AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 78:473-484 (1989)

Ethnoarchaeology Among the Efe Pygmies, Zaire: Spatial

Organization of Campsites
JOHN W.FISHER, JR., AND HELEN C. STRICKLAND
Department ofdnthropology, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum o f
Natural History, Washington, DC 20560

KEY WORDS Efe (Pygmies),Hunter-gatherers, Spatial analysis

ABSTRACT This paper examines the physical structure of present-day Efe

Pygmy campsites through study of the relationships between behavior pat-
terns and their material residues. Campsites consist of five main components:
the perimeter, huts, fireplaces, trash heaps, and the central open area enclosed
within the arrangement of huts. Most campsite activities are performed within
the perimeter, and exterior fireplaces associated with huts are the focus of a
variety of daily activities. Refuse is regularly discarded onto trash heaps. Hut
size does not correlate with either the number of occupants or their stature.
Site population can be estimated using a count of huts, although reoccupation
of a recently abandoned camp or a family’s moving from one hut to a new one
during a single occupation can inflate the count of huts relative to the number
of families that lived at the camp at any one time. The spatial organization of
campsites is influenced by environment, physical factors (such as human body
size), and sociocultural phenomena.

Investigating the physical structure of hab-
itation sites is an indispensable part of ar-
chaeological inquiry into the lifeways of
prehistoric hunter-gatherers. Through care-
ful excavation and detailed analysis of the
distribution of artifacts, fireplaces, and other
material remains at ancient habitation sites,
archaeologists seek to reconstruct hunter-
gatherer behavior throughout the evolution-
ary history of humankind (Bunn et al., 1980;
Cahen et al., 1979; Carr, 1984; Davis, 1983;
Isaac, 1982; Kroll and Isaac, 1984; Leakey,
1971; Leroi-Gourhan and BrCzillon, 1972;Re-
her, 1983; Stevenson, 1985; White, 1982).
Many prehistorians have come to recog-
nize, in recent years, that archaeological in-
quiry aimed at illuminating ancient hunter-
gatherer societies can benefit richly from the
study of living hunter-gatherers. A major fo-
cus of such ethnoarchaeological research con-
cerns the spatial organization, or structure,
of residential campsites. Hunter-gatherer so-
cieties that have been studied in depth in-
clude the Nunamiut Eskimo of northern
Alaska, the !Kung San and other inhabitants
of the Kalahari Desert, and various groups
of Australian Aborigines (Binford, 1978,
1980, 1983, 1987; Brooks and Yellen, 1987;
Gould, 1980; Hayden, 1979; O’Connell, 1977,
1987; Yellen, 1976,1977).
The fruits of ethnoarchaeological research
range from documenting the nature of camp-
site activities and the resultant material
record (e.g., preparing food, making im-
plements, camp maintenance) to identifying
and elucidating underlying variables that af-
fect site structure (e.g., environment, subsis-
tence organization). Thus, the usefulness of
ethnoarchaeology begins with providing eth-
nographic analogies for particular questions,
but goes well beyond this in contributing to
the development and refinement of models,
method, and theory for archaeological re-
search (see, for example, Binford, 1987). Eth-
noarchaeological studies have, in some cases,
modified or dispelled conventional archaeo-
logical beliefs and assumptions, and have
raised issues that require additional re-
search (O’Connell, 1987).
This paper presents a preliminary over-
view of ethnoarchaeological research con-
ducted from June 1984 through June 1985
Received May 22,1987; revision accepted May 19,1988.

0 1989 ALAN R. LISS, INC.

