3_apearchitects_e_z09l24a

8/2/2019 3_ApeArchitects_E_Z09L24a

1/31

- APE ARCHITECTS -


2/31

Nold Egenter

APE ARCHITECTS

The 'Primordial Hut'

of architectural theory and the

nest building behaviour

of the Great Apes

DOFSBT

Documentation Office for Fundamental Studies

in Building Theory

Zurich


3/31

This study was first published (in German) in 1983 in UMRISS, a well-knownViennese journal for architecture and Design (Nr.2/:2-9). Later, in 1987, a modifiedversion, in both English and Japanese, was printed in the Japanese architectural jour-nal 'Architecture and Urbanism' (A&U, Nr.197/Feb.). As early as in 1982, this topicwas dealt with in a paper entitled 'Nest building of the pongidae - a form of subhu-man constructivity?' which was presented at the annual meeting of the 'AmericanAnthropological Association' in Washington (4.-7. Dec.), in the section 'Primatology:Evolutionary Processes?'. The primatologists attending the lecture instantly realizedthe potential of the approach in view of human brain development and responded

enthusiastically. This was a great stimulus for the author to pursue this type ofresearch further. In 1985 Groves and Sabater Pi (1985) published their "From Apes

Nest to human Fix-Point" which provided new actuality to the topic, but neglectedthe evolutionary processes of "constructivity" already suggested convincingly by theYerkes (Yerkes/ Yerkes 1929). A recent publication in 'Current Anthropology' bySabater Pi et al. (1997) provoked an "Apes-Nest-Controversy" from our side. Itmaintains that the terrestrial nest of the great apes is a key phenomenon for theunderstanding of cultural "constructivity" (architectural anthropology, habitat anthro-

pology).

There are about 30 illustrations related to the text. Browse them through for firstinformation.


4/31

APE ARCHITECTSThe 'primordial hut' of architectural theory and the nest-

building behaviour of the great apes by Nold Egenter

____________________________________________

ON THE TOPIC

Though not admitted, origins still play an important part in many of our ways of thinking. But

which ones? The first volume of this research series pointed out the anachronism of postmodernarchitectural fundamentalism (Hanno-Walter Kruft, Georg Germann). The first part of the follow-ing study will show that in the formation of modern architecture too, rather dilettantish primordiali-ties played a significant part.

Not only in 'architectural theory', but also more generally in the field of culture and civilization,some very questionable 'origins' - such as the prehistorical construction of wild gangs of early menroaming the steppes in search of food - continue to bolster our modern pride in progress and tolegitimate our techno-civilization and its socio-Darwinist excesses.

With regard to civilization, nothing could contrast more with this extremely reductionist picture of

primitive man, armed with deadly weapons and tools in his bloody fight for "survival", than whatis described in the following study. Almost idyllic, one might say even of Rousseauist dimensions!The lifelong fabricating behaviour of our closest biological relatives, the three species of higherapes, is not at all frightening or disgusting. Every night they build a new nest. This phenomenon,which hardly anyone is familiar with, even today, is very important. It can be taken as the starting

point of a new and very different, constructive, anthropology.

In the precarious context of today's architectural theory, one can hardly think of a more beautifuland clarifying discovery, than that the higher apes are routine nest constructors. The apes nest as

primordial architecture! An architecture lacking aesthetic sophistication, but nevertheless comfort-

able! Since nest-building is mostly undertaken in groups, these night camps of the higher apes giveus a clear idea of the primordial form of primate settlement. And, in fact, they clearly reveal pri-mary conditions of an anthropologically continuous arrangement of dwelling space. We might aska rather paradoxical question: does modernism lock up man in a wrong concept of space?

From a methodological point of view the following text presents two different approaches to thesame issue. The one, based on history and going back to Adam, arrives at the conclusion that ideasabout the origins of architecture had, throughout the past, served as an inspiration to many. Theother, based on anthropology, promotes not just the idea but the original object, and consequentlyaccuses architectural theory of relying on wrong foundations and drawing the wrong conclusions.

Firstly, the origins of architecture are not to be located in the pyramids, but in a nest. Following


5/31

from this, we have to ask: have todays architects completely lost sight of the roots of theirdomain? Did they lose themselves in the purely virtual space of their post-medieval myth of a pro-faned creator-genius? Secondly, the new anthropological sounding reveals a disturbing fact: archi-tecture is creation! But not in a limited sense, denoting only the creation of forms by architects,

but, in an evolutionary sense, meaning the creation of dwelling man as an entirety, permanently

and perennially, in architectonically ordered space. In other words: architects are unaware of theirreal demiurgic potential.

ON ADAM'S HOUSE IN PARADISE

"Primordial hut!" This expression crops up more and more often in discussions among architects.A sign of the times? Certainly. The so-called "crisis of modern architecture" now impels us toreflect critically on the theoretical bases of building and dwelling. In the last decade, JosephRykwert's book "On Adam's House in Paradise (1972) has greatly contributed to a renewed interestin architectural theory. Over a period stretching from the Old Testament to Vitruvius and to modern

times, Rykwert collects an astonishingly rich material which leads to an interesting insight: thequestion concerning the origins of building has obviously not only fascinated builders, but also the-ologians, writers, and painters. Depending on changing philosophies and individual preferences,origins were sought in nature, in the history of creation, in myths, in the socially or technically

primitive. Rykwert's history of the ideas revolving around the 'primordial hut' is thus also a historyof heterogeneous speculations. Depending on the technological, historical, prehistorical, or evennatural historical sources drawn upon, these speculations engendered a wealth of the most imagina-tive theories (e.g. the 'primordial huts' of Laugier, Viollet-le-Duc or Hall).

