Abstract

Using contemporary people as proxies for ancient communities is a contentious but necessary practice in anthropology. In Southern Africa, the distinction between the Cape KhoeSan and eastern KhoeSan remains unclear as ethnicity labels are continually changed through time and most communities were extirpated. The eastern KhoeSan may reflect an essentialistic biological distinction from neighbouring Bantu-speaking communities or it may not be tied to race and instead denote communities with a nomadic life-way distinct from agro-pastoralism. The BaPhuthi of the 1800s in the Maloti-Drakensberg, Southern Africa had a substantial San constituency and a life-way of nomadism, cattle raiding, and horticulture. The BaPhuthi heritage could provide insights into the history of the eastern KhoeSan. We examine for the first time genetic affinities of 23 BaPhuthi to distinguish if KhoeSan ancestry reflects biologically distinct heritage or a shared life-way. Data were merged with 52 global populations. The Principle Component Analysis, ADMIXTURE clustering and F3 tests show no support for a unique eastern KhoeSan ancestry distinct from other KhoeSan or southern Bantu-speaking communities. The BaPhuthi have strong affinities with Nguni communities, as the non-Nguni show strong evidence of recent African admixture possibly related to late-iron age migrations. The BaPhuthi may have an interesting connection to the early iron-age Bantu-speaking communities as MALDER detected no signals for late-iron age admixture. We demonstrate how the essentialistic understanding of references in historic literature creates misconstrued notions of ethnic/biological distinctions when San and Bushman may have reflected ambiguous references to the non-sedentary polities and practices.