474 J.W. FISHER, JR.,AND H.C. STRICKLAND

among Efe Pygmies of the Ituri Forest, Zaire cates approximately the distance from the
(see Fisher, 1987, for a fuller account). The nearest Lese village; the only significant ex-
Efe are of interest for various reasons. The ception is the camp located 25 km from the
number of studied hunter-gatherer groups is road, which lies only 100 m from a Lese
small, and a need exists for a larger sample village.
representing a variety of environments and Four of the camps were inhabited when
adaptations, in order to study the range of mapped; the remainder had been abandoned
variability in adaptive strategies. We need to from a few days to several months earlier.
understand the causes and consequences of Following camp abandonment, vegetation re-
differences between groups living in dissimi- generates in cleared areas, fallen leaves and
lar environments. The tropical rain forest of rainwashed sediments accumulate, trash
the Efe differs greatly from the environment heaps become difficult to discern, and hut
of the Australian Aborigines, the !Kung, and frames and the leaf cover gradually soak up
the Nunamiut; and consequently the Efe, water, rot, and cave in. These processes con-
possessing an adaptive strategy that differs spire to progressively diminish the amount
from the aforementioned groups, add valu- and quality of available data. Thus, hut
able dimensions to the growing body of re- height, for example, could be measured on 95
search. In addition, the Efe have close social of the 201 dwellings, and measurements from
and economic ties with neighboring horticul- which to calculate floor area could be made
turalists, and thus are of special interest to at 115 dwellings. At older sites trash heaps
archaeologists studying situations where could not be distinguished and mapped reli-
prehistoric hunter-gatherers and horticultur- ably, and organic materials had decomposed
alists shared the landscape. and otherwise disappeared. We considered it
important, however, to maintain a balance
MATERIALS AND METHODS between the inhabited and very recently
We mapped 30 Efe campsites, which collec- abandoned camps on the one hand-with
tively contain 201 dwellings. Twenty-eight of their high-quality data-and on the other
the mapped camps are of four Efe bands, and hand the older camps-mapping of which
the remaining two camps each represents yet would allow us to study these degenerative
a different band. Campsites were mapped to processes. When mapping, one or more in-
show the camp perimeter and the location of formants who had lived at the camp usually
huts, fireplaces, trash heaps, food remains, accompanied us, and from them we obtained
implements, clothing, and any other cultural the identity of hut occupants and other rele-
materials a t the site. Most campsites were vant information.
surveyed using an Ushikata Surveying Com- Hut height is measured from the highest
pass (containing a transiting telescope) and a point inside the hut to the ground directly
leveling rod, and the remainder were sur- below that point. Hut floor area (of circular
veyed using a Brunton Pocket Transit and oval huts) is calculated by entering hut
mounted on a tripod and a 50-m measuring length and hut width into the following for-
tape. Certain measurements, such as the lo- mula: pibut length) (hut width)/4. This for-
cation of fireplaces within huts and the dis- mula assumes that the floor area of the huts
tance from hut doorway to the associated has a perfectly symmetrical shape, which is
exterior fire, were made using a pocket tape rarely or never true. However, to measure
measure. Generally, we drafted the maps the bulges and indentations in the floor plan
back at our field station (using a protractor of each hut would have been prohibitively
and an engineer’s scale) within a day or two time-consuming, and the procedure adopted
after each camp survey, and made a follow- here gives results of acceptable accuracy. The
up trip to the camp to field-checkthe maps. floor area of the few rectangular huts is cal-
The sample of mapped camps emphasizes culated by multiplying length by width. Efe
camps located near the road on which the stature measurements come from anthropo-
field station (and many Lese villages) is lo- metry data collected systematically by our-
cated. The frequency distribution of the dis- selves and other project members.
tance from road to camps is as follows: 0-1 We conducted a total of 47.5 hours (discon-
km, 21 camps; 1-2 km, 3 camps; 2-3 km, 2 tinuous) of formal observations on Efe behav-
camps; 9-10 km, 1camp; 12-13 km, 1 camp; ior a t inhabited camps of three bands. The
13-14 km, 1camp; 24-25 km, 1camp, Gen- purpose of these observations was to docu-
erally, the distance from the road also indi- ment both the activities carried out at camp-
 SPATIAL ORGANIZATION OF EFE CAMPSITES
sites and their material byproducts. The
observations were made by two observers sit-
uated separately within the camp, so that all
the people in public areas could be seen si-
multaneously. Usually the duration of obser-
vations was less than 3 hours, to avoid
burdening the observers or the subjects. An-
cillary records for each observation episode
include the weather, time of day, number of
people present, and arrivals and departures.
The public activities of all the people at camp
were recorded, describing the type of activity,
where it was performed and for how long,
tools or implements used, and material by-
products generated and their disposition.
These formal observations on the spatial
organization of campsites and on activity
patterns within camps are augmented by in-
formal observations made on numerous vis-
its to camps during our year of fieldwork.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Campsite components
Efe campsites contain five primary physi-
cal components: the edge (perimeter) of the
camp, huts, fireplaces, trash heaps, and the
central open area within the arrangement of
Fig. 1. Map of an Efe campsite, showing the struc-
tural components.
475
huts (Fig. 1). A sixth component occurs at
some sites-one or more shelters that lack
walls.
The camp perimeter at a n inhabited or a
recently abandoned camp is usually well de-