For many, such speculations about a primordial hut may have served to satisfy their thirst forknowledge. But right up to modern times, they have also served architects as an argument for prac-

tical architectural manifestations. Le Corbusier, for instance, derived his geometrical concepts fromhuts and tents constructed by Iron and Bronze Age settlers and, in particular, the Jewish tabernacle.Frank Lloyd Wright is closer to the tradition of the American utopians. They condemned urban civ-ilization and hailed the ideal of the free pioneer spirit. In his "Living City" (1945) Wright outlineda politically and morally biased evolutionary scheme on the basic pattern of democrats versus anti-democrats. This was a rather dilettantish opposition between 'wandering tribes of hunter-warriors'and 'cave-dwelling agrarians'. This evolutionary line was considered to derive from the twolifestyles of the apes: the good ones, freely swinging from branch to branch, the bad ones, hidingin caves! For Gropius, the Bauhaus around 1920, and Konrad Wachsmann the wooden log cabinrepresented their 'primordial hut'. In this, they were obviously influenced by Strzygowski, who, -

following Gottfried Semper's evolutionism (1860/63), - suggested the primitive wooden construc-tions of the North-Eurasian belt as a basic type of Indo-Germanic architecture, paralleled by thesouthern, or Mediterranean, architectonic traditions in stone. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe associatedhimself with the German handicraft movements and dreamt of the "healthy world of primitive

building methods where there was meaning in every stroke of an axe, ..." (:18). In the futuristicline, Erich Mendelssohn based his urban designs on models from nature: the city was to obey thesame laws as the beehive and the anthill. According to Rykwert, Adolf Loos stands in a line whichhails a "telluric immemorial wisdom and rightness". Loos' idea of a primordial hut appears in hisencounter with a simple burial hill in the woods: "...someone lies buried here. That is architecture."(:28)


6/31

Certainly such ideas were a testimony to subjective originality at those times, and they have con-tinued to be of use to the art historian because of their appeal to the general reader. To the archi-tect, however, the art historian's standpoint cannot be of much help because ideas can never bemere ideas to him. They are always prerequisites of operative implications for his buildings. Thustoday, we all more or less live in this world of ideas concerning architectonic primitivism. Fifty

years after the pioneers' enthusiastic propaganda for modern architecture and urbanism, we havenow lost all enthusiasm for these encrustations of primitivism. We hear of 'oppressive environ-ments' (A. Tzonis), 'inhospitable townscapes' (A. Mitscherlich) etc. This surprising change of mindmay have its deeper reasons: maybe these ideas were scientifically too primitive! Or - anthropolog-ically - they were not primitive enough.

In any case, this contradiction between a pure history of ideas and an objective evolution of build-ing behaviour obviously constitutes the problem to which Rykwert is pointing. The field of sourcesto which ideas of the 'primordial hut' can be connected is enormous. During the last 100 years, thisfield has grown even larger owing to developments in studies of prehistory and particularly in eth-

nology. The plurality of modern speculation concerning architectural theory is a direct reflection ofthis progress in cultural anthropology (the idea was to build for a new kind of humanity!). But itwas scarcely realized that the use of heterogenous sources from which the modernists have derivedtheir theories and design strategies, would paradoxically lead back to the same phenomenonagainst which the 'pioneers' had once jointly fought: the pluralism of styles. No doubt, the stylesare here again: 'modernism', 'postmodernism', etc. Modern though they are, they are still based on

personal taste. Whatever has found its manifestation in the theory or practice of our architecturalpast, provides a gigantic playground from which any architect can take whatever fits his concept.Clearly, historical, cultural, and geographical factors have influenced the selection of source mate-rials, for instance, when Le Corbusier sees only geometric rationalism in the Jewish tabernacle(which in its essence is a religious and ritual centre with very complex functions!) or when Frank

Lloyd Wright leans towards American pioneer models. The provocative insights gained fromRykwert's book show that interesting ideas derived from chance sources cannot suffice for the con-struction of an architectural theory.

Rykwert himself has recognized the methodological problems of a historical presentation of theidea of the primordial hut. He describes his approach as paradoxical because, in a narrower sense,history provides the ideas about the primordial hut, but not the hut itself. "... the first object of mysearch must be a memory of something which cannot but be lost." (:14) Rykwert avails himself ofa technique which is quite legitimate for the historian. He contents himself with the idealized partof his theme. "...it is a notion which I wish to stalk, and not a thing,..." (:14) On the other hand, it

is just as legitimate not to be satisfied with avoiding the objective challenge by covering it up in amist of ideas, but to accept it and search positively for the object itself. The rewards will not fail tocome. The 'paradox' of Rykwert's approach leads to a surprisingly simple solution: we discover"paradise"! We only have to acknowledge that the search for the 'first house' cannot be a historical

problem in the narrower sense of written history, nor of its extension: it is neither a problem ofarchaeology nor of prehistory. The first house demands an anthropological outlook. In other words,100 years after Darwin's death it appears rather dubious to tackle a question of human building

behaviour by way of stories from the Old Testament. The concept of 'Adam's House in Paradise',from which Rykwert proceeds, is a purely historical one because it is based on history in a narrowsense. But our image of man in the last 100 years has changed fundamentally. It is no longer based

on the Bible! To gain knowledge of primitive building behaviour, we have to keep step with scien-


7/31


8/31

higher apes and to the relatively highly developed constructive behaviour in the case of man isimportant. For "nesting behaviour illustrates the appearance and phylogenetic development of con-structivity, and coincidentally, the transition from complete dependence on self-adjustment toincreasing dependence on manipulation or modification of environment as a method of behaviouraladaptation." (Yerkes 1929:564).

