South African Journal of African Languages

ISSN: 0257-2117 (Print) 2305-1159 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjal20

African-Language writing and the centre-margin

debate
C. F. Swanepoel
To cite this article: C. F. Swanepoel (1998) African-Language writing and the centre-margin
debate, South African Journal of African Languages, 18:1, 18-22
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02572117.1998.10587182

Published online: 24 Oct 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjal20
Download by: [Brought to you by Unisa Library]

Date: 23 July 2016, At: 03:25

18

S.Afr.J.Afr.Lang., 1998, 18(1)

Downloaded by [Brought to you by Unisa Library] at 03:25 23 July 2016

Conclusion
Images of Ubuntu in Mqhayi's essays form a golden thread
which turns his literary contribution into more than just reading
material. It is the thoughts and ideas behind the images that lead
one to define his work as philosophical. Using language as a
weapon to disseminate ideas, he accurately and successfully
takes the reader through a maze of thoughtful exploits. The
images have a striking relevance, more to the present situation
than to their immediate environment (the colonial scenario).
Mqhayi's images of Ubuntu impress with their resilience, pertaining not only to the African people, but to all the races of this
country. That Ubuntu is adaptable and accommodative could be
seen in the suggestion that it should be used as a means to reconcile traditions. Ubuntu could be manipulated to serve interests of
individuals. Although this seems to suggest that the concept of
Ubuntu has a weak point, it is, in fact, its strength. Any manipulation of Ubuntu leads to the undoing of those involved, whereas
keeping the principle alive, is insurance for a better and more stable life for all. In a nutshell, therefore, Ubuntu in Mqhayi's
essays defines and interprets the people's way of life in both the
traditional and the modern sense. It is bound by the culture of the
people and how that culture relates to other cultures. As demonstrated by Mqhayi, Ubuntu is in all men and women who respect

the rights of each and every individual, and in any society justice
is what justice does.

References
Barker, B. J. 1994. Illustrated History of South Africa: The Real
Story. Cape Town: The Reader's Digest Association Limited.
Chinweizu, Onwucheka, J. & Ihechukwu, M. 1980. Towards the
Decolonization of African Literature. Enugu: Fourth Dimension
Publishers.
Cowley, M. (ed) 1991. One day seminar on incorporation ofUbuntu
into a uniquely South African Approach to Management.
Pretoria: The Secretariat.
Mayo, S.P.C., Sumaili, T. W.C. & Moody, J. A. 1986. Oral Traditions
in Southern Africa. Lusaka: University of Zambia,
Obee, R. E. 1994. A dialogue of two selves: themes of the alienation
and African humanism in the works of Es'kia Mphahlele.
Unpublished M.A. Dissertation, Pretoria: University of South
Africa.
Prozensky, M. 1996. "Africa in the Cradle of Humanity and also of
Ubuntu: A unifying Philosophy of Hope for a Nation reborn".
Article in the Sunday Independent, 7 January 1996:9.
Scott, P. 1976. Mqhayi in Translation. Grahamstown: Department of
African Languages, Rhodes University.
Shutte, A. 1994. Philosophy for Africa. Cape Town: University of
Cape Town Press.

African-Language writing and the centre-margin debate

C. F. Swanepoel
Department of African Languages, University of South Africa, P.O. Box 392. Pretoria, 0003
October 1997

The article reflects on the applicability of the Centre-Margin dichotomy to the literature in South Africa. While finding
identifiable grounds for its applicability, it claims to identify distinct and ironical discontinuities in its realization in the
sub-continent, and considers possibilities as to how the dichotomy could be discharged.
Die artikel oorweeg die toepaslikheid van die Sentrum-Periferie tweedeling op Suid-Afrikaanse letterkunde. Ofskoon
aantoonbare grande vir die toepaslikheid daarvan aangetref word, maak dit aanspraak op bepaalde ironiese gapings in die
verwesenliking daarvan op die subkontinent, en oorweeg moontlikhede van die oorkoming van die tweedeling.