fined. During initial preparation of a camp-
site, the inhabitants clear away the
undergrowth, leaving along the camp edge
a n abrupt border of uncleared vegetation.
Camp size ran es from about 44 to 532 m2
B
(X = 242.7 m , S.D. = 139.4 m2, N = 19)
(Table 1). Camp population, in our sample,
ranges from 2 (the initial population of site I-
NP-3 until others moved in) to about 33. Bai-
ley (198545) observed a maximum camp pop-
ulation of 50. The camp perimeter is roughly
elliptical.
Efe build their huts near the site perime-
ter. Huts consist of a sturdy frame of saplings
covered with broad leaves. The huts are
dome-shaped, and the floor outline ranges
from nearly circular to elliptical. Occasion-
ally, Efe build a rectangular hut with a flat,
sloping roof. On rare occasions they construct
a small house with wattle-and-daub walls,
imitating on a small scale a Lese house. A
hut usually is inhabited by a nuclear family.
 TABLE 1. Data on Efe campsites
Mean distance (m)
Site Site area (m2) No. between each hut Duplicate Area (m2)of Approximate length of
Site area (m2) Population per person of huts and closest neighbor' hut(s) trash heaps occupation (weekd2
A-NB-1 123.69 24 5.15 7 3.84 Yes - -
A-NB-2 148.63 16 9.29 6 3.64 Yes - 11
A-NB-3 336.80 33 10.21 11 4.64 Yes - 3
A-NB-4 284.31 30 9.48 9 3.30 No 82.5 3-4
A-NE-1 - - - 9 3.90 - 97.4 ?, 13
A-NE-2 180.33 16 11.27 5 8.89 Yes 35.6 2
A-NE-3 92.16 - - 6 2.77 - - -
A-NE-4 - - - - - - - -
A-NE-5 226.56 21 10.79 6 5.40 Yes 76.5 4,y
A-NE-6 - 18 - 6 4.25 No - -
A-NG-1 476.00 21 22.67 10 5.39 Yes 215.0 Many4
A-NG-2 104.57 13 8.04 5 3.28 No - 12
A-NG-3 126.63 20 6.33 - - Yes - 12
A-NG-4 200.40 15 13.36 7 4.62 Yes - 16
A-NG-5 - 19 - 7 5.10 No - 3
A-NG-7 205.53 - - - - - - -
A-NP-1 - 14 - 6 6.82 Yes 113.2 11
A-NP-3 312.45 14 22.32 4 9.09 Yes 71.7 ?, 3
A-NP-5 440.33 23 19.14 8 5.68 No 75.5 4
A-NP-6 214.67 14 15.33 6 4.35 Yes 19.3 2
A-NP-7 401.05 21 19.10 6 6.44 Yes 34.5 1,4 1
I-NP-2 - 18 - 4 4.28 No 25.3 9b
I-NP-3 - 6 - 3 8.97 No 30.2 106
A-NR-1 43.87 10 4.39 3 3.08 No 4.6 3
A-NR-2 160.53 23 6.98 8 3.64 No 28.2 3,3,4
I-NR-2 - 17 - - - - - ?, 1
A-NT-1 531.73 30 17.72 16 3.65 Yes 98.4 16
A-NT-2 - - - 6 - - - -
A-BK-1 - - - 6 6.60 - - -
A-KE-1 - - - 4 3.40 - - -
'Measured from hut center. Includes lean-tos used for sleeping.
'Multiple entries for individual sites indicate reoccupation.
'Question mark (?I indicates occuuation of unknown leneth.
-
4Site A-NG-1 was occupied at least three times.
'This figure gives length of occupation at the time of mapping (shortly before we left the field). The inhabitants still occupied this camp when our fieldwork ended; thus, this figure
does not indicate the full length of occupation
'See footnote 5 .
 SPATIAL ORGANIZATION OF EFE CAMPSITES
Efe spend much of the daytime outside and
use the hut to escape strong sunlight or rain,
and at night to sleep in. The hut doorway
faces in toward the center of the camp, or
occasionally somewhat sideways toward a
neighbor.
Efe burn fires both within the dwelling and
outside near the doorway. Efe fires consist
simply of several logs pushed together, upon
which cooking pots are placed. Most huts
have a single interior fire, but a few have
two, or even three. The interior fire provides
warmth at night, and a place to cook during
the day if rain or strong sunlight drives the
people inside.
All camps have trash heaps. Trash heaps
lie along the camp perimeter, beside and be-
hind huts. Some camps have, in addition, a
trash heap in the central open area; such
trash heaps form around the base of a tree.
Trash heap formation begins with prepara-
tion of the campsite, as cleared forest vege-
tation is piled along the edge of the camp.
While they occupy the camp, the inhabitants
discard debris onto the trash heaps: ashes
from fireplaces, debris from food preparation
and consumption (such as vegetable peels,
corn cobs, palm oil nuts, and animal bones),
debris from tool manufacture and mainte-..
nance (such as wood shavings from carving
arrow shafts), broken or worn-out imple-
ments (such as baskets, pottery sherds, and
broken bottles), and leaf bedding.
The longer that a site is occupied, the
greater the amount of trash that is discarded,
and generally the more extensive the area
encompassed by trash (Table 1). The average
length of campsite occupation, in our sample,
is about 6 weeks. Sites occupied about 2
weeks or less contain an average of 5.4m2 of
trash per hut (3 sites), whereas sites occupied
for about 4 or more weeks contain an average
of 11.2 m2 of trash per hut (eight sites).
Within both of these categories of sites, the
area (m2) of trash per hut varies consider-
ably. This variability occurs, at least in part,
because trash heaps grow vertically as well
as horizontally. The amount of lateral growth
probably is influenced and constrained by
the amount of space available beside and
behind huts to discard rubbish. Conse-
quently, the height (vertical thickness) of
trash heaps varies between sites.
The central open area consists of the camp
space (including where exterior fires are
placed) enclosed within the arrangement of
huts. Some camps are relatively compact and
477
have little open ground except around the
fires, whereas more spacious camps offer con-
siderable room within the central open area.
Campsite activities
Behaviors carried out at Efe campsites in-
clude preparing and eating food, making and
maintaining implements, camp mainte-
nance, child care, self care, and leisure
(relaxing, smoking, playing musical instru-
ments, and playing games). Bailey (1985)and
Peacock (1985) analyze in detail the time al-
location of Efe men and women.
Efe perform the majority of campsite activ-
ities within the camp perimeter. The only
habitual exceptions include playing games
and preparing poison-tipped arrows. Some
camps have a nearby playground, a clearing
with a vine swing, where children, and occa-
sionally adults, play. Children also play
within the camp perimeter. When men apply
poison to arrows, which they do by painting
the brown, liquid poison on the tips of bun-
dles of arrows and placing the tips over a bed
of coals, they often select a location outside
of the camp perimeter to build a fire and