Yerkes' study had a strong influence on subhuman primatology. It suddenly brought about anawareness that the study of caged animals in zoos was not enough, that observations of behaviourhad to take place in the natural habitat to be scientifically reliable. Studies in the wild with definiteobjectives gained considerable importance after Yerkes. These surveys of nest-building behaviour

brought with them a wealth of observations which, however, remained unsystematic, mainlybecause they were made in the wider framework of the daily life of the pongids. In addition, recentpongid behavioural studies have focused increasingly on sociological aspects. Analogous to humansociology, emphasis is laid on social relations between individuals and groups and their correspon-ding manifestations (aggression, dominance/ subordination patterns etc.). As a technical object, the

nest thus remains in the background. One of the latest general studies of pongidae (Hamburg 1979,The Great Apes) hardly mentions nest-building and then only from marginal viewpoints.

On the other hand, if one does not entirely lose sight of the concrete aspects of nest-building ,recent research in a specific aspect of nest-building becomes important: whether nest-building is aninnate or an acquired ability. The result of such research, namely, the recognition that nest-buildingis learnt may call for a reconsideration of Yerkes' approach. The one-sided zoological classificationof the pongid nest, conditioned by the history of research, implied the complete disregard of itstechnical aspects. Thus, the hand-crafted nest of higher apes was simply equated with the beak-crafted nest of the birds. For example, Nissen (1931), following Yerkes (1929), carefully andextensively deals with the chimpanzee nest, but - in disregard of Yerkes - concludes that the pongid

nest should be regarded as analogous to the bird's nest. Nest-building - according to Nissen -should thus be understood as a part of social behaviour.

From another side too, the zoological classification cut off pongid nest-building from comparisonwith human artefact behaviour. The inclusion of the pongid nest into the wider category of the ver-tebrate nest implied that pongid nest-building behaviour should be interpreted as purely instinctive.It was considered to be an entirely programmed motor process.

However, this is exactly what has quite clearly been disproved by the research of Bernstein (1962,1969, in Germany. See also Lethmate 1977). During 10 years of study, Bernstein managed to show

that young animals raised in isolation showed a basic pattern of motor behaviour which allowsthem to use their arms to pull all kinds of surrounding objects or materials to form a circle aroundtheir body. But the constructive aspect has to be learnt. Only animals that had contact with othersover a longer period of time, were able to coordinate their movements in such a way as to producea stable nest. Goodall too, (1962) made similar observations in the wild. "The construction of anest is a species-characteristic pattern of chimpanzees ... ." And: " ... in the wild, there is muchopportunity for the chimpanzee to learn the nest-building pattern, initially by watching, and subse-quently, by imitation and practice." She then describes some situations where young animalswatched or even helped their mother to build a nest, and another where juvenile chimpanzees builtnests as a "form of play activity" (:467; see also Goodall/Van Lawick 1963:301). It is clear that

proficiency in building nests increases with age (Albrecht/ Dunnet, 1971:28). Van Lawick-Goodall


9/31

(1971) observed the behaviour of young chimpanzees aged from ten months to four or five years inrelation to playnests. It involves quite a long learning process and shows a clear break when thechild starts to build its own nest and sleeps separated from its mother. In a wider context too, this

presumed capacity for learning accords with the views of many authors. Precultural traditionsassumed with regard to various aspects (e.g. eating habits), and the pongidae's capacity for learning

has long been used in teaching them new tricks (e.g. sign language for the deaf!)

THE HIGHER APES ARE NOMADS

Nest building is a daily routine behaviour. This is closely related to the life of the pongidae.Sociological surveys have brought to light remarkable aspects of pongid daily life. We have anapproximate idea of the size of groups. For instance, chimpanzees, according to Nissen (1931), livein groups of four to fourteen individuals (8.5 on average). There are also indications of populationdensity. Donisthorpe (1958) mentions 3-4 animals per square mile for gorillas in Uganda (Kisoro

reservation). Further, daily and seasonal migrations have been observed. All three species of higherapes are nomads. They wander practically every day. Donisthorpe (1958) mentions the distance of1-7 miles for mountain gorillas. These migrations are not random. Pongids always wander within amore or less clearly defined territory (Fig. 1, 2). In this context, the studies of Fossey (1974) areremarkable. She divided the home range of mountain gorillas in quadrants and statistically reportedthe frequency of the animals' visits to such quadrants. They clearly show preferences for certainareas within their home range. Harrisson (1969), too, talks of "habitual rest sites" with regard toorang-utans. Burt (1943) considers the size of home ranges in relation to the size of the animals.Daily migration - probably due to the lack of foodstuffs - implies that the animals find themselvesat a different place every night. Thus, nest-building becomes a matter of routine, and it is charac-teristic of all three species that they build themselves a new nest at least once a night.

NEST-BUILDING OF THE HIGHER APES

Nests as a subhuman handicraft

Bernstein (1969) describes the basic elements of nest-building as relatively stereotypical, evenunder differing circumstances. The animal either crouches or stands upright on both legs. On trees,it usually stands or sits on branches which grow horizontally from the main stem. With its arms, it

pulls a few strong branches toward itself and holds them down with one of its feet (Fig. 3).