The topical debate about colonial and postcolonial theories and

ence to both my understanding of South African-language writ-

their relationship with African-language writing has not been

ing and coloniaUpostcolonial theories. 1

addressed extensively in Southern Africa as yet. In an article of

The research can be described, roughly, as the positioning of

the present size it can also not be done in full. It was decided to

African-language literature within the discourse about colonial

enter the debate in medias res, at the discourse which deals with

and post-colonial theories of literature. Put in a little more detail,

the sensitive issue of status, national concern and/or general

I was prompted by the need to search for a theoretical framework

impact. I am referring to the Centre-Margin dichotomy of colo-

which would enable one to explain the position of African-lan-

nial and postcolonial theory. I am doing this, fully aware of Karin

guage writing in a more comprehensive way, that is, as a body of

Barber's scholarly critical article about the topic with reference

literature with its own discursive epistemology; a theoretical

to African-language literatures further afield on the continent

framework different from the (mostly) Western theories of litera-

(1995:3-30). My contribution is not intended as a reply to her

ture such as New Criticism, structuralism, semiotics, Reader

views. It should rather be seen as a personal perspective which

Response, Psychoanalysis and Post-structuralism which are use-

may reveal several disconnections and discontinuities with refer-

ful for the analysis and description of individual works, but una-

Downloaded by [Brought to you by Unisa Library] at 03:25 23 July 2016

S.Afr.J .Afr.Lang.,l998,18( I)

ble to account for the emergence and dynamic existence of a

body of literature as eminent as Africa-language literature. 2
In this article there will be space only to reflect on the concept
'Marginality' as a signpost of the theories concerned. However,
enough of the basic tenets of the colonial and postcolonial
approach will become clear to enable my readers to take me to
task should I miss the point.
Edward Said's work Orienta/ism is an influential contribution
to the debate in general. Oyegoke (1995:255) sums up:
In his study, Said examines the dynamics of culture
under colonial assault in terms of binary relationships
between the imperial Centre (or Metropolis) and the
colonial Margin (or Periphery). The culture of the imperial Centre sets up the culture(s) of the colonial Margin
as a reference point or Other.
The discourse about marginality is basically a debate about
position, specifically as defined in terms of Centre or Margin.
The discourse about marginal literatures, accordingly is about the
position of a literature among other literatures, as in a constellation of literatures; literatures that have some kind of relation,
such as sharing the same geographical area, identifiable cultural
bonds, political context, or sociolinguistic context.
There is something evaluative inherent in the concept: it is not
neutral, nor is it positive. Says Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffen
(1989: 104); (henceforth referred to as Ashcroft et al.):
Marginality is the condition constructed by the posited
relation to a privileged centre, an 'Othering' directed by
the imperial authority.
This is a telling description which could be broken down into
five crucial aspects of being marginal:
a condition
constructed by the posited relation
(of the) privileged centre
'Othering'
directed by the imperial authority
These aspects should assist us to define the problem in clearer
terms. To start with, it is important to make it clear that whereas
in colonial and post-colonial discourse the traditional Centre
would be the British Empire, and the traditional Margin(s) such
as its (former) colonies South Africa, Australia, Canada, India,
the Caribbean (also referred to as the Commonwealth or Third
World), in apartheid and post-apartheid South Africa, the distinction lies within South(ern) Africa itself - between the hegemonic, privileged European cultures of English and Afrikaans (the
'new' Centre), on the one hand, and the lesser privileged 'other'
literatures- produced in the African languages (the 'new' Margin). This new 'topography' (Oyegoke, 1995:258) is a rather
important Southern African manifestation of the colonial and
post-colonial situation and should be borne in mind as we analyse some aspects of the Centre/Margin relation.J We shall return
to some complicating ironies of this relation a little later.
The condition we are referring to here is the South(ern) African literary landscape. There are at least eleven written literary
traditions, consisting of the literatures in the former official languages Afrikaans and English, and then the literatures in the four
Nguni languages (Xhosa, Zulu, Swati and Ndebele), the three
Sotho languages (Southern Sotho, Northern Sotho and Tswana),
and then Venda and Tsonga (henceforth referred to in the singular as African-language literature). All of them have now been
given official language status under the Constitution. As is the

