Compared to the work by Grab and Zumthurm (2018), who describe relatively dry and very dry (drought) years over central Namibia between 1850 and 1900, our current focus will only concentrate on “very dry” (drought) years; namely those of 1850–1851, 1858–1860, 1865–1869, 1877–1879, 1881–1882, 1887–1890, 1895–1896, 1900–1903, 1907–1908, 1910–1911, and 1912–1913 (Fig. 2). Figure 2 lists the number of times drought is mentioned in documentary sources each year and how this compares with the hydrometeorological 19th-century chronology produced by Grab and Zumthurm (2018). While the depicted results are impacted by documentary data availability and do not necessarily indicate drought severity, the intention with this figure is to provide a visual impression highlighting times when drought received much mention (and thus attention) through written sources, such as during the significant drought events of 1865–1869, 1877–1879, 1895–1896, and 1900–1903. Although the 1900–1903 event does not receive as much mention (according to Fig. 2) as those during 1895–1896 and 1877–1879, this is largely due to fewer documentary sources having been consulted for times since ca. 1900. The more recent documents contain a much greater detail of information, hence requiring fewer sources. However, the figure also demonstrates that concerns of perceived drought conditions are reported much more frequently (66 % of years) than the actual occurrence of drought (29 % of years) during the 19th century. This is largely due to conditions of (prolonged) seasonal aridity, usually described as drought. Table 1 lists the reported consequences, concomitant phenomena, and human responses during each of the identified drought periods. We also provide a brief overview on the spatial extent of these droughts through other parts of southern Africa, using previously published 19th-century documentary-based climate chronologies. Some comparative emphasis is placed on the neighbouring semi-arid regions of the Kalahari to the south-east and east of central Namibia and Namaqualand (winter rainfall zone) to the south of the current study area (Fig. 1).

One of the first droughts (1850–1851) experienced by missionaries of the RMS resulted in grasslands becoming degraded and barren and eventually led to hunger, starvation, and death amongst the indigenous population (Hahn, 1984/1985, p. 581). Missionaries were particularly distressed that the majority of people left stations in search of food and, consequently, that very few children attended school (ARRMS, 1850, p. 21). This drought was widespread across much of southern Africa (Nash and Endfield, 2002) and was accompanied by famine and livestock deaths in Lesotho and surrounding regions (Nash and Grab, 2010) (Fig. 2). In Namaqualand, drought conditions occurred in 1851 when the winter rains largely failed (Kelso and Vogel, 2007).

The failure of two rain seasons (1858–1860) had consequences of widespread hunger, poor harvests, livestock deaths, and missionaries relying on food transported from the Cape Colony. Traveller and explorer James Chapman was in Otjimbingue on 1 January 1861 and commented as follows: “No rain of any consequence has fallen here for 2 years. No grass anywhere, the trees and bushes bare” (Chapman, 1971, p. 217). Although this was a period of “relatively dry” conditions across central southern Africa accompanied by early and late-seasonal rains but mid-summer drought during the 1858–1859 rain season (Nash and Endfield, 2008; Nash and Grab, 2010), it seems that desiccation and its consequences were more pronounced over central Namibia than elsewhere. To the south, in Namaqualand, conditions in 1859 were wet but followed by drought (1860–1862), for which the first known regional government assistance was proposed (Kelso and Vogel, 2007). This demonstrates that periods of wet and dry are not always synchronous between the mid- to late-summer rainfall region of central Namibia and the predominantly winter rainfall region to the south (Namaqualand) (Fig. 2).