Whether broken, cracked, or simply bent, the branches are then interwoven. By turning its bodyseveral times and repeating the same procedure, an elastic platform is gradually made, a tiny hori-zontal surface in the precipitous surroundings. Then - generally in a crouching position - the ani-mal pulls in thinner branches. They are braided to a ring or wreath of about 60-80 cm in diameter.Finally, the nest is cushioned, partly with thin twigs torn from the branches, partly with materialstransported from elsewhere. Twigs sticking out are knocked into the surface by using the back ofthe hand. The whole procedure takes about one to five minutes. Goodall (1962) speaks of structuralelements (foundation' and 'crosspieces', see Fig. 4). Crosspieces are joined in a rough kind of bas-ketry. She describes the manufacture as "quite complicated" (:460) and says: "Some chimpanzeeswork methodically, turning in a complete circle during the making of a nest." (:460) Later the same

author (Van Lawick-Goodall 1971) writes: "Those nests which I could study from close distance


10/31

were put together and braided with twigs, often in a quite complicated manner". In Uganda and inEastern Belgian Congo, Bolwig (1959) studied about 50 nests of mountain gorillas and about 30nests of chimpanzees with regard to the materials used, their construction, location, and use. Hewas mainly interested in the question of right- and left-handedness. Among gorillas, he distin-guished different types of ground nests, among the chimpanzees tree and ground nests. He further

differentiated the tree nests into crown and fork nests. His remarkable report not only providesdetailed descriptions but also valuable drawings (Fig. 5). Further descriptions of constructionaldetails are given by Mackinnon (1971, 1974), Albrecht/ Dunnet (1971), Harrisson (1969), Goodall(1962), Izawa/ Itani (1966, s. Fig. 6), Nissen (1931), etc. (see Fig. 7-13). Mackinnon distinguishedfour technical aspects and also mentioned how animals transported nesting materials with theirmouths or feet, pressed them under their arms or used the so-called 'shoulder-chin pinch'. Nissen(1931) mentions "daybeds" with "roofs" or "umbrellas" among chimpanzees.

An essential aspect of nest-building is its daily routine. Nest-building is most intimately related todaily activities. All authors are in accord regarding the following: from a certain age on, every

individual builds itself a new nest at least once a day throughout its lifetime of 30 to 40 years.Goodall (1962) says: "Nest-building is a daily routine in [the life of] chimpanzee today." (:460)

Building materials vary

Bernstein (1962) made a comparative study of chimpanzees born in captivity and in the wild andshowed that the kind of material used is not of great importance. In captivity, woollen blankets,

plastic hoses, and the like were used much the same as branches, twigs, leaves, and grasses were inthe wild. But, of course, when they use homogeneous artificial materials the animals never attainthe same complexity of construction as they do with the various materials available in the wild.

But what is important is this basic openness to various materials. In the wild it implies that con-structive behaviour can basically relate to a wide spectrum of materials provided by a particularenvironment. Harrisson (1969) surveyed nest-building using statistical methods. Over a relativelylong period, she studied a few animals constantly. For the first time in a wild habitat, she discov-ered that the materials used can vary considerably. She reported that stones were used to buildnests . Also remarkable is an observation by Galdikas-Brindamour/ Brindamour (1975). In connec-tion with ground nests of the orang-utang in Indonesia, she observed animals piling up pieces ofwood in a manner which reminded her of human constructions of wood.

Tree and ground nests and their location in the environment

The consideration of the position of nests in their environment began with measuring the height oftheir locations. Oertzen (acc. to Reichenow 1921:74) gave a first rough typology with regard toheight. Of 16 gorilla sleeping nests, which he found clustered in a place in Southern Cameroon, hedistinguished nine nests on the ground, and seven at a height of 3-5 metres in the branches of trees.

Nissen (1931) measured about 100 chimpanzee nests with regard to their distance from the ground."The figures vary from 13 to 105 feet, [~4-32m] the average being 38.4 feet [~12m]." (:41)Goodall (1962:457) also gave similar statistics with regard to height. Nowadays, the main distinc-tion is drawn between tree and ground nests. This distinction is extremely important because these

two types correspond to two completely different spheres of movement: the former to the arboreal


11/31

and the latter to the terrestrial. All three species of pongids move within these two spheres in quitedifferent ways and are physically adapted accordingly. In the arboreal space, the animals moves ina more apelike manner. An upright hanging and swinging position of the body is essential. The pre-hensile hand and stereoscopic vision (the eyes facing forward for exact estimation of distance arecharacteristic for subhuman primates) are further important characteristics. On the other hand, ter-

restrial movements are closer to the human way of locomotion. At the human level, the terrestrialway of life with bipedal locomotion (which freed the hands from the function of transporting the

body), precision grip of the hands, focused spatial sight and a highly developed brain are extremelyevolved determinants.

Consequently, the change from the arboreal to the terrestrial environment - as seen clearly amongthe pongidae - is taken as the basis of evolutionary explanations in anthropology. By the formationof large savannas, climatic changes are said to have changed the arboreal conditions of the pongidsin such a way as to increasingly favour terrestrial life. Under these circumstances, the distinction oftree and ground nests becomes extremely important. The function of pongid nests changed and, in

the transition from tree to ground, its form also changed in relation to the different structure andnature of the materials available on the ground. In the treetops the nest is a secure platform whichprotects the animal from falling down when its visual communication with the environment isblocked by darkness. It also allows the animal's large body to lie horizontally during periods ofsleep and rest.

Regarded as an artefact, the tree nest is only part of a large and naturally standing unit, the tree. Inthe terrestrial environment the ground nest becomes an individually constructed tectonic unit erect-ed by the animal. Functionally, it no longer serves to protect the animal from the high risk offalling. It may merely be a kind of cushion, if grasses are heaped on the ground. But if it is madewith rooted bushes or in a bamboo grove, it can be considered as a standing construction which

gains stability from 'artificially' combined elements. With regard to the expected variety of materi-als available on the ground, the ground nest also becomes a tectonic object with a great potentialfor the development of its constructed form. If we think more in terms of the interaction betweenthe animal and this type of nest, it shows characteristics which can be seen in close connectionwith essential aspects of physical evolution: the erect body posture, bipedal locomotion and thefreeing of the hands with the development of the precision grip, focused stereoscopic view and -with more and more 'learnt' processes of construction - a development of the brain.

