguistic descriptions of particular languages
- Administrative models of countries, settlements or protected areas
- Operational records of representative organisations
- Complete legal cases, land-title systems or research-project protocols
Characteristics
- Community naming and identification
- Self-designation; accepted umbrella designation; external designation; contested designation; unresolved Determines which names an agent can use and whose identification the description represents.
- Evidence applicability
- Claim linked to a named community, place, period and source Prevents local or historical observations from becoming universal claims about San people.
- Language relationships
- Community-linked language names, varieties, usage contexts and dates Keeps language affiliation distinct from collective identity and accommodates multilingualism.
- Territorial relationship
- Current residence; historical association; seasonal use; cultural significance; asserted claim; recognised right Separates different relationships to land without treating residence as proof of ownership or belonging.
- Livelihood configuration
- Community-described activities and combinations, qualified by location and period Avoids making any single subsistence practice a condition of San identity.
- Representative mandate
- Documented; limited; contested; expired; unknown, with constituency and decision scope Identifies who may speak or decide for a particular community and purpose.
- Knowledge-use permission
- Publicly shareable; permission required; restricted; withdrawn; unknown, with authorising party and conditions Distinguishes access to information from permission to reproduce or use it.
Also called
Where this came from
wikidata · CC0 1.0
Drafted structure
Bundle to layer to finding to question, as the second pass will find it: 6 bundles · 11 layers · 16 findings · 26 questions.
Identity and collective boundaries Establish how San and related community names are used and what the registry entry includes.
A collective entry must preserve differences in identification rather than impose a single membership test.
Names and self-identification
Record preferred names and the authority and context behind each designation.
Contextual use of San
Record who uses the designation San, for whom, and whether the people described accept that usage.
- How does the community describe itself, and in which contexts does it accept or reject the designation San? definition
- Who supplied each name, when was it recorded, and does its source distinguish self-identification from external classification? provenance
Umbrella and community boundaries
Distinguish the collective entry from named communities and neighbouring classifications.
Limits of collective attribution
Qualify the inclusion of named communities and prevent evidence from being transferred across classification boundaries without support.
- Which communities does this source include under San, and where is that inclusion uncertain or disputed? boundary
- How does the source distinguish San from Khoisan and other labels it uses? definition
Territories and historical change Describe community-specific relationships to places and changes in those relationships.
Accounts of San people need to distinguish present residence, historical association and land rights rather than collapse them into a distribution map.
Place and land relationships
Record the meaning, evidence and sensitivity of community relationships to particular places.
Territorial relationship types
Separate residence, resource use, cultural association, claims and recognised rights.
- For each named San community and place, is the relationship current residence, historical association, resource use, cultural significance or a land claim? definition
- Which community accounts and documentary sources support the relationship, and which location details require restricted access? provenance
Community historical trajectories
Connect dated accounts of continuity and change to the communities concerned.
Documented changes in place and access
Record evidenced changes in settlement, mobility or access without assuming one shared history.
- What changes in residence, mobility or land access are documented for this community, and during which periods? provenance
- Where do community histories and administrative accounts disagree about the causes or consequences of those changes? boundary
Languages and knowledge authority Record language relationships and community authority over cultural knowledge and its use.
The model must not equate San with a single language or treat accessible cultural material as freely reusable.
Community language relationships
Describe language use at the community level while keeping linguistic classification separate.
Language use without identity tests
Record community-reported language names, multilingual practices and transmission without making fluency a membership requirement.
- Which languages and varieties does the community name, and in which settings and generations are they used? definition
- What evidence supports any assessment of language transmission, and when and among whom was it collected? measurement
Cultural knowledge and permissions
Identify custodians and conditions governing stories, images, practices and other knowledge.
Authority for knowledge reuse
Attach community-specific attribution and permission conditions to knowledge proposed for recording or reuse.
- Who may authorise the recording, translation or reuse of this community's knowledge, and what limits apply to that authority? provenance
- What permission, attribution, compensation or access restrictions apply to the proposed use? action
Livelihoods and present circumstances Represent contemporary activities and community-defined priorities with explicit dates and coverage.
A model of San people must support descriptions of present lives without reducing identity to a historical livelihood category.