The extended drought of 1865–1869 ranks as the longest (four consecutive failed rain seasons) over central Namibia between 1850 and 1920. On 7 February 1866, missionary Brincker writes from Otjikango that “in this year there is a great drought as is seldom experienced in this land, such that even the Swakop [River] has not yet [7 February 1866] come down [or reached Okahandja], which otherwise would flow in December at the latest” (VEM RMG 2.585 C/i 6, p. 63). Later it emerged that the Swakop River never reached Otjimbingue for 3 years (1866–1868) (Irle, 1906, p. 22). What made this drought so devastating is the cumulative year-on-year effect that progressively worsened the situation, leading to widespread hunger, starvation, and the death of indigenous people. In the Kalahari, this period started as relatively dry but for the most part was near normal (Nash and Endfield, 2008). However, winter rains largely failed in Namaqualand for 4 consecutive years (1865–1868) (Kelso and Vogel, 2007), indicating prolonged drought over the westerly sector of southern Africa. Reports for central and eastern regions of southern Africa were variable, with near-normal to relatively dry conditions over most parts, but some regions experienced harvest failures (Nash and Grab, 2010; Nash et al., 2016). It is noteworthy that while there was widespread and prolonged southern African drought over the summer rainfall regions between 1861 and 1863 (Nash and Endfield, 2008; Nash and Grab, 2010; Nash et al., 2017), this period was relatively wet (1861–1862) to very wet (1862–1863) over central Namibia (Fig. 2). Then, when drought commenced over central Namibia during the late 1860s, hydro-climatic conditions improved over most of the southern African summer rainfall regions.

The 1877–1879 drought affected most southern African summer rainfall regions (Nash et al., 2019) and coincided with what has been described as the 1877–1878 “Global Drought” and “Global Famine” caused by a major El Niño (Davis, 2001; Hao et al., 2010; Singh et al., 2018). This was indeed one of the most devastating droughts in recorded history over central Namibia. This drought, in connection with increasing conflicts that had complex causes, had multiple consequences (Table 1): crop failures, obliterated grasslands, dead trees, lack of wild foods, social tensions and stock thefts, collapse of commercial enterprises, poverty, starvation, and death amongst people and their livestock. Missionary responses to this drought included dedicated days of prayer and repentance and fundraising so that food could be purchased for those in the most desperate need. By 1879 the

conditions in Hereroland [had] not improved, but on the contrary, the longer [the situation lasted] the worse it [had] become. By far the main cause of this [was] the endless drought […] it seems that every now and again such periods return to southern Africa, where the drought worsens with each year, as is the case with Hereroland now, which finds itself at the end of a whole number of such years. (ARRMS, 1879, p. 19f)

The situation associated with the 1877–1879 drought, in most places of central Namibia repeated itself in 1881–1882, largely owing to the combined effects of drought and war (see Grab and Zumthurm, 2018). The drought of 1887–1890 was again a lengthy one with similar consequences to those previously. Only the poorest of people stayed at mission stations and resorted to begging for food. Others had again spread out and followed a nomadic lifestyle in search of grazing and water. Large stock losses were reported from mission stations, while much of the indigenous population remained in a state of poverty and hunger (Table 1). This drought was one of the least synchronous across southern Africa during the latter half of the 19th century. The Kalahari was relatively wet to relatively dry (Nash and Endfield, 2008) and Namaqualand normal to wet (Kelso and Vogel, 2007). Although easternmost southern Africa experienced one of its most prolonged droughts of the 19th century (1886–1890) (Nash et al., 2016), further inland (Lesotho and central South Africa) conditions ranged from relatively wet to relatively dry (Nash and Grab, 2010). In the extreme northern parts of southern Africa (Malawi), conditions during this time were initially relatively wet (1885–1887), but drought commenced during 1887–1888 (Nash et al., 2018).

The final drought of the 19th century to impact central Namibia was due to the failed 1895–1896 rain season. Rainfall records indicate only 48 %–50 % of normal seasonal rains falling over the central and northern regions, while to the south at Rehoboth only 44 % of the norm was measured (Fig. 2). According to the Annual Report of the RMS, “in all of Southwest Africa there [was] a major drought over most of the year, and in the southern parts of the country, the so-called “Groß-Namalande”, it caused total famine. [They] thus had to raise funds […] to avoid starvation” (ARRMS, 1896, p. 14f). Cattle and draught oxen were reportedly in a very weak state, and to make matters worse, the “rinderpest” (cattle plague) had arrived, which further decimated stock. In this case, the drought was synchronous across southern Africa and considered one of the most prolonged (1894–1899) and severe during the 19th century in the Kalahari (Nash et al., 2016). Relatively dry conditions prevailed over central southern Africa (Nash and Grab, 2010), but throughout eastern South Africa drought prevailed (1895–1900) with severe food shortages due to poor crop yields, accompanied by locust infestations and the rinderpest (Nash et al., 2016). This led to a variety of socio-economic consequences across broad regions of eastern and central southern Africa, such as poverty, malnutrition, migration, and socio-ecological change (Pribyl et al., 2019). This also coincided with the longest period of consecutive dry or drought years in Namaqualand (1890–1899) during the 19th century (Kelso and Vogel, 2007). Although dry conditions prevailed as far north as Malawi until 1894, wetter conditions returned to that region thereafter (Nash et al., 2018).