With regard to these criteria, it must be of interest to recapitulate briefly what observations in thewild have revealed about the location of nests. Chimpanzees are both arboreal and terrestrial, and

this also applies to their nest-building . Chimpanzees build tree nests for the night, while, duringthe day, they usually build their siesta or resting nests on the ground. Nissen (1931) found a rela-tionship of 50 to 50% for chimpanzees. On the other hand, gorillas live more terrestrially.According to several authors, this is due to their body weight. Male chimpanzees weigh about 70to 75 kg. The mountain gorilla weighs about 300 kg, the coastal gorilla about 250 kg. Male moun-tain gorillas always sleep in ground nests, while the females and infants sleep in nests among the

branches of trees. Thus, on the basis of such surveys, we can account for a constant number of rou-tinely fabricated ground nests.


12/31

Typology of form

In regard to form too, the distinction of tree and ground nest is elementary and essential for atypology.

Tree nests are about 60-80 cm in diameter. Nissen (1931) reports that they are built in those partsof trees where branches are sufficiently strong to support the animal's weight but not so thick as to

be no longer manipulable. A choice, a judgment is involved! The form of the nests is characterizedby an outer circular wreath of twigs. In the centre, the nest shows a cavity in which the animal cansleep or rest securely on its side or back. Infants pass the night in their mother's nest. These com-

bined mother-child nests are slightly bigger than usual and often have a bulge (Fig. 14).

Ground nests vary from simple grass, leaf, or twig nests close to the ground to 2-4 m high con-structions produced in the undergrowth or in bamboo grooves. Grass nests generally are a simplecircular accumulation of materials heaped on the ground, whereas the latter are definite tectonic

structures, stable, handcrafted structures with some resemblance to human huts. To build suchtower-like structures in a bamboo grove, the animal raises its long arms, hangs onto the stems,bends them down by the weight of his body, and then intertwines, or knots them together.Obviously, the object must possess considerable static resistance when, on completion of its build-ing task, the heavy animal climbs up and - like a king on his throne - sits or rests and eventuallylies down to sleep in this undoubtedly safe place.

Use of the nest

Depending on the time of day when the nests are built, they are called 'day' or 'night nests' or, interms of their function, 'rest' or 'sleeping nests'. The former are usually built more or less carefully

on the ground after the feeding period in the morning. Then the animals lie down to doze in thesun and digest their food. These nests are often also called 'siesta nests'.

Sleeping nests are built at nightfall. Observation is very difficult in this case. Authors report thatthese nightly nest-building activities were often more heard than seen: sounds of cracking branchesand twigs, followed by silence. Albrecht/Dunnet (1971) report that chimpanzees prefer to buildtheir sleeping nests close to their last feeding tree. Goodall (1962) reports the same for chim-

panzees. Several authors, e.g. Goodall/Van Lawick (1963), have developed a sensitivity for thepoetic atmosphere surrounding this nightly 'going to bed' among the heights of the treetops and forthe first sounds of yawning in the early morning twilight, followed by the first toilet activities in

the first rays of sunlight (Fig. 15-19).

But the use of nests is not restricted to sleep and siesta alone. We have already mentioned themother-child nest. Van Lawick-Goodall (1971) mentions the chimpanzee nest as a sickbed. A lamechimpanzee affected by polio forces himself back and forth between the same three nests. In earlierliterature, tree nests are mentioned as deathbeds. With all remaining strength, animals hurt byhunters provided themselves with a nest which prevented them from falling. They then bled todeath, and their dead bodies remained 'buried' in the lofty nest. According to Lawick-Goodall it isuncertain, whether coupling occurs in nests, but loving couples build their nests close to each other.Furthermore, nest robbery was observed by Van Lawick-Goodall (1971). She describes how the

male whom she named 'Goliath', pushed his female partner out of the nest she had just completed


13/31

and settled into it. Obviously very angry, she nonetheless had to build herself a new one. The nesthas another important function: that of a toy. Nissen (1931) mentions infants playing with some-thing that looked like a small basket, obviously a tiny nest used as a toy. Goodall (1962) says thatnest-building is learnt by playing with nests made on bushes or trees. Such descriptions of infants

playing are indeed appealing. To the astonishment of the baby ape, such awkwardly fabricated

nests always bounce up again and again.

The nests function as a shelter from rain or sun is often discussed, in particular, if rooflike acces-sories are observed. Van Lawick-Goodall (1971) is opposed to the idea of leaves and other deviceshaving such a function. But Nissen (1931) mentioned day nests with an umbrella-like constructionsamong chimpanzees. Probably the discussion is prejudiced because it implicitly relates to naiveideas of apes building primitive huts. Maybe the differences in climatic adaptation between observ-er and observed are not taken into account. Several reports explicitly give the impression that rainin tropical rain forests - probably of the same temperature as the body temperature of the animals -does not bother them at all (Fig. 20, 21).