19

case with the languages, the status of the literature is not the
same as that of the European-related literatures. Due to a complex interaction of political, economic, social and educational
push and pull factors, African-language literature finds itself in a
different- most probably lower status- than the European literatures. This condition obtains despite the fact that the literature
shares the same geographical area, related cultural bonds and the
same political context, and notably, despite the fact that the country attained majority rule after the democratic election of 27
April 1994. It is perhaps too soon to expect spectacular changes
at this stage. However, one would have expected at least some
tangible indications that a new, transformed dispensation is in the
offing.
The posited relation finds apt description in Stephen Gray's
(1979: 14) vivid metaphor:
The guiding metaphor for this introduction is that
Southern African literature is like an archipelago. The
islands with their peaks protrude in set positions, even if
one does not readily see the connections between them
beneath the surface. Like most archipelagoes, it is
related to adjacent landmasses: in this case there are
three of them- most importantly, the mainland of English literature, by language and historical circumstances;
diminishing, the British Commonwealth of literature;
and increasingly, the continent of Africa which gives it
its actual nourishment.
Gray wrote about English literature and its local English spinoffs in Southern Africa. But the metaphor works almost perfectly
also for the entire Southern African literary landscape, which,
according to his metaphor, is not really a landscape but an archipelago, each literature - Afrikaans, English and African-language literature - protruding separately above the surface, but
showing little sign of the connections between them below the
surface. Gray's omission of African-language writing (even in
passing), in itself, is an example of marginalization.
Aspects which have contributed to the emergence of the privileged centre I have described as follows:
During the apartheid years which held the country captive for almost half a century, preference was given to
the development of European culture, and therefore, to
creative writing in Afrikaans and English, as well as
research on them. This advantaged them to such an
extent that their progress eclipsed creative writing in the
African languages and research on them. Even though
the latter was encouraged by the system as a visible
expression of the policy of separate development, African- language literature was in fact both "sponsored and
censored" to its present (marginalized) position.
In pre-missionary, early missionary and pre-colonial
times, oral literature in African languages had occupied
a central position but was pushed to the periphery by the
supported growth of literature in Afrikaans and English.
These also had a strong backing from economic forces
in the country - the established publishing houses, the
South African press, and an educated elite of affluent
readers. The fact that they were declared official languages early this century also contributed to their status
and central position (Swanepoel, (1996:21-22).
The study of African languages, oral traditions and written literature, was left to 'Bantu Education', and to a few white schools

Downloaded by [Brought to you by Unisa Library] at 03:25 23 July 2016

20

S.Afr.J.Afr.Lang., 1998,18(1)

and universities, where only a handful of students with a special

call, could study and do research, unfortunately mainly to satisfy
linguistic, anthropological and ethnographical interests.

approach: it provided sponsorship for development (however

inadequate) to a level which could not but be accommodated in
the Constitution.

These are all examples of how Othering came about, a systematic displacement of African traditions and a replacement with
the European as Centre. A clear indication of how the process of
'Othering' permeated the Southern African literary landscape, is
the attempt by the Centre for South African Literature and Language Studies at the University of Durban-Westville in 1995 to
'Rethink South African Literary History'. For the two-day colloquium at Tongaat C.F. Swanepoel was given the topic 'Merging
African-language literature into South African Literary History'
(Swanepoel. 1996:20-30). The need to 'merge' African-language
literature, is surely an indication that the Centre until the 1990s
saw this literature as something aside, apart, on the margin or
periphery.