The period 1900–1903 was characterized by three successive below-average rainfall seasons (averaging ca. 62 %, 55 %, and 60 % of the norm respectively for central Namibia) (Fig. 3). The impacts were again cumulative with each year, in particular affecting groundwater and grazing. What made this drought worse still was the ongoing rinderpest (despite vaccines now being used), the outbreak of Texas fever among cattle, and repeated locust invasions which decimated any new grass growth and crops after it had rained a little. The Otjimbingue 1901 station chronicle summarizes the situation after the first of these failed rain seasons:

The drought lasted until early March [although it continued to be dry thereafter]. The people's gardens were desiccated without exception, hunger was great, especially given that no employment was possible at this place. The wells are drying up and the spring for the mission houses has had no water for many weeks […] In February we had three rain showers which totalled 59 mm. The river came down very weakly for two days, enough to provide some water to the wells. Consequently, it started to green up in the area. But alas, the blazing sun and locusts soon destroyed the greenery. The follow-up rains never came and so the long period of drought continued. (VEM RMG 2.588 C/i 8: p. 355f.)

According to the 1907–1908 annual report [Jahresbericht] for Southwest Africa,

The rainfalls were not very productive. In April and May 1907 there were abundant rainfalls so that the grazing and water situation was good. In contrast, rainfall in this last season was well below-average. Even though this had less consequence for grazing to the north, the water situation was unfavourable, so that on many farms there were complaints about a lack of water even at the beginning of the dry season. (NAN, ZBU, 155 A.VI.A.3, vol. 17, p. 232)

The drought of 1910–1911 was particularly severe given far below normal rainfall during the rain season, affecting all regions of central Namibia. According to the Annual Report for Gobabis (1910–1911, p. 42f), “The rainfall season of 1910–1911 was very bad, especially for farming, as the December–January rains were almost entirely absent – only in March was there abundant rain”. The instrumental records support this, indicating only 10 % (Otjimbingue) to 26 % (Gobabis) of normal December–January rainfall totals across stations. Although some late-season (March–May) rains did indeed fall at Gobabis (100 % of the norm), all other stations recorded well below normal late-season rains (17 % at Otjikango to 44 % in Windhoek). This drought had severe consequences, such as large stock losses (also due to the rinderpest), near-complete harvest failures, and a desperate shortage of water for human and livestock needs. Drought was also reported from South Africa (1909–1911) (Msangi, 2004), while the year 1911 marked the start of a long dry spell (1911–1916) in former Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) (Manatsa et al., 2008).

The drought of 1912–1913 was again widespread, as is also confirmed by the instrumental rain records (Fig. 3). Since rainfall records began in 1891, this was the driest rainfall season in the south (Rehoboth: 33 % of the norm), the third-driest in the central highlands (Windhoek: 66 % of the norm) and the second-driest in the north (Okahandja: 45 % of the norm), and this collectively must rank as one of the most severe droughts (in terms of the rainfall or water deficit) since the mid-19th century. Such conditions are confirmed in the Otjimbingue station chronicle for 1913, which describes the land “far and wide looking dreary and burnt [by the sun]” but states that the mountain areas had received some rain (VEM RMG 2.588 C/i 8, p. 415). The grazing situation was critical at Otjimbingue, with apparently “not a single blade of grass to be seen for many hours distance from the station” (ARRMS, 1913, p. 40f), and around Rehoboth in the south where “even the hunter-gatherer communities could not find the essentials to keep themselves alive” (ARRMS, 1913, p. 14). The drought was characterized by complete crop failure in some areas and meagre crop harvests in others, widespread drying up of wells, and depleted grazing, such that farmers were preparing to vacate their land. This drought was synchronous over most of southern Africa (Thorp, 1926; Manatsa et al., 2008; du Toit and O'Connor, 2014).