Nests as signs

Since nests generally last for several months (Harrison 1969), they become a kind of sign in thelandscape - similar to the traces left by man with his building behaviour in his habitat. Nissen(1931) remarks the following: "The chimpanzee nest is a distinct and unique feature of the FrenchGuinea bush. It is so different from all other objects encountered there, that it is almost impossiblenot to recognize such a nest, when seen, for what it is." (:40). Most nest are found in groups oftrees. One to 13 nests are found in a tree. Nissen (1931) describes a case where, in four trees, hefound 12 apparently very new nests. Three of the trees were closely adjacent, housing one, four,and five nests. One tree was 175 feet [~53m] apart and housed three nests (:40). "Although all

members of a group did not usually sleep in one tree, their nests were rarely scattered over an areamore than 200 feet [61m] in diameter." In the average, a surface of about 20km [12.4 miles] wouldhouse about 25 animals and about 1500 nests (Nissen 1931:41). Preference for certain locationswithin the home range of a group are clearly observable. Such clusters of nests on "habitual nestsites" (Harrisson 1969) become particularly interesting with regard to semantic questions.Durability is about two months in the average. Many authors take the nests not only as signs forhuman observers indicating the presence of pongids (whereby older nests are easily distinguishedfrom newer ones!), but they take these "artificial" markers in a natural environment as signs for the

pongids themselves as Mackinnon (1971, 1974) for example does in the case of orang-utans.Unfortunately, not many studies focusing on this aspect, have been undertaken. It would be of

great importance to clarify the semantic significance of the nest because nests might prove to bepart of a semantic system (own/other group's nests, old/new nests) allowing pongids to orientate ina social (intra-/intergroup) and spatiotemporal sense: "the leaves are completely dry; we must have

been here a long time." Other questions may arise from such insights. E.g., if the nests form asemantic system which includes criteria of location and time, how do pongids distinguish their ownnests from those of other groups? Are they provided with the ability to remember patterns relatedto qualities, form, situation in the landscape or spatial relations of nests in the trees or on theground? Unfortunately, there is not yet sufficient data available to answer such questions.


14/31

Temporary camps

Due its interest in so called "spacing patterns", primate sociology has provided interesting materialon the spatial distribution of pongid nest camps. With the exception of some initial studies, thisvery valuable line of research has not been continued. Kawai/Mizuhara (1959) drew up dwelling

plans of the nest clusters made by mountain gorillas, giving the distances between the nests andtheir heights, the types of nests and their cleanliness (s. Fig. 22a). Mackinnon (1974) mappedout the home range of orang-utan groups and marked the places where nests were found (Fig. 23).

Nesting places with older and newer nests look like schematic aerial views of human villages.Nishida (1968) and Izawa/Itani (1966) also made maps of the landscape, which are reminiscent ofhuman settlements (Fig. 1, 2, 24). Pongids are obviously social by nature and - like human nomads- move from temporary settlement to temporary settlement and, to some extent, between habitualnesting sites. These sites are located within a flexible home range, which is not clearly defined.Temporary campsites, when used, create a territorial area which seems to be respected by othergroups.

Ecology and habitat in a wider sense

Emlen/Schaller (1960) surveyed an area in Central Africa - nearly as large as Switzerland - inwhich mountain gorillas live in many populations (Fig. 25).The landscape is described as ecologi-cally very differentiated. A typology of vegetation showing foliage cover, undergrowth etc., isgiven, showing a lively habitat characterized by varying environments (Fig. 26). Different groupslive in these environments, which also vary in terms of landscape and climate. The study offers atheory of settlement which sounds very human. According to this, clans expanded from the centreof the region towards its natural limits. Furthermore, Emlen/Schaller found differences in body and

behaviour among various populations of mountain gorilla. This necessarily implies that pongid

populations already show the effects of ecological conditions on their physical and behaviouralevolutions. As regards to the latter, this means they develop customs or traditions which are locallyspecific. Emlen/Schaller could clearly distinguish mountain settlers from those living in the val-leys.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Within the framework of the recent discussion on the "primordial hut" initiated by Rykwert (1972),we have tried to draw relevant materials into the sphere of cultural anthropology and architectural

theory. The fact that it is still unusual for cultural anthropologists to discuss the 'constructivity' ofpongid nest behaviour is due to the zoologists' focus on the instinctive aspect, which is dominant inthe building of the vertebrate nest, but only partly accords for the pongid nest. The other element isacquired behaviour, a subhuman tradition. Technologically, and functionally too, the pongid nesthas common characteristics with a human construction. It is an object which the animals use to

provide for an essential need in their lives: the horizontal position while sleeping and nocturnalsecurity in an arboreal environment blocking locomotion (stereoscopic vision). And it is an artefactmade by a hand which closely resembles the human hand. It implies a direct hand-handicraft rela-tion, which unfortunately is not taken into consideration for the simple reason that archaeology isfixed on the hand-tool-handicraft relation. In the nest-building behaviour of the pongids the hand is

the tool! This direct hand-handicraft relation appears in a wide range of traditional human prod-


15/31

ucts, such as basketry, etc. But since it deals with flexible, nondurable plant materials, it could notbe preserved in prehistory. Its history must be reconstructed systematically or ethno-archaeologi-cally.

In the case of ground nests another aspect is important. The objects are not only handmade, they

are subhuman artefacts which, standing upright and fixed in a particular place, are tectonic objectsin a terrestrial environment. They can thus be interpreted as prototypes of the built form, of archi-tecture. The individual who builds such objects becomes the 'archi-tekton' in the original Greeksense, the "first builder", in fact a first builder responsible for the site and quality of his daily-nightly resting place: his own nest.

Finally: at first sight, the pongid nest cannot be directly related to this or that cultural phenomenon,e.g., huts, cradles, or beds. This again would have to be considered as mere speculation. It is ratherthat the value of the pongid nest consists in providing us with a factually supported hypothesiswhich may help us to reconstruct a scientifically founded theory of architecture in the frame of a

systematically surveyed field of human work behaviour (general ergology). The first aims of suchan approach would have to be:

* 1. to prevent architecture and design from further unsupported speculation by the institution ofa new scientific discipline of 'architectural anthropology' based on scientific methods.