Overwriting of languages is often referred to by means of the

metaphor of palimpsest - '[a] parchment or other piece of writing material from which one writing has been erased to make
room for another, often leaving the first faintly visible' (Webster,
1981 :682). The palimpsest metaphor refers to the process
whereby 'successive generations have inscribed and reinscribed
the process of history' (Ashcroft, 1994:166). It is a process
according to which 'the imperial language attempts to erase the
previous parchment and inscribe its own linguistic construction'
(ibid: 167). Again, this could not have been the aim with the
development of the languages. But it certainly was the result of
the privileging and advantaging of the European languages.

Ashcroft et al.'s last point to be analyzed refers to the fact that

marginalization was directed by the imperial authority. Again it
is not difficult to redirect the concept 'imperial authority' to local
circumstances. It is not the British Empire anymore, but the local
South African version thereof which found expression in the
apartheid system. Ironically the system received very little official support from the Afrikaans and English literary fraternity,
especially in the last years before its demise. Nevertheless, not
much was done to change the situation visibly.
I would now like to deal in a little more detail with the other
'grand irony' of marginalization in South Africa- the sponsoring
and censoring of African-language literature by the apartheid
system. Sponsoring should be viewed in a large context that
began with the developing of nine African languages as school,
college and university subjects, as media of tuition in schools, as
official languages in the old homelands, and as broadcasting
media in no less than nine radio stations of the old South African
Broadcasting Corporation, and their satellites or counterparts in
the so-called independent states. These needed the setting up of
language boards, terminology committees, writer workshops,
and a host of other measures to create and support the necessary
infrastructures. Millions of rands went into the establishment of
full-time secretariats, the provision of subsistence and travelling
allowances to board and committee members, and the awarding
of literary prizes (such as the various Republic Prizes) and to
encourage creative writing. These did come first from the State,
but not only from the State. Universities, publishing houses (who
contributed millions of rands but received much more in return),
and the public at large, also participated. On face value these
actions could be seen as worthwhile enterprises to encourage the
development of the languages and their literatures.
Viewed in the light of two typical discourses of the coloniaU
post-colonial debate, two interesting ironies come to light. Firstly
there is the discourse about the colonial 'devouring' of languages, and secondly the colonial 'overwriting' of languages.
Chantal Zabus (1990:305-306) refers to Louis-Jean Calvet's
concept of 'glottophagia' - a process whereby 'many African
languages were "devoured" by the colonizing powers and supplanted by the European languages'. This did not happen in
South Africa as it may have in other colonies of the world. It may
have been the case with smaller 'dialects' which had fallen prey
to the standardization of the nine languages we have referred to,
but that would not be a devouring by the European languages as
such. In this sense the apartheid system was less imperial in its

This is exactly where the rub lies. Did the system develop the
languages and literatures as a fully altruistic endeavour, allowing
them the freedom they deserved? The answer is 'no'. The system
had its own agenda. Bluntly put, the literature, the entire process
of development, was basically intended to support of the policy
of separate development. This provides another example of the
condition to which Ashcroft et a!. refer and which led to the other
component of the binary dynamics of colonial theory in South
Africa: censorship; which drove the best of the country's verbal
artists and literary scholars into exile, with many resorting to
English as their medium of expression; which put a damper on
free creative expression of the African-language writer, limiting
her/him to the localized township/school problematic, or similarly localized historical or folk-specific narrative, avoiding the
larger national sociopolitical and cultural discourse, catering for
the young and/or uncritical reader, and accordingly, preventing
the African-language writer during the real years of struggle
(1960-1990) to participate as assertively as her/his Afrikaans or
English contemporary, and thus also, contributing to the unfair
labelling of all African-language literature as 'Apartheid literature'. This resulted also in the literary Centre losing interest in
what happened in African-language literature, despite courageous efforts from writers, readers, and a significant group of
academics and other scholars - including the staff of the now
defunct HSRC Centre for South African Literature Research
(SENSAL). The aim was to draw the attention of the Centre
towards what happened in the Margin.
Losing interest in my view was unfair, since the discerning
reader, or the observer who possibly could not read an Africanlanguage but who had taken the trouble to enquire from those
who knew, would have been able to 'read between the lines' what
was 'written in and by the Margin'. If participation in the struggle was not as visible as the Centre would have wanted, continuation of writing in an African language, in itself, could have been
seen as a form of participation, not in the system, but in the struggle; what was allowed to be written was to be read as a signal of
what would have been written had the control measures not have
been there, or as effective. A thorough rereading of the Africanlanguage literature that was produced during the years of struggle ( 1960-1990), would most probably find as much in support of
the struggle as in the sixty years before. Seen this way, the Centre-Margin dichotomy attains a new significance. 'Writing in the
Margin' can be perceived as a way of writing which should be
read 'between the lines' to reflect a body of literature that cannot
be ignored.