carry this out, for reasons of safety.
Efe usually sit next to the exterior fires
associated with the huts when they carry out
campsite activities. Thus, these fires are the
focus around which a great variety of activi-
ties take place, including food preparation
(such as peeling vegetables, cooking), eating,
making or maintaining implements (such as
men carving arrow shafts, and sharpening
metal-tipped arrows), and socializing. Efe
often intersperse work with relaxation.
Activities requiring considerable space,
such as pounding rice with a large, wooden
mortar and pestle, are sometimes carried out
away from the fire. Gutting and butchering
prey, if not accomplished during the hunt in
the forest, are done on trash heaps or else-
where on the camp periphery.
Camp maintenance practices have critical
archaeological significance. Although debris
from camp activities (such as vegetable peels
or wood shavings) often falls to the ground
where the activity takes place, most such
debris subsequently will be cleaned up and
discarded onto trash heaps.
Efe trash disposal practices have the fol-
lowing archaeological consequences. Trash
heaps at Efe camps are generalized in con-
tent; that is, they contain a variety of differ-
ent kinds of rubbish, and are not segregated
t o receive specialized debris. Size sorting of
478 J.W. FISHER, JR.,AND H.C. STRICKLAND
debris can occur, wherein small items are
sometimes overlooked during cleanup and do
not make it to the trash heap. These mate-
rials are vulnerable to scuffing about and
trampling by humans, dogs, and chickens.
The size of items in trash heaps ranges from
small to large. At abandoned camps, the ar-
tifacts and movable debris (such as vegetable
peels) that lie near fireplaces and elsewhere
in the central open area generally had been
deposited during the last days or hours of
camp occupation. This comes about because
the inhabitants, with foreknowledge that a
move is imminent, apparently do not bother
cleaning up the debris from their final activ-
ities. Hence, the debris and artifacts found in
the central open area of abandoned camps
document activities performed during the
terminal period of camp occupation.
Domestic space: Within and outside of
dwellings
Several aspects of site structure have im-
portance for archaeologists. Two of these en-
tail how Efe create and use the domestic
space of their dwellings. Our sample of huts
shows considerable variation in both floor
x
area (range = 1.3-13.6 m2, = 5.1 m2, S.D.
= 2.0 m , N = 115) and maximum height
(range = 90-172 cm, X = 137.9 cm, S.D. =
15.3 cm, N=95). The number of people that
live in a hut ranges from one to eight. The
floor area of a hut correlates very weakly
with the number of occupants (regression
analysis of hut floor area to number of hut
occupants yields a coefficient of determina-
tion of 0.061 [N = 1021). This contrasts with
expectations raised by Binford‘s (1983:173)
assertion, based on observations among
Bushmen of southern Africa, that dwelling
size varies with the number of occupants. It
seems that Efe have very flexible perceptions
regarding a person’s space requirements.
Another causal factor could be that mobility
between huts is fairly high, particularly
among children. This can create problems
when counting the number of hut occupants;
but more significantly, it speaks of a dy-
namic relationship between dwelling size and
the number of occupants, and of a perception
of spatial requirements that is flexible.
The maximum height of huts has no corre-
lation with the stature of the adult occupants
(regressionanalysis of the stature of the adult
female occupants to hut height yields a coef-
ficient of determination of 0.005 [N = 631,
stature of the adult male occupant to hut
height yields a coefficient of determination
of 0.031 [N = 651). This is, perhaps, surpris-
ing, in that the method of hut construction
allows flexibility in height, and one might
expect the woman building it to adjust the
height to her stature or that of her spouse. In
practice, however, a woman might build one
hut 14 cm shorter than her standing height,
and another one that exceeds her stature by
20 cm. There appear to be two physical limi-
tations to the height of a hut: it must be
taller than the occupants’ sitting height, and
it cannot be so tall so as to extend beyond the
woman’s reach as she puts the leaf cover on
the frame (in practice, hut height does not
approach the vertical limits of the woman’s
reach). Within these bounds, Efe apparently
feel considerable flexibility regarding the
acceptable height of their hut. Although the
relationship of hut height to the stature of
the occupants might seem to have little direct
archaeological relevance, this relationship
gives insights into the design and use of do-
mestic space (see Oliver, 1987), which are
topics of considerable relevance to
archaeologists.
The distance from the doorway of a hut to
the associated exterior fire is important both
behaviorally and with respect to site struc-
ture. The behavioral significance lies in the
importance of the exterior fire as the focus of
most campsite activities. At Efe camps, this
distance ranges from 0 to 325 cm (X = 139.5
cm, S.D. = 67.4 cm, N = 89). This spacing
seems to be governed largely by physical fac-
tors of body size: it allows a person to keep
within convenient distance of the hut while
maintaining sflicient space t o work and
move around the fire without blocking the
hut doorway (see Binford, 1983:173).Women
sometimes sit leaning against the outside of
their hut while working at their fire. The
availability of space, and individual prefer-
ences, might also influence significantly the
distance from hut doorway t o fire. Fifty-eight
percent of exterior fires lie between 50 and
150 cm from the hut doorway, suggesting
that within these limits lies the optimum
spacing.
Archaeologists have long been concerned
with devising methods for estimating the
population of prehistoric communities using
the size of dwelling or of sites (e.g., Kolb,
1985; LeBlanc, 1971; Naroll, 1962; Wiessner,
1974). Among the Efe, the number of huts at
a campsite has the potential to provide a
reasonably precise estimate of group size. On
 SPATIAL ORGANIZATION OF EFE CAMPSITES 479