* 2. to critically revise definitions of 'human needs' regarding habitat and building. Havingbecome highly questionable, along with the so-called "crisis of modern architecture and urbanism",these 'basic human needs' have to be examined anew in a context extending beyond the narrowviewpoint of Western history of art, and reaching out to include non-Western built form and culturein the broad frame of a global history and ethnology of building.

We have dealt with the nest-building behaviour of the higher apes. We stuck close to the observedfacts and limited ourselves to an architectural point of view. This revealed that the nest is deeplyinterwoven with the higher apes' daily existence, it is integrated in the structures of day and night,outside and inside, movement and rest, exposedness and shelter. In architectural terms, it is anexistential totality related to extremely primordial technological means.

There is, however, yet another aspect if we compare this existential totality of the nest with what isconsidered important to the early human past the 'tool' of the so-called 'toolmaker'. From this per-spective too, the chapter is not yet closed. Physical anthropology today searches for the origins of

man in those East African regions where important climatic changes transformed tropical forestsinto open savannas (Olduvai gorge). With regard to our important typology of tree and groundnests, it is highly probable that the 'constructiveness shown served to bridge these environmentalchanges. The ground nest might have become the prototype of building par excellence. Horizontalaccessibility increased enormously with this move from arboreal to terrestrial environment, bothwith regard to materials and to potential sites. It is highly probable that constructiveness evolvedconsiderably, producing a notable diversity of materials, techniques, and forms. The objects arelost, obviously. But maybe the 'bones' registered in a lasting form those changes in body movementconnected with the growth of constructional capacities: erect position of the body, increasing rotarymotion of the wrist, perfection of the precision grip, increase of the brain, etc. Should new research

and new discoveries prove this plausible in the near future, we shall be able to claim that architec-


16/31

ture played a significant part in the 'creation' of man (Fig. 27).


17/31

FIGURES AND FIGURE CAPTIONS

Key-illustrationA young orang-utan evidently is intensively at work. 16 metres above ground he builds his nest ontop of a betel palm tree. With his feet he holds on to the thick materials; within less than five min-utes, his strong arms have bent and woven the thinner materials into a stable structure in which hecan feel 'cosy and at home' for one night (acc. to Galdikas-Brindamour/ Brindamour 1975)


18/31

Fig. 1, Fig. 2Map showing the nomadic migration of a considerably large group of about 50-80 chimpanzeesduring a period of 20 days (acc. to Nishida 1968)

Map showing six different home ranges of chimpanzees and the partially observed nomadic migra-tions (acc. to Nishida 1968)

Fig. 3Adult female chimpanzee sets forth to build her nest on top of a large palm tree (acc. to Goodall

1962)


19/31

Fig. 4, Fig. 5"Weaving" the 'crosspieces' (acc. to Goodall 1962)Construction methods of gorilla ground nests (acc. to Bolwig 1959)

Fig. 6

Schematic representation of six chimpanzee nests (acc. to Izawa/Itani 1966)


20/31

Fig. 7Chimpanzee builds his tree nest in typical location between forking branches (acc. to Goodall/VanLawick 1963)

Fig. 8, 9,

Two characteristic chimpanzee nests (acc. to Nissen 1931)


21/31

Fig. 10, 11Above: untypical chimpanzee nest, which is supported by a thick branch below. Below: Two treeshousing ten nests (both acc. to Nissen 1931)

Fig. 12, 13Above: View of a chimpanzee nest used the night before. Below: Section of nest showing inter-

twined branches which form the supporting base of the nest (Both acc. to Nissen 1931)


22/31

Fig. 14Mother-child relation in its developmental stages as reflected in nest forms (acc. toKawai/Mizuhara 1959)

* 1..........mother and child in closed nest-circle* 2..........the child's nest forms a bulge* 3..........mothers nest and baby's nest are adjacent

* 4..........mother's nest and child's nests are separated

Fig. 15High in the air, a chimpanzee is cosily asleep in his nest well-cushioned with leaves (acc. to Van

Lawick-Goodall 1971)


23/31

Fig. 16, 17, 18Chimpanzees in their nests. Above: the animal has caught a cold and therefore went to bed early,nibbling at some fruits or leaves, he is waiting to fall asleep. In the central picture a chimpanzee

plays with a towel stolen from the zoologist. The lower picture shows a chimpanzee rolled up likea dog: the animals often change their positions during sleep, but generally prefer lying on their

sides (acc. to Goodall and Van Lawick-Goodall 1963)


24/31

Fig. 19Some typical positions of chimpanzees in their nests (acc. to Goodall 1962)

Fig. 20Position of chimpanzee in its nest during rainfallobserved by Goodall (1962)

Fig. 21Two adult male chimpanzees have built day nests high above the foggy ground in the uppermost

branches of a tree (acc. to Goodall/Van Lawick 1963)


25/31

Fig. 22aDiagram showing spatial location of a group of six nests constructed and used by gorillas in a

mountain forest surveyed in terms of constructional types and types of users (acc. to Kawai/Mizuhara 1959)

* #..........tree nest* _..........mixed construction using branches of trees and bamboo stalks* x..........nest constructed of bamboo* o..........ground nest* D..........soiled with faeces* nD ........clean* h..........height in metres

Fig. 22bReconstruction of one gorilla groups night camp based on a plan measured by Izawa/ Itani. The

presumably dense bamboo thicket in the centre was left out in the drawing, to make the nests clear-

ly visible (drawing: N. Egenter)


26/31

Fig. 22c

My home is my castle: spatial interpretation of the night camp as 'access-place-schema'. Thefemale and child thus occupy the central and highly secured place. Four younger gorillas occupyand secure the corner posts of the pentagon. The ground nest of the dominant male is presumably

positioned at the entrance path to the camp. The strongest and most experienced animal is thusimposed with the duties of a doorkeeper. This spatial arrangement shows a strong similarity withelementary ground-plans of human dwellings. A very basic form of securing space finds expres-sion.