Strong rainfall gradients occur through central Namibia, both north–south and west–east (Fig. 1), which, together with “patchy” (isolated) rainfall distribution in some years, does at times account for strongly contrasting subregional conditions (Figs. 3 and 4). Thus, while most drought events affected the entire region, there were several instances when one or more areas had “sufficient” or “relatively wet” conditions during a “regional drought”. One or two isolated heavy rain showers in a particular area may have been enough to permit local stream discharge and rapid grass recovery, while surrounding areas remained parched and dry. For instance, the rain season failed entirely in Otjimbingue in early 1868 and grazing conditions were in a terrible state, yet some rains fell and streams flowed three times in Omaruru further north, where there was sufficient grazing, and vegetable produce and corn could be planted (BRM, 1868, p. 355). Missionary Johann Heidmann reports from Rehoboth on 27 December 1877 that they had not suffered as much from the drought as those at other stations across central Namibia. Given that the drought impact at this usually drier locality was not as severe as in usually better-watered regions, Rehoboth may have had rainfall closer to its norm than other areas (VEM RMG 2.589 C/i 9, p. 143). The 1895–1896 rain season over most of central Namibia was dry, but further south (Rehoboth southwards) it became critically dry with drought conditions. Yet, the usually much drier western region of Otjimbingue had abundant rain, so much so that “grass over the new year was so good, as was not seen in many years” (ZBU, 146, A.VI.A.3, vol. 2). During the drought of 1900–1903, conditions were at first also reported to be variable across subregions. For instance, towards the end of 1901, while the much awaited rains had arrived in the northern regions, these were apparently scanty or patchy in the southern parts (ARRMS, 1902, p. 24). However, while the end of year (November or December) instrumental rain records for 1901 do indeed show high rainfall in the north (Okahandja: 156 % of the norm), they also show slightly above-normal rainfall for central (Windhoek: 110% of norm) and southern (Rehoboth: 115 % of norm) station localities. At other times the documented accounts compare positively with the instrumental records, as was the case in 1910, when apparently abundant rains fell at Omaruru (northern study region), “but in other regions of the land it was not favourable in this regard” (ELKIN, V.23.1, p. 375). Instrumental records confirm this, with Okahandja receiving 110 % of the normal rainfall, while western, central, and southern regions (Otjikango, Windhoek, Rehoboth) only received between 75 %–80 % of normal rainfall. However, Gobabis in the eastern part of central Namibia received 122 % of its normal rainfall in 1910. This demonstrates that in addition to the strong rainfall gradients across the region, there were also disparate rainfall departures from the mean in a given season or year. In this case, the somewhat wetter regions to the north and east received above-normal rainfall, while the drier regions to the west and south received less than normal rain, consequently exaggerating rainfall gradients even more beyond their norm.

Conversely, there were times when most of central Namibia experienced relatively dry to “near-normal” conditions that would not qualify as a drought. In such years, most areas received sufficient rains, but there were instances when subregions experienced drought. The year 1890 started variably; in Otjimbingue, 100 km south of Omaruru, the rains failed, causing people to disperse (RMG 2.588 C/i 8, p. 307), yet at Omaruru, sufficient rain had fallen to permit good grazing conditions, such that people congregated at the station again (ELKIN, V.23.1, p. 160). In early 1891, Otjimbingue and Okombahe again had drought while reports from other regions confirmed that good rains had fallen (RMG 2.588 C/i 8, p. 312).

Missionary Carl Hahn, stationed at Otjikango, reported the first drought-induced famine during spring 1851. First reports of deaths from starvation date from September 1851, and on 19 October Hahn wrote in his diary that the “misery is enormous. Almost daily you see new pitiful creatures arrive at the station. They drag themselves over here to get some food. Our help is not enough at all” (Hahn, 1984/1985, p. 515). On 9 November 1851, Hahn noted that several children had died and that the hardships were severe owing to terrible drought. By mid-December he observed that there were more victims of drought and hunger and that not even a third of the missionary station inhabitants remained, but that people had scattered into the veld (open country) where they were in search of wild berries and roots. It was only towards the end of December 1851 when rains finally arrived, but these were too late to avoid further hunger and starvation. From Rehoboth, missionary Franz Kleinschmidt expressed concern at the absence of many children from school due to drought and the dispersal of people. During 1850, some 180 pupils attended classes, but this dwindled to only 70 learners by April 1851 (ARRMS, 1851, p. 23). On 22 June 1852, missionary Johannes Rath wrote from Otjimbingue that “the people who remain are parched by hunger and stray around like hungry wolves. You cannot do anything with such people anywhere in the world, least of all among pagans. The needs of the stomach overshadow everything else” (VEM RMG 2.588 C/i 8, p. 36).