average, a hut is occupied by three people (X

= 3.18, S.D. = 1.39, N [huts] = 145, 95%
confidence interval = 3.18 f 0.229). To esti-
mate the number of site inhabitants, one
multiplies the confidence interval by the
number of huts. For example, we would ex-
10
-0 pect a site with six huts to have between 17.7
m and 20.5 occupants. A potential difficulty, to
Fig. 2. Map of a campsite (A-NE-2)built immediately be discussed shortly, has to do with how a
after a disagreement within the group. (The pair of struc- simple count of huts can yield an overesti-
tures at each end were each used by a single household.) mate of the number of households that had
lived at the site.
The distance from a hut to its closest neigh-

3 bor varies greatly; in some cases two huts

almost touch one another, while other huts
are separated from their closest neighbor by
nearly 20 m. The average distance from a

0 hut to its closest neighbor, measured from

hut center, is slightly under 5 m. The dis-
tance that people use to separate their huts,
and the use of subtle barriers, such as inter-
vening trees or the direction the doorway
Fig. 3. Three separate huts, within a larger site (A- faces, are strongly influenced by kinship ties
NB-4) that the inhabitants joined together into a single
structure.

Fig. 4. Dwellings at four campsites occupied by the

same band (lean-tos not shown). One hut in each camp
0
- m
10

family is consistently slightly isolated from the other

huts. Clockwise from upper left: A-NP-3,A-NP-5,A-NP-
(drawn with a thick line) that was inhabited by the same 7, and A-NP-6.
480 J.W. FISHER, JR.,AND H.C. STRICKLAND
Fig. 5. A campsite (A-NP-5) inhabited by two bands
(the huts of each band are drawn with lines of different
and interpersonal relationships. Four exam-
ples will illustrate this point.
The camp shown in Figure 2, whose linear
shape is abnormal for Efe camps, illustrates
the effect on camp layout of intracamp quar-
relling. The death of a young girl from this
band, in the previous camp, had engendered
bitterness and tension within the group.
These feelings are reflected through the use
of forest vegetation and long distances to iso-
late each household (the pair of structures in
the small clearings at the two ends of the site
were each used by a single household). Ten-
sion is exemplified, in addition, by the phys-
ical separation between two particular
households: that of a middle-aged man and
his wife at one end of the camp and their son
and his wife at the opposite end. Normally,
the huts of a father and his adult son often
will be situated side by side. (Likewise,adult
brothers living in the same camp often live
in adjacent, closely spaced huts.)
Distress brought about by the death of a
person can have quite the opposite effect on
0
- m
3
thicknesses). Each band maintains its dwellings in a
separate cluster.
camp layout. The three huts in Figure 3
(which are part of a larger camp) were occu-
pied by a middle-aged man and his wife, this
man’s widowed sister, and a third widow.
This man was a source of support for these
women. After he died, the three women
joined together their three separate huts into
a single, large structure by building walls
between the open spaces separating the huts.
Shortly afterwards, the inhabitants aban-
doned this camp.
The four sites shown in Figure 4 were in-
habited, in different parts of the forest, by
the same band. The hut drawn with a heavy
line in each camp was occupied by the same
family, and in all these camps (and others)
this hut is somewhat isolated. This isolation
seems to be a result of individual preference.
This family gets along well with the rest of
the group, but the wife is a quiet, reserved
woman, and probably favors distancing her-
self slightly from her neighbors.
The final example concerns a camp that
was occupied during the flying termite sea-
 SPATIAL ORGANIZATION OF EFE CAMPSITES 481
son by two bands that normally lived sepa- range means that they reuse formerly used
rately (Fig. 5). Even though they are all areas fairly regularly. When the hunting and
friends, each band maintains its huts in a honey seasons come to an end, they have a
separate cluster that emphasizes their sepa- predetermined area to move back to-the vi-
rate identity. cinity of the Lese village, where their re-
Each of the above examples has important cently abandoned camps await. Reinhabited
archaeological implications regarding where, camps apparently possess desirable ecologi-
within the campsite, material remains will cal or other factors that make them espe-
be deposited during the course of occupation. cially attractive; these features probably
The location of dwellings determines, to a include proximity to drinking water, a suit-
large extent, the placement of fires and trash able opening or clearing in the forest, a set-
heaps. Thus, the factors that affect decisions ting that provides adequate runoff of rainfall
as to where the inhabitants situate their and that is out of reach of flooding rivers,
dwellings have important consequences on and proximity to Lese villages and gardens,
the distribution of other material remains at honey, or other resources (see Bailey, 1985;
the camp. Peacock, 1985).
Campsite reoccupation EXTERNAL COMPARISONS
Efe often reoccupy a recently abandoned Comparisons with other present-day hunt-
