{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02480916030534351, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0028625954198473282, 'mean_word_length': 5.4753086419753085, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Paradigmatic History of San-Speaking Peoples and Current Attempts at Revision [and Comments and Replies]

The time when there were no archaeological data for the Kalahari and the prevailing paradigm persuaded us that all the archives were empty, when presumed foraging peoples were consigned to simplicity in social relations, when we believed we could explain ourselves through evolution alone is long gone. Neither anthropological knowledge claims nor the peoples upon which those claims are based nor the policy decisions influenced by them are well served by denying this. Nevertheless, a "Kalahari San debate" has arisen around the question whether foragers are genuine or spurious. The identical question was raised by Fritsch against Passarge's "revisionism" in the first "Bushman debate" of I906. We consider the question itself spurious, arguing that "Bushman" and "San" are invented categories and "Kalahari foragers" an ethnographic reification drawn from one of several subsistence strategies engaged in by all of Botswana's rural poor.