The tension for missionaries during this time was that while their calling was to attract people to the stations for evangelistic and educational purposes, they did not have the capacity to feed local inhabitants during times of drought and crop failure. Hence, people resorted to hunting and gathering during such times, which meant the dispersal of the population and mission stations being deserted. Similar tensions are alluded to by Endfield and Nash (2002) for the Kalahari region, where the nomadic lifestyles of indigenous people during earlier decades of the 19th century meant finding strategies to attract local populations to permanent settlements. In central Namibia, missionaries themselves were in dire need of food and lacked any institutional supporting structure to assist them during times of severe food shortages. For instance, when missionary Hahn travelled past Rehoboth station on his way to Cape Town in 1859, he was shocked that missionary Kleinschmidt and his family could only drink goats' milk and depended on food they received from travellers. Their cattle were too malnourished to provide milk or meat (ARRMS, 1859, p. 34).

Population dispersal and movement as a local drought or famine coping mechanism would not have been a new thing and was a typical or logical response that would continue into later decades (Table 1). During times of drought, dispersal (transhumance) was generally towards the better-watered north and northwest but was likely restricted in distance given that such regions would themselves already have been inhabited. A similar, but more regular form of transhumance was observed during the first half of the 19th century among the Namaqua Khoikhoi people of Namaqualand (Kelso and Vogel, 2015). Migration between the winter rainfall regions of Namaqualand and the summer rainfall area of neighbouring Bushmanland served as a form of resilience and a coping mechanism to overcome the impacts of drought in that region (Kelso and Vogel, 2015). Although such human movement in response to 19th-century droughts is less widely reported from the wetter regions of the subcontinent, it is reported that the combined impacts of drought and rinderpest in the mid-1890s, resulted in the abandonment of villages and large-scale migration in some of these regions (Pribyl et al., 2019).

Drought during the 1860s intensified and that of 1865–1869 was one of the longest and most devastating in recent historical times (Grab and Zumthurm, 2018). During this “great drought”, missionary stations were again vacated, and even missionaries and colonists were forced to abandon their stations. For instance, economist Wilhelm Redecker departed Otjimbingue with some of the converts to relocate where surface or groundwater was still available along the Omaruru River (VEM RMG 2.588 C/i 8, p. 199). Others that remained at their station (e.g. the missionary Friedrich Viehe, see below) felt that they had been abandoned and left in need by the absence of all those who had left. Peter Brincker reported from Otjikango on 10 September 1869 that “the drought and in its wake the famine is pushing very hard on us and many poor people have died of starvation. Indeed, it was told here that the hunger among the Ovatjimba or the poor Herero [indigenous people] is so large that they resorted to cannibalism, which most likely is exaggerated” (VEM RMG 2.588 C/i 8, p. 70). This is the only account which hints at cannibalism in all the documents analysed, the reality of which even the missionaries doubted. It thus serves to emphasize the seriousness with which the situation was viewed. In desperation, missionary Brincker also departed Otjikango station and moved to Otjimbingue where missionary Hahn was stationed. Here too, there were only a few men with their families who remained. Despite the shortage of food, Hahn claims that he was left with little choice but to feed some hundred children from money provided by the missionary society (BRM 1869, 262f). While there had been some improved institutional financial support from Germany by the late 1860s, such support seemed insufficient to benefit the needs of those residing at stations.

Missionaries usually demonstrated sympathy towards their communities and the nomadic habits of their people. Although missionaries expressed a deep understanding of the tensions and needs faced by the local population, their descriptions began to include an undertone of disdain towards what was considered “un-Christian” behaviour. For instance, in May 1868, missionary Viehe complained from Otjimbingue that most of the residents were away and would thus not be able to care for him and his family, and he writes: “but who can take this amiss for a pagan people?” (BRM, 1868, p.  247). Drought seemed to regularly interrupt the core purposes of the RMS in central Namibia, as is reflected by missionary Brincker from Otjikango towards the end of the long drought (August 1872):

