- APE ARCHITECTS -

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

This study was first published (in German) in 1983 in UMRISS, a well-known Viennese journal for architecture and Design (Nr.2/:2-9). Later, in 1987, a modified version, in both English and Japanese, was printed in the Japanese architectural journal 'Architecture and Urbanism' (A&U, Nr.197/Feb.). As early as in 1982, this topic was dealt with in a paper entitled 'Nest building of the pongidae - a form of subhuman constructivity?' which was presented at the annual meeting of the 'American Anthropological Association' in Washington (4.-7. Dec.), in the section 'Primatology: Evolutionary Processes?'. The primatologists attending the lecture instantly realized the 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 of research 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 neglected the evolutionary processes of "constructivity" already suggested convincingly by the Yerkes (Yerkes/ Yerkes 1929). A recent publication in 'Current Anthropology' by Sabater Pi et al. (1997) provoked an "Apes-Nest-Controversy" from our side. It maintains that the terrestrial nest of the great apes is a key phenomenon for the understanding of cultural "constructivity" (architectural anthropology, habitat anthropology). There are about 30 illustrations related to the text. Browse them through for first information.

The 'primordial hut' of architectural theory and the nestbuilding behaviour of the great apes <1>
____________________________________________ 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 postmodern architectural fundamentalism (Hanno-Walter Kruft, Georg Germann). The first part of the following study will show that in the formation of modern architecture too, rather dilettantish primordialities 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 men roaming the steppes in search of food - continue to bolster our modern pride in progress and to legitimate 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 what is 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 higher apes, 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. ON THE TOPIC by Nold Egenter

APE ARCHITECTS

In the precarious context of today's architectural theory, one can hardly think of a more beautiful and clarifying discovery, than that the higher apes are routine nest constructors. The apes nest as primordial architecture! An architecture lacking aesthetic sophistication, but nevertheless comfortable! Since nest-building is mostly undertaken in groups, these night camps of the higher apes give us a clear idea of the primordial form of primate settlement. And, in fact, they clearly reveal primary conditions of an anthropologically continuous arrangement of dwelling space. We might ask a 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 the same issue. The one, based on history and going back to Adam, arrives at the conclusion that ideas about the origins of architecture had, throughout the past, served as an inspiration to many. The other, based on anthropology, promotes not just the idea but the original object, and consequently accuses 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

from this, we have to ask: have todays architects completely lost sight of the roots of their domain? Did they lose themselves in the purely virtual space of their post-medieval myth of a profaned creator-genius? Secondly, the new anthropological sounding reveals a disturbing fact: architecture 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 their real demiurgic potential. "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 to reflect critically on the theoretical bases of building and dwelling. In the last decade, Joseph Rykwert's book "On Adam's House in Paradise (1972) has greatly contributed to a renewed interest in 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: the question concerning the origins of building has obviously not only fascinated builders, but also theologians, 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 history of heterogeneous speculations. Depending on the technological, historical, prehistorical, or even natural historical sources drawn upon, these speculations engendered a wealth of the most imaginative 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 for knowledge. But right up to modern times, they have also served architects as an argument for practical architectural manifestations. Le Corbusier, for instance, derived his geometrical concepts from huts 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 civilization and hailed the ideal of the free pioneer spirit. In his "Living City" (1945) Wright outlined a politically and morally biased evolutionary scheme on the basic pattern of democrats versus antidemocrats. 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 two lifestyles of the apes: the good ones, freely swinging from branch to branch, the bad ones, hiding in caves! For Gropius, the Bauhaus around 1920, and Konrad Wachsmann the wooden log cabin represented their 'primordial hut'. In this, they were obviously influenced by Strzygowski, who, following Gottfried Semper's evolutionism (1860/63), - suggested the primitive wooden constructions of the North-Eurasian belt as a basic type of Indo-Germanic architecture, paralleled by the southern, or Mediterranean, architectonic traditions in stone. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe associated himself 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 futuristic line, Erich Mendelssohn based his urban designs on models from nature: the city was to obey the same laws as the beehive and the anthill. According to Rykwert, Adolf Loos stands in a line which hails a "telluric immemorial wisdom and rightness". Loos' idea of a primordial hut appears in his encounter with a simple burial hill in the woods: "...someone lies buried here. That is architecture." (:28) ON ADAM'S HOUSE IN PARADISE