S.Afr.J.Afr.Lang.,l998,18( I)

Downloaded by [Brought to you by Unisa Library] at 03:25 23 July 2016

The Centre-Margin debate should not be left as a sterile positioning of South African literatures. It can be further explored in
order to (a) serve as a basis from where the country can negotiate
its Renaissance through the intellectual abilities of its authors in
their first language(s), (b) to stimulate systematic and constructive reflection on where to go with indigenous writing (in South
Africa and Africa): local languages (and literatures) are under
threat of lingua francas, and the international thrust of globalization - measures to retain and develop what is part and parcel of
the indigenous heritage will have to be devised; and (c) to touch
upon discontinuities in the colonial and postcolonial theories
which should be addressed, or be replaced by a theory which
could account for African-language writing from within.
'Indigenous writing' is a key concept in the theory (cf. Boehmer, 1995:228-232), but the lack of penetrating cognizance of
indigenous-language writing tends to subvert the credibility of
these otherwise useful approaches. In Southern Africa 'writing
Indigenous' meant writing under adverse thematic conditions in
which the process of writing indigenous may have been more
important than the product; where self-realization and identity
building were as important as the outcome.
Finally the very existence of the Centre-Margin dichotomy
should be challenged. Moving the centre, it may appear, is a
power business - to gain control of the forces that determine
position(s): capital, the publishing industry, and the complex
educational, cultural and recreational processes involved in reading needs and habits. The political shift of power in South Africa
has been accomplished. Economic and cultural transformation
will take longer, but will eventually take place as well. Whether
these forces will lead to greater empowerment of the languages
and literatures, will have to be negotiated amidst the 'thrust of
globalization'. It will, in fact, strongly depend on how this is
going to be dealt with. However, power can also be developed
from within - through the relevance and quality of the products
of writing. If the process was crucial to survival in the old South
Africa, so will be the product in the new South Africa. 4
The Centre-Margin division could also be handled through a
change of vision. What is needed, it seems is what Ngugi wa
Thiong'o called 'a plurality of centers all over the world'
(1993: 11) - a moving, in South Africa, not necessarily back to
the geographical centers where the missionaries had started their
work (many of those centers are still there and some have been
converted into excellent cultural museums and archives), but to a
multilingual national concept of South African literature. What is
needed, perhaps, is not an Empire writing back, but a free South
Africa writing forward. 5

Notes
1. I have embarked on research in this direction mainly since
1995, after Professors Abiola Irele and Isidore Okpewho's
visit to South Africa. Also visiting in the same year, was Dr.
Lekan Oyegoke, Senior Lecturer of English at the University
of Swaziland. He participated in a one-day conference at
Unisa in August 1995. If the Colonial and Post-Colonial
debate has troubled me for about a decade (I asked the question to what extent the development of these approaches concerned the African-language literature of Southern Africa),
the contributions of these colleagues, especially in private
discussions, convinced me that delay cannot be logically
explained any longer.

