Knowledge as the source of progress: The Marshall family testament to the “Bushmen”

There can be no doubt that the Marshalls’ testament to the “Bushmen,” particularly Elizabeth's The Harmless People and John's The Hunters, played a major role in shaping a public image of humankind's ancient ancestors, especially in the United States. John has said, correctly I believe, that simply by being made known through his family's efforts, Khoisan‐speaking “Bushmen” were brought into the surviving ethnographic record that intrigued a growing number of anthropologists as well as the general public at the beginning of the 1960s. I offer here a preliminary account, based on archival materials, personal letters, etc., of the paradigms and politics that underlay their efforts. I begin with an examination of the extent to which Laurence Marshall must be seen as the inspiration for and the driving force behind the family project, then turn to a consideration of J. O. Brew's role in it. Although this was an ethnoarchaeological project from its beginning, Brew's role has been wholly unappreciated, but cannot be exaggerated; he was, in terminology appropriate to the business nature of the case, Chief Executive Officer to Laurence's Chairman of the Board.

I then turn to the political arena of prehistory—of the living and the dead—that became as important as the arena of its field sites in the 1960s. The Marshalls were thrust into dormancy by academically more powerful rivals who publicly and privately contested their work, but there can be little doubt that their record critically influenced reawakening anthropological interest in hunting societies. Indeed, struggles to be the proprietary heirs to the Marshalls’ “Bushman” legacy ricochetted off the walls of academia from Cambridge (US) to Berkeley to Johannesburg to London to Cambridge (UK).

Finally, I consider the mythic underpinnings of the Marshalls’ work, and conclude that while Elizabeth, in The Harmless People, presents the least occluded view of the Marshalls’ Kalahari, seen as a whole John's “Bushmen” films reveal the expanding of a sensitive consciousness not only to a gestalt of life but to the complexity of filmic (re)presentation and to the limitations of audiences to comprehend what is presented. Collectively, his films constitute important ethnographic documents. They are not, however, dependable documents of the objectified peoples made subjects in the films, but faithful documents of the filmmaker/ethnographer situated in the discourse of a distorted modernity at the time they were made. They permit us to draw inferences about the species of colonial ideology that was pervasive at that time.