Let's move on to consider another important type of material culture, the characteristic "beehive" huts found among EP, WP and Bu. I've already posted photos of some interesting examples, but let's take another look:
The poverty of the Bushman existence is very clearly indicated by their huts. It is the women's task to erect them. At a distance of from six to eight feet apart, two strong poles are planted in the ground in such a way that the points meet at the height of about five feet. The tops are tied together with the soft bark of a tree. This archway forms the door to the Bushman hut and it is never closed. Further poles are now planted in an irregular semicircle and joined at the top to form a sort of domed roof. This framework is covered with branches with leaves on and dry grass, and the Bushman hut is complete (p. 17 -- my emphasis).
They live in huts they call mongulu which are one-family houses made of branches and leaves and nearly always built by the women. After a frame of very flexible, thin branches is prepared, recently-gathered leaves are fit in the structure. After the work is complete, other vegetable materials is sometimes added to the dome in order to make the structure more compact and waterproof. (My emphasis)]Next the Mbuti (EP), from The Forest People, by Colin Turnbull:
Now she squatted down making her own home, driving the saplings into the ground with deep thrusts, each time in exactly the same place, so that they went deeper and deeper. When she had completed a circle she stood up and deftly bent the fito over her head, twisting them together and twining smaller saplings across, forming a lattice framework. Then she took the leaves we had collected and slit the stalks toward the end, like clothespins, hooking two or three of them together. When she had enough she started hanging them on the framework like tiles, overlapping each other and forming a waterproof covering (pp 64-65 -- my emphasis).Since the Twa and Mbuti are EP, and the Baka are WP, both photos and written descriptions represent all three groups, EP, WP and Bu. Since there are so many striking similarities in the way these huts look, the way they are constructed, and also the cultural context of their construction, i.e., in almost all cases constructed as temporary shelters, in hunting camps, and by women, it would seem very difficult to argue that they could have been independently developed. And since the three groups appear to have lived in completely different regions of Africa, with no possible means of contact, and no evidence of contact (remember that their genetic profiles are completely different), the only remaining explanation would be on the basis of shared ancestry, stemming from the use of similar huts by HBP.
Unlike poison arrows, which are found among at least some Bantu groups, this particular hut design is not found among Bantus. And for a very good reason -- Bantu tribes live in sedentary settlements and thus require more permanent dwellings. It is thus highly unlikely that this type of hut design was the result of Bantu influence. Independent invention is a particularly weak alternative in this case since most instances of independent invention are driven by environmental adaptation, and, as I've already demonstrated, Pygmies and Bushmen live in two totally different environments, tropical forest and desert.
Finally, I'm going to invoke Occam's Razor, a well known though little understood scientific principle that goes like this: "pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate ("plurality should not be posited without necessity")." In other words, if there is no necessary reason to do so, it is better not to assume that any particular phenomenon (such as the striking similarities among EP, WP and Bu huts) has a plurality of causes (i.e., independent inventions), when a simpler explanation (shared heritage) fits the evidence equally well. In this case, as should be clear, the simpler explanation fits the evidence far better than independent invention, or indeed any other explanation I can think of.
Putting together all of the above, I would say that it is possible, on the basis of evidence gleaned via triangulation, to make an unusually convincing case that this type of "beehive" hut was indeed a part of HBC, and that, to this extent at least, we have conjured HBP.