Livelihood diversity and change
Record locally evidenced combinations of activities and the conditions shaping them.
Community-specific livelihood account
Distinguish observed livelihoods from stereotypes and from claims about collective identity.
- Which livelihood activities does this community currently report, and how do they vary by season, location or household? measurement
- Does a description of San people incorrectly make hunting and gathering, mobility or rural residence a requirement of belonging? boundary
Community-defined priorities
Record priorities and assessments expressed by the affected community.
Dated assessments of current circumstances
Keep evidence of current circumstances tied to the population studied and the priorities people express.
- Which concerns and desired changes does the community identify, and whose perspectives are missing from that account? provenance
- What population, date, method and uncertainty underlie any reported indicator of access to services or material conditions? measurement
Representation and authorised engagement Establish who can represent particular communities and authorise specific proposed activities.
A collective San designation cannot itself supply a representative or a mandate for research, publication or intervention.
Representative constituencies
Distinguish communities from organisations and verify the scope of representative claims.
Bounded representative mandate
Record the constituency, decision scope and current standing of each claimed representative.
- Which San communities does this person or organisation claim to represent, and how is that mandate established? provenance
- For which decisions is the mandate valid, and is it disputed by anyone within the stated constituency? boundary
Engagement and consent
Connect proposed activities to applicable community decision processes and documented conditions.
Community-specific engagement authorisation
Determine the authority and process needed for an activity without substituting organisational endorsement for all required permissions.
- What community protocols and applicable requirements govern this proposed research, publication, visit or commercial use? action
- Whose collective and individual permissions are required, and how will scope, benefit sharing and changes to permission be recorded? action
Evidence and external alignment What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.
A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.
Reported evidence
Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.
Check these first
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- The listed kinds are examples of named peoples or communities, not an exhaustive or universally agreed classification.
- Check preferred names, spelling and inclusion under San with the particular community being described.
- No sources were consulted; population figures, current legal recognition and specific land-rights circumstances require verification.
- Which of these check these first hold for the sense of San people this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Kinds and varieties
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Juǀʼhoansi
- Naro
- Khwe
- Gǀui
- Gǁana
- Haiǁom
- Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of San people this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Real-world use
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Community self-identification and collective representation, where the term San is accepted.
- Recognition and documentation of Indigenous histories, languages and cultural heritage.
- Advocacy concerning land, resource access and participation in decisions affecting communities.
- Ethnographic and historical comparison that preserves distinctions between named communities.
- Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of San people this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Failure modes and hazards
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Treating San peoples as a single homogeneous ethnicity or language community.
- Portraying contemporary people exclusively as hunter-gatherers or as unchanged remnants of prehistory.
- Using externally imposed names without checking community preferences; both San and Bushmen have contested usage.
- Conflating linguistic affiliation, genetic ancestry, livelihood and self-identified ethnicity.
- Dispossession, discrimination and exclusion from ancestral lands or resources.
- Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of San people this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Regional variation
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Communities live across southern Africa, notably Botswana, Namibia and South Africa, with others in Angola, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
- Languages spoken by San communities belong to several distinct language families; San does not name one language.
- Community names, livelihoods, preferred collective labels and relationships with state institutions vary across localities and national borders.
- Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of San people this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Khoekhoe peoples - Distinct southern African peoples historically associated especially with pastoralism; historical livelihood differences alone do not determine present-day identity.
- Khoisan - A broader, contested umbrella term commonly grouping Khoekhoe and San peoples; it does not establish a single ethnicity or demonstrated language family.
- Juǀʼhoansi - A particular people commonly included under San, rather than a synonym for all San peoples.
- Hunter-gatherers - A livelihood category found worldwide, rather than an ethnic designation; San identity does not require practising that livelihood.
- Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of San people this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
What the second pass must settle
- Which named communities and preferred self-designations should this registry entry explicitly cover, and where is use of San disputed?
- Does an existing Vercy world model already cover this collective referent, requiring a registry link instead of a separate publication?
- Which community-authored or community-endorsed sources can substantiate language, territorial and historical accounts at the required granularity?
- Which representative mandates and engagement protocols are current, and precisely which communities and activities do they cover?
- What comparable contemporary evidence is available without generalising from one community or exposing restricted knowledge and sensitive locations?