camp (Table 1).When a band does so, some er-gatherers disclose differences and similar-
huts from the first occupation will be rein- ities in campsite structure and activity pat-
habited, but often, some families construct a terns, and help to identify factors that
new hut. Archaeologists would be hard account for the manner in which hunter-
pressed to separate these different occupa- gatherers organize and use space at their
tion episodes on stratigraphic evidence. Even habitation sites.
during the course of a single occupation it is Compared to the !Kung of southern Africa
not unusual for at least one household to and Australian Aborigines of the Western
abandon their first hut and build a second and Central deserts, Efe live in compact
one. These behaviors could lead archaeolo- campsites (see Gould and Yellen, 1987; 0’-
gists to overestimate the number of house- Connell, 1987; Yellen, 1977).Habitation sites
holds that had lived at the site, if that of the Alyawara of Australia, for example,
estimate is based on a count of huts. Fifty- range in size from IO,OOO m2 to over ~OO,OOO
nine percent of the 22 campsites we mapped m2 (O’Connell, 1987). Among the Efe, envi-
for which we have complete information on ronment has a significant influence on camp
the identity of the hut occupants contained size (area), in particular the trees and under-
one or more of these “duplicate” huts (Table brush of the forest. Small camps facilitate
1).At sites containing several duplicate huts, traffic within camps (which is considerable)
the density of huts increases and the average as well as oral and visual communication
distance between huts decreases, relative to between households. If an Efe camp were as
conditions prior to adding duplicate huts. large as even a small Alyawara camp, and
That Efe often reoccupy recently aban- individual households were to space them-
doned camps appears to be a consequence of selves evenly near the perimeter, each house-
four factors: high residential mobility, the hold would live out of sight and sound of its
identification of each band with a particular neighbors. In the deserts of Australia and
segment of the forest, their close ties with southern Africa, vegetation presents less of a
the Lese, and the ecological setting of indi- barrier.
vidual sites. For about 7 months of the year Fear of natural predators has been identi-
Efe campsites are situated close to Lese vil- fied by Gould and Yellen (1987) as an impor-
lages and gardens (usually less than an tant factor regulating the distance between
hour’s walk away) and during the other households. They point out that in Australia,
months, the hunting and honey seasons, they which lacks predators dangerous to humans,
move into the forest away from the villages. the distance between households is much
During the latter period they move camp greater than is the case among the !Kung,
about every 2 weeks, but while living near whose environment contains several species
villages the frequency of camp moves de- of predators. Efe do not, to our knowledge,
creases (Bailey, 1985). When living away fear predators. However, the dense forest
from the villages the limitations on their vegetation discussed above is more impor-
482 J.W. FISHER, JR., AND H.C. STRICKLAND
tant than the absence of fear of predators in
determining site size.
We have stressed the importance of inter-
personal relationships and kinship ties in in-
fluencing the distance between dwellings and
other aspects of campsite layout among the
Efe. The same has been documented among
Mbuti Pygmies elsewhere in the Ituri Forest
(Putnam, 1948; Turnbull, 1961, 1965). The
placement of huts at !Kung camps generally
corresponds to extended families (Yellen,
197799; see also Gould and Yellen, 1987).
Efe, !Kung, and Australian Aborigines are
similar in that they carry out a wide variety
of different tasks in the household area.
Among the Efe and !Kung, the exterior fire
associated with the hut is the primary focus
of these activities (see Brooks and Yellen,
1987; Yellen, 19771, and among the Alyawara
this focus encompasses a cleared area, a main
shelter, other structures, and fireplaces (0’-
Connell, 1987).
Differences arise in that the !Kung and
Australian Aborigines use space outside of
the camp perimeter t o a greater extent than
do the Efe. The nature of the vegetation prob-
ably exerts a strong influence on the extent
to which people use space outside of the camp.
The Efe must clear underbrush and saplings
to prepare their campsite. This results in a
clearly demarcated camp perimeter, and the
uncleared space outside of the perimeter
would be an uncomfortable and impractical
place to carry out campsite activities. In con-
trast, the campsites of the !Kung and Austra-
lian Aborigines, “lacked delimited
boundaries or other defining features” (Gould
and Yellen, 1987:82), and desert vegetation
presents fewer obstacles to impede activities
(see O’Connell, 1987).
A noteworthy dissimilarity between Efe
and !Kung campsites has to do with the pres-
ence of fires inside of dwellings. Virtually all
Efe dwellings contain one (or more) fires, but
among the !Kung the opposite is true (see
Yellen, 1977:campsitemaps). !Kung carry out
few activities within huts, and even sleep
outside except during rainstorms (Yellen,
1976:64). Efe use their huts during the day