There is one thing that worries me, although an earthly one: it is the drought that is increasing each year. What should become of our communities if they cannot settle down and hence consolidate? Admittedly, we cannot complain about the roving of our community members, but the question arises if it is possible at all to implement culture under such unfavourable circumstances. Nature in this country treats these poor people more than uncharitably. (BRM, 1882, p. 234f)

Drought during the late 1860s was accompanied by armed conflicts, which seemed to have escalated with time. Hence, human movement to and from mission stations was no longer only a consequence of drought but also due to conflict. Missionaries were well aware of this, so that in the annual report of 1869, war was identified as the primary reason for the scattering of residents from Otjimbingue. The editor added the following: “we hope for peace and rain so that the bulk of the black people can move onto the station again and our missionaries are saved and full of work again” (ARRMS, 1869, p. 24). Missionary Heidmann, who had just reopened the station at Rehoboth in 1871, acknowledged that it was not only the long drought and associated general scattering of people, but also the “endless clan feuds and plundering raids” that were responsible for the impoverishment of the once wealthy community (BRM, 1871, p. 129).

Drought and conflict cannot be separated in such circumstances as it was the scarcity of grazing resources, death of livestock, hunger, and starvation due to drought that essentially led to many of the conflicts, wars, and livestock thefts. These were also connected to increasing trading activities and wealth accumulation in the form of cattle (Henrichsen, 2011; Wallace, 2011). In Namaqualand, local communities experienced an aggravation of their material situation at the same time, even though conflicts of the same scale did not occur there. However, people lost much of their cattle and land to new settlers (Kelso and Vogel, 2015). This development decreased their mobility and increased their dependence on agricultural output, consequently reducing their ability to deal with climatic stress. In central Namibia, mobility remained a crucial strategy to overcome drought, despite complicated interactions manifested through political and armed conflicts.

The effects of armed conflicts became even more pronounced during the drought of the late 1870s, a particularly severe dry period which affected most of southern Africa (see Nash et al., 2019). To make matters worse for the missionary vision, the exodus from stations continued during periods of drought. The year 1877 was not an easy one for central Namibia (known as Hereroland at this time): “firstly there was a long drought with famine”, and secondly because of “a strained relationship between the Herero and British colonists”. In addition, the Namaqua [indigenous people] had to deal with their loss of power. Collectively, these factors triggered conflict, which, “together with the consequences of drought increased distress and want even more” (ARRMS, 1877, p. 19f).

In 1877, William Palgrave was sent as a special commissioner from the Cape to investigate whether Namibia had the potential to become a valuable British colony. He commented on the extensive drought after arriving at Walvis Bay on 12 October 1877: “The drought which has so seriously affected the Colony has also been severely felt in this country and Great Namaqualand, particularly by those who are wholly or in part dependant on the wild products of the earth for their subsistence. Many of those are starving and stock-lifting has become unusually prevalent and has given use to much bad feeling between the tribes” (CAD, NA 286). Many contemporary observers noted that the Herero's cattle had rapidly multiplied over the years. They moved southwards in search of new pastures due to drought in northern Namibia, although political motives also played a role (Henrichsen, 2011). Missionary Eduard Heider from the southernmost station of the study area, Hoachanas, wrote in 1877 that the complete Nama community was forced to leave the station due to the Herero pushing into the region with large herds of cattle (ARRMS, 1877, p. 31). Missionary Carl Büttner, who had spent 7 years at Otjimbingue, predicted in the same year that the expansion of the Herero would force the Nama and Damara to become “violent thieves” (BRM, 1878, p. 11). A year later (1878), it was estimated that some GBP 800 worth of stock had been stolen over a 6-month period in the immediate surrounds of Rehoboth (VEM RMG 2.588 C/i 8, p. 247).

Due to a seemingly endless drought and armed conflict, conditions in Hereroland progressively worsened through the period 1877–1879. The impression was that due to multiple drought years, conditions had worsened with each year in an accumulative manner, such that inhabitants suffered greatly, so much so that this led to much conflict between white settlers and the indigenous Herero over the need for the little grazing still available. Conflicts also arose between the Herero and Namaqua, as well as between English border patrols and those moving their herds (ARRMS, 1879). At this stage, and continuing into the early 1880s, the entire German missionary cause in central Namibia seemed to have disintegrated and required new approaches given the constant coming and going of local people, in response to war and drought. Missionary Brincker writes from Otjimbingue (1882): “There are two extremely obstructive enemies to our work here, namely war and drought. […] Our people have received a wretched land for their inheritance, in which no culture is possible. Christianity must take on a new form, it must nomadize, which has probably not yet been sufficiently understood and considered” (BRM, 1882, p. 359). Missionaries at various stations responded with a declaration to commit 1 h of prayer for rain, twice monthly.