* ES ..........external space (jungle), extensively patrolled* IS..........internal space (home, rest), intensively patrolled* ..........external-internal relation of patrols

* ..............inner path system* ----..........outer path system (access)* x..........peripheral sleeping place, at the same time individually occupied border* ...........point with social function in regard to group* o..........central sleeping place, highly secured place* X..........access (outside/ inside, extensive/ intensive regarding patrols)* F..........front* C..........centre* B..........back* S..........sides


27/31

Fig. 23Map showing distribution of orang-utan nests in an area of approximately six square kilometres(acc. to Mackinnon 1974)

Fig. 24Distribution of chimpanzee nests in the region surveyed by Izawa/Itani (1966). "Clusters" werefound preferably in trees of 18-25 m height on the steep wooded slopes of river valleys

* 0..........10 nests

* . ..........1 nest


28/31

Fig. 25Cartographic distribution of about 60 populations of mountain gorillas in the northern surroundingsof Lake Tanganyika (Central Africa). The size of individual home ranges varies between 10 to 100square miles. Dots represent individual animals living off home ranges. The hatched area in thecentre is rather sparsely but continuously populated. The dotted line shows the border between thegreat northwestern equatorial forests and the broad savannas extending towards the south and theeast.The mountainous areas of the savannas contain open woodlands (Map surveyed 1959; acc. toEmlen/Schaller 1960)

Fig. 26Vegetational diagrams of the five most important habitats of mountain gorillas studied by Emlen/Schaller (1960). Heights are given in feet. Density of the hatching indicates the density of the

foliage of treetops and bushes.


29/31

- Under construction -

Fig. 27The drawing shows the attempt to interprete the erection of the human body from early architectur-al conditions (acc. to F. Clark Howell)


30/31

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albrecht, H. / Dunnet, S.C. (1971): Chimpanzees in Wesern Africa. Piper,Mnchen

Bernstein I. S. (1962): Response to nesting materials of wildborn and captive bornchimpanzees. In: Animal Behaviour, 10, 1-6.Bernstein I. S. (1996): A comparison of nesting patterns among the three great apes.In: G. H. Borne (ed.): The chimpanzee, 1. 393-402, Karger. Basel.Bolwig, N. (1959): A study of the nests built by mountain gorilla and chimpanzee.In: south African Journal of Science, 55 (11), 286-291Burt, W. H. (1943): Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals.In: Jounal of Mammalogy, 24, 346-352Donisthorpe, J. (1958): A pilot study of the mountain gorilla in South-West Uganda,

February-Septermber 1957. In: South African Journal of Science 8, 54, 195-216Egenter, N. (1980): Bauform als Zeichen und Symbol. Nicht domestikales Buen im

japanischen Volkskult - eine bauethnologische Untersuchung, dokumentiert an 100Drfern Zentraljapans, ETH ZrichEgenter, N. (1982):Nestbuilding of the Pongidae - a Form of SubhumanConstructivity? Paper read at the Symposion "Primatology: Evolutionary Processes"on the 81st annual meeting of the American Anthropologial Association, from 4th to7thh Dec. 1982, WashingtonEgenter, N. (1994): Architectural Anthropolog - Semantic and Symbolic

Architecture - An architetural-ethnological survey into hundred villages of centralJapan. Structura Mundi, LausanneEmlen, J./ Schaller, G. B. (1960): Distribution and status of the mountain gorilla.In: Zoologica, 45, 1, 41-52Fossey, D. (1974): Observations on home range of one group of mountain gorillas.In: Animal Behaviour 22, 568-581Galdikas-Brindamour, B./ Brindamour, R. (1975): Orang Utans. In: NationalGeographic Magazine, 148, 4, 444-473Goodall, J. (1962):Nest building behavior in the free ranging chimpanzees. In:Annuals of the New York Academy of Science, 102, 2, 455-467Goodall J. / VanLawick, H. (1963): My life among wild chimpanzees. In: NationalGeographic Magazine, 124, 2, 272-308Hamburg, D. A. (1979): The great apes. Benjamin & Cummlings, Menlo-ParkHarrisson, D. A. (1969): The nesting behaviour of semi-wild juvenile orang-utans.In: Sarawak Museum Journal 17, 336-384Izawa, K. / Itani, J. (1966): Chimpanzees in the Kasakati Basin, Tanganyika. In:Kyoto University African Studies 1, 73-156

Kawai, M. / Mizuhara, H. (1959): An eclological study on the wilde mountain


31/31

gorilla. In: Primates, 2, 1Lethmate, J. (1977):Nestbauverhalten eines isoliert aufgezogenen jungen Orang-utans. In: Primates, 18, 3, 545-554Mackinnon, J. R. (1971): The orang-utans in Sabah today. In Oryx 11, 142-191

Mackinnon, J. R. (1974): The behavior and ecology of orang-utans. in AnimalBehaviour, 22, 3-74Nishida T. (1968): The social group of wild chimpanzees in the Mahali moutains.In: Primates, 9, 3, 167-224Nissen, H. W. (1931): A field study of the chimpanzee. Observations of chimpanzee

behavior and environment in Western French Guinea. Comparative PsychologyMonographs 8,1Rykwert, J. (1972): On Adam's House in Paradise, the idea of the primitive hut inarchitectural history. New York

VanLawick-Goodall, J. (1971): Wilde Schimpansen. 10 Jahre Verhaltensforschungam Gombe- Strom. Rowohlt, HamburgYerkes, R. M. (1929): The Great Apes. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven

E ARCHITECTS

3_apearchitects_e_z09l24a

Documents