to escape rain and strong sun, and to sleep in
at night.
The proclivity to reoccupy recently aban-
doned camps differs between Efe and !Kung.
!Kung avoid reoccupying abandoned dry-sea-
son camps, though they do sometimes rein-
habit rainy-season sites (Brooks and Yellen,
1987:69, 881, whereas Efe often return t o re-
cently abandoned camps, even reinhabiting
former dwellings.
Camp maintenance and redepositing of re-
fuse from its initial location onto trash heaps
or other secondary locations occurs widely
(Binford, 1983,1987; Hitchcock, 1987; O’Con-
nell, 1987). The performance of site mainte-
nance has been linked to length of occupation
(Hitchcock, 1987; O’Connell, 1987:lOO). We
suggest that site size also is relevant; if Efe
failed to carry out camp maintenance, even
at sites of short occupation, refuse would
quickly accumulate in the relatively small
central open area and become a nuisance.
Refuse disposal at Alyawara campsites cre-
ates sue sorting of debris: smaller items tend
to remain at the activity areas and larger
items are redeposited (O’Connell, 1987).Sim-
ilarly, at Efe sites the items most likely to be
missed or overlooked during cleanup are
small.
CONCLUSIONS
By way of concluding, we want t o reflect
briefly on what, if anything, prehistorians
can learn from present-day hunter-gatherer
campsites that might help t o disentangle the
archaeological record. Hunter-gatherer soci-
eties can differ profoundly in the spatial or-
ganization of their settlements, and
explaining these dissimilarities challenges
archaeologists’ abilities to trace out compli-
cated networks of causal factors. Compari-
sons can profitably be made of the spatial
organization at campsites of hunter-gather-
ers adapted to disparate environments, in
order to explore the relationships between
settlement organization (including underly-
ing behavior patterns such as the location
where daily activities are performed, group
size, mobility, and subsistence practices) and
factors such as climate, landscape, and food
resources.
Comparisons can be made at two scales-
macro and micro. Macrolevel comparisons
are concerned with overall settlement size;
the microlevel entails examining the use of
space within campsites: the distance separat-
ing dwellings, and the spatial relationships
between huts, fireplaces, refuse, and other
site components. Differences that are appar-
ent at the macrolevel seem t o result, in large
part, from environmental dissimilarities. Mi-
crolevel attributes of camps are responsive to
environmental, physical (e.g., body size), and
sociocultural factors.
 SPATIAL ORGANIZATION OF EFE CAMPSITES
Our experiences stimulate, in addition, re-
flections of a more abstract nature. The life-
way of the Efe whom we studied is not
immutable. Contact with the outside world,
both direct and indirect, has brought impor-
tant changes in subsistence and technology
during the last few centuries and even gen-
erations. For example, cassava and certain
other crops that are important foods of the
Lese and Efe were introduced from outside of
Africa (Purseglove, 1976); and the Lese and
Efe first acquired implements of aluminum,
steel, and plastic even more recently. The
precise mix of economic, technological, and
material circumstances by which the Efe to-
day live never existed in the past and will
continue to undergo transformation. Thus,
some archaeologists might argue that analo-
gies from Efe to prehistoric hunter-gatherers
would be misleading at best. We believe,
however, that understanding the patterns of
Efe behavior, site formation, and site struc-
ture can help to guide archaeological in-
quiry. We do not expect to find identical
patterns at campsites from earlier times or
in different parts of the world. We do hope to
discern the underlying organization of the
Efe system and relate this to its material
manifestations (see Binford, 1987). By learn-
ing to recognize systematic relationships be-
tween behavior and its material mani-
festations among modern hunter-gatherers,
prehistorians can gain rewarding insights to
help guide their search for answers to basic
questions about the past.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was funded by National Sci-
ence Foundation grants BNS8306620 and
BNS8319629 to Irven DeVore and Peter Elli-
son. We are grateful for cooperation and per-
mission from the Institut des Musees
Nationaux du Zaire and the Commissaire
d'Etat des Culture et Artes, Zaire, and of
CEPLANUT. We thank Gurcharan Khanna
and Tom Pilgram for considerable assistance
in the analysis and interpretation of quanti-
tative data, and Robert Bailey for valuable
comments on a previous draft of this manu-
script. Leslie B. Davis also read a previous
draft of this manuscript. We thank the many
people who gave us logistical support and
warm hospitality during our fieldwork, and
we are especially grateful to the Lese and
Efe among whom we lived and worked.
483
LITERATURE CITED
Bailey RC (1985) The Socioecology of Efe Pygmy Men in
the Ituri Forest, Zaire. Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard Univer-
sity, Cambridge.
Binford LR (1978) Dimensional analysis of behavior and
site structure: Learning from an Eskimo hunting stand.
Am. Antiq. 43:330-361.
Binford LR (1980)Willow smoke and dogs' tails: Hunter-
gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site