The impression from missionaries was that drought had so much reduced wild foods (bulbs, roots, berries, game, and “creeping things”) that the Damara (mostly hunter-gatherer communities) were forced to steal livestock to stay alive. Missionary Bernsmann from Otjimbingue, for example, wrote in 1878 that the Herero cast out the Nama and the Damara from their places and that “there was only very little food to gather in the fields and [that] the game [had] escaped to places out of reach where they would still find good pastures. What choice other than stealing do they have?” (VEM RMG 2.588 C/i 8, p. 247). This led to campaigns between the Damara and Herero, with “bloody consequences”. The view of the German missionaries was, however, that the situation would not have been as bad had it not been for the English government's plans to colonize Hereroland (ARRMS, 1879, p. 19f). They were, nevertheless, also very critical of the indigenous population for what was perceived to be overstocking. On 13 March 1879 missionary Büttner makes a written complaint to the local inhabitants near Otjikango: “in earlier times when you had less livestock you could stay in one place, and I remember in times of past drought how the church and school were full. Now that you are wealthy [with livestock] you always complain of hunger and avoid coming to the station” (BRM, 1879, p. 302).

Notably, German missionaries gave the Damara considerably more attention during the drought of the late 1870s than during that of the preceding decade. Several missionaries emphasized the particularly hard fate of these people. Due to the failure of rains and more intensive hunting of wild animals and gathering of edible plants, it was the widespread impression that such wild food products had become increasingly scarce. Similar observations (i.e. the disappearance of wild foods after drought events) were reported from the Kuruman region of the Kalahari during the 1850s, where the environment and settlement history is similar to that of central Namibia (Jacobs, 2002). By the 1890s, environmental deterioration (e.g. a dearth of wild edible plants and animals) seemed widespread across southern Africa and consequently impacted drought resilience amongst indigenous communities (Pribyl et al., 2019).

Endfield and Nash (2002) discuss in some depth the considerable attention given by missionaries, such as David Livingstone, to desiccation theory. Missionaries and travellers attempted to explain the reasons for what they viewed as a progressive dessication of the Kalahari region. Although similar concerns were at times expressed by missionaries in central Namibia, these were usually in response to a particular extended period of drought. More notable, however, were concerns for environmental deterioration – which itself was strongly linked to depleting water resources. Rapid environmental deterioration during the 1870s not only constituted the depletion of wild edible plants and fauna, but also groundwater resources. Missionaries, colonists, and indigenous people relied heavily on perennial springs, and particularly so through the long dry seasons. Although unsustainable water extraction and harvesting of wild foods is already alluded to in the 1860s, such accounts become much more prominent during the 1870s and subsequent decades of colonialism. On 11 October 1860, missionary Rath arrived at Tsaobis station and commented that this place formerly had a spring that never dried up. He lamented that the nonsensical economy of the whites resulted in “not a drop of water to be found there anymore” (VEM RMG 2.588 C/i 8, p. 117). A decade later (September 1871), missionary Hahn wrote from Ameib, reflecting that in past years, water had occurred in abundance there and in the Erongo Mountains but that given the severe droughts over the past years, there had been a dramatic disappearance of springs. However, he also blamed the Namaqua people for the general environmental destruction, particularly the deforestation of shade-bearing mimosas (VEM RMG 1.577 a B/c II 3, p. 451). By late February 1877, missionary Julius Dannert at Otjimbingue noted that the spring, which usually had running water throughout the year, had dried up. Water was only available at a depth of 7 ft. Earlier there were rows of poplars growing in front of the mission house at Otjimbingue, but these, like most of the fruit trees planted by missionary Barnabas Hörnemann, had perished by 1877 owing to drought (RMG 2.588 C/i 8, p. 242f). Otjimbingue, Omaruru, Omburo, and other mission stations had “permanent” springs in their riverbeds, from where water flowed onwards for at least an hour's walk during the entire year. However, by 1879, such spring water had dried up considerably, or even disappeared in some cases. Consequently, one now had to dig wells in the Otjimbingue and Omaruru streambeds, while the spring at Omburo only flowed over half its former distance (ELKIN, V.23.1, p. 63).