Certainly such ideas were a testimony to subjective originality at those times, and they have continued to be of use to the art historian because of their appeal to the general reader. To the architect, however, the art historian's standpoint cannot be of much help because ideas can never be mere ideas to him. They are always prerequisites of operative implications for his buildings. Thus today, 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 have now lost all enthusiasm for these encrustations of primitivism. We hear of 'oppressive environments' (A. Tzonis), 'inhospitable townscapes' (A. Mitscherlich) etc. This surprising change of mind may have its deeper reasons: maybe these ideas were scientifically too primitive! Or - anthropologically - they were not primitive enough. In any case, this contradiction between a pure history of ideas and an objective evolution of building behaviour obviously constitutes the problem to which Rykwert is pointing. The field of sources to which ideas of the 'primordial hut' can be connected is enormous. During the last 100 years, this field has grown even larger owing to developments in studies of prehistory and particularly in ethnology. The plurality of modern speculation concerning architectural theory is a direct reflection of this progress in cultural anthropology (the idea was to build for a new kind of humanity!). But it was scarcely realized that the use of heterogenous sources from which the modernists have derived their theories and design strategies, would paradoxically lead back to the same phenomenon against which the 'pioneers' had once jointly fought: the pluralism of styles. No doubt, the styles are 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 architectural past, 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 materials, 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 from Rykwert's book show that interesting ideas derived from chance sources cannot suffice for the construction of an architectural theory.

Rykwert himself has recognized the methodological problems of a historical presentation of the idea 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 my search must be a memory of something which cannot but be lost." (:14) Rykwert avails himself of a technique which is quite legitimate for the historian. He contents himself with the idealized part of 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 a mist of ideas, but to accept it and search positively for the object itself. The rewards will not fail to come. 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 of archaeology 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 narrow sense. 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-

tific progress. It has to be sought where Adam is now located: in subhuman primatology. There one will make the surprising discovery that - though slightly modified - the "primordial hut", the "first building" and implicitly also the 'archi-tekton' we sought for, the "first builder" really exists! Not merely as an idea, but visibly and tangibly, factually and scientifically supported!

We are talking about the nest-building behaviour of the higher apes. Today it is supported by about fifty years of field research and about 200 years of observation. In 1929, the nest-building activities of chimpanzees, gorillas, and orang-utans was systematically studied by Yerkes, an outstanding American primatologist. He interpreted this behaviour theoretically in the wider frame of "constructivity" and set it at the beginning of an evolution of building. The methodological reasons why this approach was not developed in cultural anthropology is the theme of another paper. Here with an introduction to the history of research in this field - we want to emphasize the constructive and technological aspects of the nest-building behaviour of the higher apes. From the standpoint of architectural theory, a basic point is thus gained, and the evolution of building can be anthropologically reassessed. THE HIGHER APES AS "PRIMORDIAL BUILDERS OF HUTS": THE HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY OF NEST-BUILDING BEHAVIOUR

It may be of interest to note that early observations of the nest-building behaviour of the 'higher apes' (scientific term: pongidae) were closely related to the idea of primitive building, of huts built in treetops. Observations began about 200 years ago and were in fact a byproduct of colonial history. The first chapters were written by laymen. Colonial officials gave exotically tinged descriptions of their encounters in the tropical rain forests with primordial human beings or apes who lived in huts on trees. They spoke of captured women and the like. Local legends were also woven into their stories. Later, the hunters included zoologists, who mostly came to catch living animals for the zoos back home. The descriptions became more and more precise under the influence of these zoological experts. The terminology changed. Former terms such as 'huts', shelters', 'homes', which were coined by laymen, became 'nests' in analogy e.g., to the stork's nest. While this was primarily meant in a formal sense, zoologically speaking, the pongid nest was gradually included within the broad category of vertebrate nests and theoretically came to be associated with technologically and functionally quite different structures, such as the breeding nests of birds, which are built with the beak, or the burrows of beavers and other rodents.