formation. Am. Antiq. 45:4-20.
Binford LR (1983) In Pursuit of the Past. London: Thames
and Hudson.
Binford LR (1987) Researching ambiguity: Frames of
reference and site structure. In S Kent (ed.): Method
and Theory for Activity Area Research An Ethnoar-
chaeological Approach. New York: Columbia, pp. 449-
512.
Brooks AS, and Yellen JE (1987) The preservation of
activity areas in the archaeological record Ethnoar-
chaeological and archaeological work in northwest
Ngamiland, Botswana. In S Kent (ed.): Method and
Theory for Activity Area Research An Ethnoarchaeo-
logical Approach. New York: Columbia, pp. 63-106.
Bunn H, Harris JWK, Isaac G, Kaufulu Z, Kroll E,
Schick K, Toth N, and Behrensmeyer AK (1980) Fx-
Jj50: An early Pleistocene site in northern Kenya.
World Archaeol. 12: 109-139.
Cahen D, Keeley LH, and Van Noten FL (1979) Stone
tools, toolkits, and human behavior in prehistory. Curr.
Anthropol. 20:661-683.
Carr C (1984) The nature of organization of intrasite
archaeological records and spatial analytic approaches
to their investigation. In MB Schiffer (ed.): Advances
in Archaeological Method and Theory 7. Orlando: Ac-
ademic, pp. 103-222.
Davis LB (1983) Stone circles in the Montana Rockies:
relict households and transitory communities. In LB
Davis (ed.): From Microcosm to Macrocosm: Advances
in Tipi Ring Investigation and Interpretation. Lincoln:
Plains Anthropol. Memoir. 19, pp. 235-278.
Fisher JW, Jr. (1987) Shadows in the Forest: Ethnoar-
chaeology Among the Efe Pygmies. Ph.D. Thesis, Uni-
versity of California, Berkeley.
Gould RA (1980) Living Archaeology. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Guuld RA, and Yellen JE (1987) Man the hunted Deter-
minants of household spacing in desert and tropical
foraging societies. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 6:77-103.
Hayden B (1979) Paleolithic Reflections: Lithic Technol-
ogy of the Australian Western Desert. Canberra: Aus-
tralian Institute Aboriginal Studies.
Hitchcock RK (1987) Sedentism and site structure: Or-
ganizational changes in Kalahari Basarwa residential
locations. In S Kent (ed.): Method and Theory for Activ-
ity Area Research An Ethnoarchaeological Approach.
New York Columbia, pp. 374-423.
Isaac GL (1982)The earliest archaeological traces. In JD
Clark (ed.): The Cambridge History of Africa, Vol. I,
From the Earliest Times to c. 500 B.C. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 157-247.
Kolb CC (1985) Demographic estimates in archaeology:
Contributions from ethnoarchaeology on Mesoameri-
can peasants. Curr. Anthropol. 26:581-599.
Kroll EM, and Isaac GL (1984) Configurations of arti-
facts and bones at early Pleistocene sites in East Af-
rica. In H Hietala (ed.): Intrasite Spatial Analysis in
Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 4-31.
484 J.W. FISHER, JR.,AND H.C. STRICKLAND
Leakey MD (1971) Olduvai Gorge, Volume 3, Excava-
tions in Beds I and 11, 1960-1963. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
LeBlanc S (1971) An addition to Naroll's suggested floor
area and settlement population relationship. Am. An-
tiq. 36: 210-211.
Leroi-Gourhan A, and Brezillon M (1972) Fouilles de
Pincevent, Essai d'Analyse Ethnographique d'un Hab-
itat Magdalenien. Paris: C.N.R.S.
Naroll R-(1962) Floor area and settlement population.
Am. Antiq. 27:587589.
O'Connell JF (1977) Room to move: Contemporary Alya-
wara settlement patterns. Mankind 11:119-131.
O'Connell JF (1987) Alyawara site structure and its ar-
chaeological implications. Am. Antiq. 5274-108.
Oliver P (1987) Dwellings: The House Across the World.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Peacock N R (1985) Time Allocation, Work and Fertility
Among Efe Pygmy Women of Northeast Zaire. Ph.D.
Thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge.
Purseglove JW (1976) The origins and migrations of crops
in tropical Africa. In JR Harlan, J M J de Wet, and ABL
Stemler (eds.): Origins of African Plant Domestication.
The Hague: Mouton, pp. 291-309.
Putnam P (1948) The Pygmies of the Ituri Forest. In CS
Coon (ed.): A Reader in General Anthropology. New
York Henry Holt, pp. 322-342.
Reher CA (1983) Analysis of spatial structure in stone
circle sites. In LB Davis (ed.): From Microcosm to Ma-
crocosm: Advances in Tipi Ring Investigation and
Interpretation. Lincoln Plains Anthropol. Memoir vol.
19, pp. 193-222.
Stevenson MG (1985) The formation of artifact assem-
blages at workshophabitation sites: Models from Peace
Point in northern Alberta. Am. Antiq. 50:63-81.
Turnbull CM (1961) The Forest People: A Study of the
Pygmies of the Congo. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Turnbull CM (1965)Wayward Servants: The Two Worlds
of the African Pygmies. Garden City: Natural History.
White R (1982) Rethinking the Middlempper Paleolithic
transition. Curr. Anthropol. 23:169-192.
Wiessner P (1974) A functional estimate of population
from floor area. Am. Antiq 39:343-350.
Yellen JE (1976) Settlement patterns of the !Kung: An
archaeological perspective. In RB Lee and I DeVore
(eds.): Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers: Studies of the !Kung
San and Their Neighbors. Cambridge: Harvard Uni-
versity, pp. 43-72.
Yellen JE (1977) Archaeological Approaches to the Pres-
ent: Models for Reconstructing the Past. New York:
Academic Press.