Gradually, during the 1870s, opportunities for wage labour expanded more rapidly. One of the first mentions of wage labour comes from missionary Böhm stationed at Ameib in 1873:

Hunger and poverty are part of the lives of the Namaqua, but one can sense that the desperation is no longer as severe as in previous years. Most of these people, apart from during short hunting campaigns, tend to stay at the station even during dry times. The men earn much through ostrich hunting and last year made plentiful tobacco, a portion of which they sell. (ARRMS 1873, p. 37)

One of the most important new modes of earning a living for people connected to missions was the so-called Frachtfahren, which involved the transporting of goods by ox-cart (ELKIN, V.23.1, p. 51). However, Frachtfahren was interrupted in 1878 due to drought (lack of water and food for draught oxen) – this had serious implications for those reliant on wage labour. As commerce increased, many new drivers were required by the 1890s. The head of the Otjimbingue district reported in 1897 that while indigenous people had extensively cultivated crops in riverbeds in earlier years, this practice had receded in importance given that considerable money could be earned through Frachtfahren. Consequently, it was more attractive for drivers to earn a living and buy food rather than to produce it themselves (NAN, ZBU, 147, A.VI.A.3, vol.2a., p. 142). This practice was not without its problems, especially after the rinderpest. People had lost their livestock during the outbreak and were now forced to buy goods or new oxen on credit. A similar situation troubled communities further south in Namaqualand during the 1860s (Kelso and Vogel, 2015).

During the 1900–1903 drought, there were several accounts of people not having enough food in Rehoboth, Omaruru, and Otjimbingue given the fact that income opportunities from Frachtfahren had declined, also due to drought (ELKIN, V.23.1, p. 245; ARRMS, 1901, p. 24; VEM, RMG 2.588 C/i 8, p. 355f). For 10–11 months the drought was so severe that Frachtfahren closed down almost entirely, and where it continued, it was at “great loss” (assumably loss of draught animals) (ARRMS, 1903). At the time, it proved difficult to find an alternative way to obtain food. Prices were exceptionally high in times of drought, wild foods were now increasingly scarce to find, and wage labourers generally did not cultivate crops themselves. One possibility for supplementary wages during times of drought was to work on the railways or in the mines for a meagre salary (ARRMS, 1911, p. 35; ELKIN, V.23.1, p. 252). In Otjosazu, the harvests of 1901 largely failed, resulting in substantial hunger amongst poor people who, unlike the more financially privileged, were unable to purchase food to replace what they had lost through the bad harvest (ARRMS, 1901, p. 29).

A new form of relief for mission communities during the 1900–1903 drought was financial or material support from the colonial government. The RMS mentions in its 1902 annual report that the impact of drought was felt as severely as ever. The RMS thanked settlers and, in particular, the German government for their support, through which stations had apparently received not only drought relief money and food aid but also financial assistance for much needed infrastructural developments and renovations, which could improve future drought-coping mechanisms (ARRMS, 1902, p. 20). For example, the station of Hoachanas received food worth 1000 marks from the German state, which, in addition, financed the construction of 22 wells (ARRMS, 1902, p. 20). The first reported construction of a sand dam or water reservoir is mentioned in the 1901–1902 Annual Report for the Windhoek district (p. 228). Water in this reservoir had apparently reached a depth of 3.5 m in 1902 and demonstrates a first major infrastructural and long-term water management initiative. It is doubtful, however, that such government aid had any far-reaching positive effects as many people were still forced to find wild food products during times of desperation, and the general decline of human health was widely reported during the first decade of the 20th century. The official German Annual Report for the colony of South-West Africa (1911–1912) announced that “the lack of fresh milk, on which locals have depended as staple food for generations, plus the scarceness of field crops, which were the only available fresh vegetables for locals after the drought of 1911, can be regarded as the main reason for the many cases of scurvy” (NAN, ZBU, 161, A.VI.A.6, vol 1, p. 16f).