21

2. The exception being Marxism, of course. It is noteworthy

how both Colonial and Post-Colonial theories made considerable use of some of the basic insights about literature and
its production that were arrived at through Marxist analyses.
3. This is a rather important local (Southern African) addition to
the debate. Karin Barber (1994:3-30) takes a critical stand
against what she calls 'a binarized, generalized model of the
world which has had the effect of eliminating African-language expression from view' (p. 3). She goes on to state:
it selects and overemphasizes one sliver of literary
and cultural production - written in the English language- and treats this as all there is, representative of
a whole culture and even a whole global 'colonial
experience'. It thus negligently or deliberately erases
all other forms of expression - written literature in
African languages, oral literatures in African languages, and a whole domain of cultural forms which
cross the boundaries between 'written' and 'oral',
between 'foreign' and 'indigenous'- making way for
the 'postcolonial Other', to emerge defiant yet accessible, conveniently articulate in English and consolingly preoccupied with his or her relation to the
centre - 'writing back' in a language the ex-colonizers can understand because it is a modified register of
their own. Thus decontextualized, inflated, and made
to bear an excessive metonymic burden, the role and
significance of African literature in English can not
be properly appreciated(. 3).
In this paper I shall try to indicate how the theory does work
for a country such as South Africa, including and even
despite significant agreement and ironical disagreement in
the relationship between African-language literature and its
surrounding neighbours of Afrikaans and English literature.
In my view the post-colonial debate cannot be seen from the
viewpoint of English (or Afrikaans) only, but must also be
seen in its (their) relation to the indigenous literature, as well
as the effects of their coexistence within the context of particular political, economic and cultural power relations.
4. In this respect the views of the well known Swahili writer and
academic Euphrase Kezilahabi are worthy of note. He asks:
'Creative writing or creative thinking? Creative writing is
only a small part of creative thinking. It is creative thinking
that is at the centre of all creative processes. We should be
concerned more with the creation of concepts and new ideas,
and the changing of concepts and perceptions among our
people. African languages are the basic tools that can be used
to accomplish this task. But in order to succeed African languages must be given their rightful place' (Kezilahabi,
1997:3).
5. This article is an edited version of a paper read at the 9th
Biennial International Conference of ALASA at the University of Natal, July 1997, and at the Conference on Creative
Writing in African Languages at the University of London,
September 1997. My thanks go to the University of South
Africa and the Centre for Science Development for financial
support to attend both conferences. Similarly my thanks go to
Graham Furniss (Centre of African Studies, SOAS) and
Karin Barber (Centre for West African Studies, University of
Birmingham) for their generous invitation to the London conference.

22

S.Afr.J .Afr.Lang.,l998,18( I)

References

Downloaded by [Brought to you by Unisa Library] at 03:25 23 July 2016

Ashcroft, B. 1994. Africa and Australia: The Post-Colonial

Connection. Research in African Literatures. Vol. ? No.? pp. 161170.
Ashcroft, B.. Griffiths, G. & Tiffin, H. 1989. The Empire Writes
Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures. London:
Routledge.
Barber, K. 1995. African-Language Literature and Postcolonial
Criticism. Research in African Literatures, 26(4):3-30.
Boehmer, E. 1995. Colonial and Postcolonial Literature. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gray, S. 1979. Southern African Literature: An Introduction. Cape
Town: David Philip.
Kezilahabi. E. 1997. Creative Writing in Swahili. Unpublished Paper
presented at the Conference on Creative Writing in African
Languages, University of London (SOAS), 12 September 1997.

Ngugi, wa Thiong'o. 1993. Moving the Centre. London: James

Curry.
Oyegoke, L. 1995. A re-shaping of dis-connections in
Commenwealth literatures. In Combrink, A.L. (ed.) SA VAL
Congress Proceedings XVIII, March 1994:255-265.
Potchefstroom University: Department of Central Publications,
Swanepoel, C.F. 1996. Merging African-language Literature into
South African Literary History. In Smit, J.A. van Wyk, J. and
Wade. J-P. (eds.) Rethinking South African Literary History.
Durban: Y-Press (pp. 20-30).
Webster, N. 1981. The Living Webster. New York: Delair.
Zabus, C. 1990. The Logos-eaters: the Igbo etho-text. In Riesz, J.
and Ricard, A. (eds.) Semper Aliquid Novi: Literature Comparee
et Literatures d'Afrique. Melanges offerts a Albert Gerard.
Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