As mentioned above, Yerkes, in his monumental study, "The Great Apes", published in 1929, dealt, for the first time, scientifically and systematically with the pongid nest. He critically studied and compared the whole history of the observation according to the three species. Summing up, he classified the pongid nest as a product of "constructivity" and emphasized this characteristic as an important criterion within primate evolution. He emphasizes the importance of the development of the primate hand. Further, the higher apes show a fundamental change with regard to nest-building behaviour and sleep. There is not just adaptation to chance conditions found in nature, but a clearly defined and systematic attempt to adapt environmental elements to the animal's own needs. With regard to the temporary character of the pongid nests, Yerkes stresses the fact that only man brings relative permanence of construction into the general development, together with functions of climatic protection which are lacking at the subhuman level of the higher apes. But the developmental trend from the lack of constructive behaviour in lower primates to its definite presence in the

higher apes and to the relatively highly developed constructive behaviour in the case of man is important. For "nesting behaviour illustrates the appearance and phylogenetic development of constructivity, and coincidentally, the transition from complete dependence on self-adjustment to increasing dependence on manipulation or modification of environment as a method of behavioural adaptation." (Yerkes 1929:564). Yerkes' study had a strong influence on subhuman primatology. It suddenly brought about an awareness that the study of caged animals in zoos was not enough, that observations of behaviour had to take place in the natural habitat to be scientifically reliable. Studies in the wild with definite objectives gained considerable importance after Yerkes. These surveys of nest-building behaviour brought with them a wealth of observations which, however, remained unsystematic, mainly because they were made in the wider framework of the daily life of the pongids. In addition, recent pongid behavioural studies have focused increasingly on sociological aspects. Analogous to human sociology, emphasis is laid on social relations between individuals and groups and their corresponding 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 an innate or an acquired ability. The result of such research, namely, the recognition that nest-building is learnt may call for a reconsideration of Yerkes' approach. The one-sided zoological classification of the pongid nest, conditioned by the history of research, implied the complete disregard of its technical aspects. Thus, the hand-crafted nest of higher apes was simply equated with the beakcrafted nest of the birds. For example, Nissen (1931), following Yerkes (1929), carefully and extensively 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 comparison with human artefact behaviour. The inclusion of the pongid nest into the wider category of the vertebrate 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 allows them to use their arms to pull all kinds of surrounding objects or materials to form a circle around their body. But the constructive aspect has to be learnt. Only animals that had contact with others over a longer period of time, were able to coordinate their movements in such a way as to produce a stable nest. Goodall too, (1962) made similar observations in the wild. "The construction of a nest is a species-characteristic pattern of chimpanzees ... ." And: " ... in the wild, there is much opportunity for the chimpanzee to learn the nest-building pattern, initially by watching, and subsequently, by imitation and practice." She then describes some situations where young animals watched or even helped their mother to build a nest, and another where juvenile chimpanzees built nests 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

(1971) observed the behaviour of young chimpanzees aged from ten months to four or five years in relation to playnests. It involves quite a long learning process and shows a clear break when the child 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 traditions assumed 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 an approximate idea of the size of groups. For instance, chimpanzees, according to Nissen (1931), live in groups of four to fourteen individuals (8.5 on average). There are also indications of population density. 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 higher apes are nomads. They wander practically every day. Donisthorpe (1958) mentions the distance of 1-7 miles for mountain gorillas. These migrations are not random. Pongids always wander within a more or less clearly defined territory (Fig. 1, 2). In this context, the studies of Fossey (1974) are remarkable. She divided the home range of mountain gorillas in quadrants and statistically reported the frequency of the animals' visits to such quadrants. They clearly show preferences for certain areas within their home range. Harrisson (1969), too, talks of "habitual rest sites" with regard to orang-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 themselves at a different place every night. Thus, nest-building becomes a matter of routine, and it is characteristic of all three species that they build themselves a new nest at least once a night. NEST-BUILDING OF THE HIGHER APES Bernstein (1969) describes the basic elements of nest-building as relatively stereotypical, even under 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 body several times and repeating the same procedure, an elastic platform is gradually made, a tiny horizontal surface in the precipitous surroundings. Then - generally in a crouching position - the animal 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 materials transported from elsewhere. Twigs sticking out are knocked into the surface by using the back of the hand. The whole procedure takes about one to five minutes. Goodall (1962) speaks of structural elements (foundation' and 'crosspieces', see Fig. 4). Crosspieces are joined in a rough kind of basketry. She describes the manufacture as "quite complicated" (:460) and says: "Some chimpanzees work 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 Nests as a subhuman handicraft

were put together and braided with twigs, often in a quite complicated manner". In Uganda and in Eastern Belgian Congo, Bolwig (1959) studied about 50 nests of mountain gorillas and about 30 nests of chimpanzees with regard to the materials used, their construction, location, and use. He was mainly interested in the question of right- and left-handedness. Among gorillas, he distinguished 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 provides detailed descriptions but also valuable drawings (Fig. 5). Further descriptions of constructional details 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 distinguished four technical aspects and also mentioned how animals transported nesting materials with their mouths 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 to daily 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 and showed 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 in the wild. But, of course, when they use homogeneous artificial materials the animals never attain the 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 constructive behaviour can basically relate to a wide spectrum of materials provided by a particular environment. Harrisson (1969) surveyed nest-building using statistical methods. Over a relatively long period, she studied a few animals constantly. For the first time in a wild habitat, she discovered that the materials used can vary considerably. She reported that stones were used to build nests . Also remarkable is an observation by Galdikas-Brindamour/ Brindamour (1975). In connection with ground nests of the orang-utang in Indonesia, she observed animals piling up pieces of wood 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 of their locations. Oertzen (acc. to Reichenow 1921:74) gave a first rough typology with regard to height. Of 16 gorilla sleeping nests, which he found clustered in a place in Southern Cameroon, he distinguished 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 distinction 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

and the latter to the terrestrial. All three species of pongids move within these two spheres in quite different ways and are physically adapted accordingly. In the arboreal space, the animals moves in a more apelike manner. An upright hanging and swinging position of the body is essential. The prehensile hand and stereoscopic vision (the eyes facing forward for exact estimation of distance are characteristic for subhuman primates) are further important characteristics. On the other hand, terrestrial movements are closer to the human way of locomotion. At the human level, the terrestrial way 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 extremely evolved determinants. Consequently, the change from the arboreal to the terrestrial environment - as seen clearly among the pongidae - is taken as the basis of evolutionary explanations in anthropology. By the formation of large savannas, climatic changes are said to have changed the arboreal conditions of the pongids in such a way as to increasingly favour terrestrial life. Under these circumstances, the distinction of tree 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 and nature of the materials available on the ground. In the treetops the nest is a secure platform which protects the animal from falling down when its visual communication with the environment is blocked by darkness. It also allows the animal's large body to lie horizontally during periods of sleep and rest. Regarded as an artefact, the tree nest is only part of a large and naturally standing unit, the tree. In the terrestrial environment the ground nest becomes an individually constructed tectonic unit erected by the animal. Functionally, it no longer serves to protect the animal from the high risk of falling. It may merely be a kind of cushion, if grasses are heaped on the ground. But if it is made with 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 materials available on the ground, the ground nest also becomes a tectonic object with a great potential for the development of its constructed form. If we think more in terms of the interaction between the animal and this type of nest, it shows characteristics which can be seen in close connection with essential aspects of physical evolution: the erect body posture, bipedal locomotion and the freeing 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 the wild 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, during the day, they usually build their siesta or resting nests on the ground. Nissen (1931) found a relationship 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 70 to 75 kg. The mountain gorilla weighs about 300 kg, the coastal gorilla about 250 kg. Male mountain 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 routinely fabricated ground nests.

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

Typology of form

Tree nests are about 60-80 cm in diameter. Nissen (1931) reports that they are built in those parts of 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 characterized by an outer circular wreath of twigs. In the centre, the nest shows a cavity in which the animal can sleep or rest securely on its side or back. Infants pass the night in their mother's nest. These combined 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 constructions produced in the undergrowth or in bamboo grooves. Grass nests generally are a simple circular 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 such tower-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 building task, the heavy animal climbs up and - like a king on his throne - sits or rests and eventually lies down to sleep in this undoubtedly safe place. Depending on the time of day when the nests are built, they are called 'day' or 'night nests' or, in terms 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 the sun and digest their food. These nests are often also called 'siesta nests'. Use of the nest

Sleeping nests are built at nightfall. Observation is very difficult in this case. Authors report that these nightly nest-building activities were often more heard than seen: sounds of cracking branches and twigs, followed by silence. Albrecht/Dunnet (1971) report that chimpanzees prefer to build their sleeping nests close to their last feeding tree. Goodall (1962) reports the same for chimpanzees. Several authors, e.g. Goodall/Van Lawick (1963), have developed a sensitivity for the poetic atmosphere surrounding this nightly 'going to bed' among the heights of the treetops and for the 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 the mother-child nest. Van Lawick-Goodall (1971) mentions the chimpanzee nest as a sickbed. A lame chimpanzee affected by polio forces himself back and forth between the same three nests. In earlier literature, tree nests are mentioned as deathbeds. With all remaining strength, animals hurt by hunters provided themselves with a nest which prevented them from falling. They then bled to death, and their dead bodies remained 'buried' in the lofty nest. According to Lawick-Goodall it is uncertain, 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

and settled into it. Obviously very angry, she nonetheless had to build herself a new one. The nest has another important function: that of a toy. Nissen (1931) mentions infants playing with something that looked like a small basket, obviously a tiny nest used as a toy. Goodall (1962) says that nest-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 accessories are observed. Van Lawick-Goodall (1971) is opposed to the idea of leaves and other devices having such a function. But Nissen (1931) mentioned day nests with an umbrella-like constructions among chimpanzees. Probably the discussion is prejudiced because it implicitly relates to naive ideas of apes building primitive huts. Maybe the differences in climatic adaptation between observer and observed are not taken into account. Several reports explicitly give the impression that rain in tropical rain forests - probably of the same temperature as the body temperature of the animals does not bother them at all (Fig. 20, 21). Since nests generally last for several months (Harrison 1969), they become a kind of sign in the landscape - 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 French Guinea bush. It is so different from all other objects encountered there, that it is almost impossible not to recognize such a nest, when seen, for what it is." (:40). Most nest are found in groups of trees. One to 13 nests are found in a tree. Nissen (1931) describes a case where, in four trees, he found 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 area more than 200 feet [61m] in diameter." In the average, a surface of about 20km [12.4 miles] would house about 25 animals and about 1500 nests (Nissen 1931:41). Preference for certain locations within the home range of a group are clearly observable. Such clusters of nests on "habitual nest sites" (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 for human observers indicating the presence of pongids (whereby older nests are easily distinguished from 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 be part of a semantic system (own/other group's nests, old/new nests) allowing pongids to orientate in a 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 a semantic system which includes criteria of location and time, how do pongids distinguish their own nests from those of other groups? Are they provided with the ability to remember patterns related to qualities, form, situation in the landscape or spatial relations of nests in the trees or on the ground? Unfortunately, there is not yet sufficient data available to answer such questions. Nests as signs

Due its interest in so called "spacing patterns", primate sociology has provided interesting material on the spatial distribution of pongid nest camps. With the exception of some initial studies, this very 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 and their heights, the types of nests and their cleanliness (s. Fig. 22a). <2> Mackinnon (1974) mapped out 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 of human 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 habitual nesting 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 other groups. Emlen/Schaller (1960) surveyed an area in Central Africa - nearly as large as Switzerland - in which mountain gorillas live in many populations (Fig. 25).The landscape is described as ecologically very differentiated. A typology of vegetation showing foliage cover, undergrowth etc., is given, showing a lively habitat characterized by varying environments (Fig. 26). Different groups live in these environments, which also vary in terms of landscape and climate. The study offers a theory of settlement which sounds very human. According to this, clans expanded from the centre of 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 behavioural evolutions. As regards to the latter, this means they develop customs or traditions which are locally specific. Emlen/Schaller could clearly distinguish mountain settlers from those living in the valleys. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Ecology and habitat in a wider sense

Temporary camps

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' of pongid nest behaviour is due to the zoologists' focus on the instinctive aspect, which is dominant in the building of the vertebrate nest, but only partly accords for the pongid nest. The other element is acquired behaviour, a subhuman tradition. Technologically, and functionally too, the pongid nest has 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 nocturnal security in an arboreal environment blocking locomotion (stereoscopic vision). And it is an artefact made by a hand which closely resembles the human hand. It implies a direct hand-handicraft relation, which unfortunately is not taken into consideration for the simple reason that archaeology is fixed 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-

ucts, such as basketry, etc. But since it deals with flexible, nondurable plant materials, it could not be preserved in prehistory. Its history must be reconstructed systematically or ethno-archaeologically.

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 objects in a terrestrial environment. They can thus be interpreted as prototypes of the built form, of architecture. The individual who builds such objects becomes the 'archi-tekton' in the original Greek sense, the "first builder", in fact a first builder responsible for the site and quality of his dailynightly 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 rather that the value of the pongid nest consists in providing us with a factually supported hypothesis which 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 such an approach would have to be: * 1. to prevent architecture and design from further unsupported speculation by the institution of a new scientific discipline of 'architectural anthropology' based on scientific methods.

* 2. to critically revise definitions of 'human needs' regarding habitat and building. Having become 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 narrow viewpoint of Western history of art, and reaching out to include non-Western built form and culture in 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 observed facts and limited ourselves to an architectural point of view. This revealed that the nest is deeply interwoven 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 an existential totality related to extremely primordial technological means.

There is, however, yet another aspect if we compare this existential totality of the nest with what is considered important to the early human past the 'tool' of the so-called 'toolmaker'. From this perspective 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 forests into open savannas (Olduvai gorge). With regard to our important typology of tree and ground nests, it is highly probable that the 'constructiveness shown served to bridge these environmental changes. The ground nest might have become the prototype of building par excellence. Horizontal accessibility increased enormously with this move from arboreal to terrestrial environment, both with regard to materials and to potential sites. It is highly probable that constructiveness evolved considerably, producing a notable diversity of materials, techniques, and forms. The objects are lost, obviously. But maybe the 'bones' registered in a lasting form those changes in body movement connected with the growth of constructional capacities: erect position of the body, increasing rotary motion 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-

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

FIGURES AND FIGURE CAPTIONS

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

Fig. 1, Fig. 2 Map showing the nomadic migration of a considerably large group of about 50-80 chimpanzees during a period of 20 days (acc. to Nishida 1968) Map showing six different home ranges of chimpanzees and the partially observed nomadic migrations (acc. to Nishida 1968)

Fig. 3 Adult female chimpanzee sets forth to build her nest on top of a large palm tree (acc. to Goodall 1962)

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)

Fig. 7 Chimpanzee 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)

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

Fig. 12, 13 Above: View of a chimpanzee nest used the night before. Below: Section of nest showing intertwined branches which form the supporting base of the nest (Both acc. to Nissen 1931)

Fig. 14 Mother-child relation in its developmental stages as reflected in nest forms (acc. to Kawai/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. 15 High in the air, a chimpanzee is cosily asleep in his nest well-cushioned with leaves (acc. to Van Lawick-Goodall 1971)

Fig. 16, 17, 18 Chimpanzees 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 like a dog: the animals often change their positions during sleep, but generally prefer lying on their sides (acc. to Goodall and Van Lawick-Goodall 1963)

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

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

Fig. 21 Two 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)

Fig. 22a Diagram 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. 22b Reconstruction 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 clearly visible (drawing: N. Egenter)

Fig. 22c My home is my castle: spatial interpretation of the night camp as 'access-place-schema'. The female and child thus occupy the central and highly secured place. Four younger gorillas occupy and 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 thus imposed with the duties of a doorkeeper. This spatial arrangement shows a strong similarity with elementary ground-plans of human dwellings. A very basic form of securing space finds expression. <2> * 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

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

Fig. 24 Distribution of chimpanzee nests in the region surveyed by Izawa/Itani (1966). "Clusters" were found preferably in trees of 18-25 m height on the steep wooded slopes of river valleys * 0..........10 nests * . ..........1 nest

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

Fig. 26 Vegetational 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.

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

Albrecht, H. / Dunnet, S.C. (1971): Chimpanzees in Wesern Africa. Piper, Mnchen Bernstein I. S. (1962): Response to nesting materials of wildborn and captive born chimpanzees. 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), 286-291 Burt, W. H. (1943): Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. In: Jounal of Mammalogy, 24, 346-352 Donisthorpe, J. (1958): A pilot study of the mountain gorilla in South-West Uganda, February-Septermber 1957. In: South African Journal of Science 8, 54, 195-216 Egenter, N. (1980): Bauform als Zeichen und Symbol. Nicht domestikales Buen im japanischen Volkskult - eine bauethnologische Untersuchung, dokumentiert an 100 Drfern Zentraljapans, ETH Zrich Egenter, N. (1982): Nestbuilding of the Pongidae - a Form of Subhuman Constructivity? Paper read at the Symposion "Primatology: Evolutionary Processes" on the 81st annual meeting of the American Anthropologial Association, from 4th to 7thh Dec. 1982, Washington Egenter, N. (1994): Architectural Anthropolog - Semantic and Symbolic Architecture - An architetural-ethnological survey into hundred villages of central Japan. Structura Mundi, Lausanne Emlen, J./ Schaller, G. B. (1960): Distribution and status of the mountain gorilla. In: Zoologica, 45, 1, 41-52 Fossey, D. (1974): Observations on home range of one group of mountain gorillas. In: Animal Behaviour 22, 568-581 Galdikas-Brindamour, B./ Brindamour, R. (1975): Orang Utans. In: National Geographic Magazine, 148, 4, 444-473 Goodall, J. (1962): Nest building behavior in the free ranging chimpanzees. In: Annuals of the New York Academy of Science, 102, 2, 455-467 Goodall J. / VanLawick, H. (1963): My life among wild chimpanzees. In: National Geographic Magazine, 124, 2, 272-308 Hamburg, D. A. (1979): The great apes. Benjamin & Cummlings, Menlo-Park Harrisson, D. A. (1969): The nesting behaviour of semi-wild juvenile orang-utans. In: Sarawak Museum Journal 17, 336-384 Izawa, 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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

gorilla. In: Primates, 2, 1 Lethmate, J. (1977): Nestbauverhalten eines isoliert aufgezogenen jungen Orangutans. In: Primates, 18, 3, 545-554 Mackinnon, 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 Animal Behaviour, 22, 3-74 Nishida T. (1968): The social group of wild chimpanzees in the Mahali moutains. In: Primates, 9, 3, 167-224 Nissen, H. W. (1931): A field study of the chimpanzee. Observations of chimpanzee behavior and environment in Western French Guinea. Comparative Psychology Monographs 8,1 Rykwert, J. (1972): On Adam's House in Paradise, the idea of the primitive hut in architectural history. New York VanLawick-Goodall, J. (1971): Wilde Schimpansen. 10 Jahre Verhaltensforschung am Gombe- Strom. Rowohlt, Hamburg Yerkes, R. M. (1929): The Great Apes. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven

E ARCHITECTS