A lexicostatistical survey of the Bantu languages of Botswana

H.M. Batibo
Department of African Languages and Literature, University of Botswana, Private Bag 0022, Gaborone, Botswana
October 1997

Botswana has more than thirty languages, among which at least ten are of Bantu origin. According to Guthrie ( 1948,
1967-71) and Doke (1967), the Botswana Bantu languages belong to both Eastern and Western Bantu streams. However,
the earlier classifications did not provide much detail on the hierarchical order and degree of relationship between the
languages in the various zones and groups. This study, which is based mainly on a lexicostatistical survey of nine
Botswana Bantu languages, demonstrates the degree to which these languages are related and also the hierarchy of
relationship. The author goes further to demonstrate the degree to which they have retained Proto-Bantu and Eastern Bantu
vocabulary. Also a number of historical observations are made on the basis of the findings in the study.

Introduction
The Botswana Bantu languages which include Setswana, Sekgalagadi, Ikalanga,Thimbukushu, Setswapong, Sebirwa, Shiyeyi,
Icisubiya and Otjiherero, are part of the 700 or so languages spoken in eastern, central and southern Africa, which have evolved
from an ancestral language (hypothetically known as
Proto-Bantu), presumed to have been spoken in present day
Cameroon about 3 500 years ago. Ancestral Bantu is presumed
to have broken off into southward and south-eastward waves of
migration. Two main streams have been recognized, namely
Western Bantu and Eastern Bantu (Guthrie, 1967-71, Heine,
1973; Coupez et a!, 1975; Ehret. 1996). The Western Bantu
stream moved directly south through the Congo forest to what is
now Gabon, Congo, Zaire, Angola and Namibia. According to
Guthrie (1967 - 71 ), Otjiherero and Shiyeyi have evolved from
the Western Bantu stream. The Eastern Bantu stream moved
south-east towards the region of the Great Lakes (reaching the
area between 400 and 300 BC) and scattering into the whole of
eastern Africa. A southward extension of Eastern Bantu moved
into what is now Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe,
Botswana and the rest of southern Africa. The main thrust of this
expansion is what has constituted Southern Bantu, with five main
branches, namely Nguni (lsiZulu, IsiXhosa, IsiNdebele, SiSwati
etc.), Sotho-Tswana (Sesotho, Setswana, Sepedi, Selozi, Sekgalagadi, etc.), Nhambane (Chopi, Tonga, etc.), Tsonga (Ronga,

Tswa) and Venda. There are other branches of South Eastern

Bantu to which the other languages of central and southern
Africa, such as Shona, Chewa, Sena ,and Nyanja, belong.

The genetic relationship between the Botswana Bantu

languages
From the above, it is clear that the Bantu languages of Botswana
belong to both streams, with the majority belonging to the Eastem Stream. Those which belong to the Eastern Stream could also
be sub-classified into smaller branches.
According to some of the recent descriptions (see for example,
Ehret 1996), the southward expansion of Eastern Bantu (known
after Ehret as Kusi Bantu), sub-divided itself into four main dialects. The four dialects are proto-southeast (ancestral to Nguni,
Sotho-Tswana and Venda), Proto-Sala-Shona (ancestral to
Shona, Sena, etc.), Proto-Makua (ancestral to Makua, Lomwe
and Cuabo) and Proto-Nyasa (ancestral to Nyasa/Chewa, Tumbuka, etc.). According to Ehret, other Kaskazi (North-Eastern)
Bantu groups moved later into what is now Central Africa,
namely Zambia, Malawi and Zimbabwe. Although Ehret's
description may not be wholly realistic, it presumes that there are
other Bantu groups which form co-ordinate branches with Southem Bantu.
The Botswana Bantu languages are classified by Guthrie
( 1948) in 4 separate zones as follows: