Possible Traces of Early Modern Human Architectural Heritage: A Comment on Similarities Between Nest-Building Activity of Homo Species and Shelter Forms of Indigenous People in Sub-Saharan Africa

Abstract

The architectural artefacts, materials, and techniques used for constructing shelters may share some common properties derived from the architectural culture that has evolved within the human species. This article examines the material features and settlement organisations employed in the nest-building activities of early human species and the shelter forms of indigenous peoples residing in sub-Saharan Africa. It questions whether early modern human notions of architectural heritage, which lack substantiation, might have influenced nest construction, typological differentiation, material utilisation, and the transmission of practices to subsequent generations and habitats. The focus is on home-based spatial organisation and the construction of structures. We recognise the need to clarify some fundamental misunderstandings regarding the nature of cultural and archaeological taxonomies, as well as the misuse of analogical reasoning when comparing contemporary hunter–gatherer populations with certain hominin groups. The paper aims to explore whether the early ‘Homo architecture’ in Africa bears any resemblance to that of modern Africans. The central inquiry of this study is whether indigenous architectural artefacts, materials, and techniques have been passed down throughout the evolution of architectural culture. The discussion suggests that the architectural products found in the settlement remains of early Homo species may exhibit characteristics similar to the huts of the indigenous people, who live as hunter–gatherers in sub-Saharan Africa. Discussing the architectural activities of different human species proves fruitful, as early architectural understanding and principles can be adapted to contemporary placemaking scenarios, urban design approaches, and housing models. We believe that, with further evidence, this foundational idea has the potential to be developed further.

1. Introduction

This study aimed to find evidence for early nest and shelter building; thus, the investigation centred on the presence of hominin nests and shelters. The central question examined the spatial organisation of home bases (ground sleeping, clearing of spaces, fireplace locations, and the distribution of bones and artefacts) while challenging the unsubstantiated notions of structure building or architecture. The references used in our claims supported the search for evidence of hominin nests or shelters. The study’s hypothesis suggested that if indigeneity were reassessed from the viewpoints of architecture, cultural development, and archaeological inquiries, it would enhance our understanding of the diverse origins of architecture. We explored whether the concept of ‘Homo architecture’ shares similar traits in terms of design, settlement patterns, and building materials with the residential architecture of contemporary indigenous Africans.

The term ‘Homo architecture’ examines the evolution of human habitats and how it has progressed with Homo species, influencing the built environment. ‘Homo architecture’ describes the ways early humans like Homo habilis and Homo erectus interacted with their environments, particularly in constructing their shelters. While the early hominins did not engage in architecture as we understand it today, their activities and innovations laid the groundwork for later architectural developments. The earliest forms of architecture included simple caves, tents, or structures made from wood, bone, and animal skins. The shelters are protected against environmental dangers, predators, and severe weather. Early Homo species used natural landscapes for shelter, such as caves and rock overhangs, crafting rudimentary structures from local materials. This point illustrates the adaptive relationship between early humans and their environments. Homo habilis is considered one of the earliest members of the Homo species, and evidence of their use of tools marks a significant shift from the behaviour of earlier australopithecines. Their architectural activities were quite basic, and they likely used natural shelters rather than constructing elaborate structures [1,2,3].

Homo habilis likely sought refuge in caves or rock overhangs, protecting from elements and predators, though there is no evidence they modified shelters. The introduction of stone tools marks a critical evolution milestone, with later hominins adapting them for construction tasks. Debate surrounds their use of fire, but it is plausible they used it occasionally for warmth or protection, which may have influenced early concepts of livable spaces [4,5]. In contrast, Homo erectus showed more advanced behaviours, particularly in toolmaking and social structures. They were the first to control fire and use tools, impacting shelter practices [3,6]. Early Homo species began to create simple dwellings, with evidence of hearths (fireplaces), suggesting a growing control over circular space and shelter design. While using caves and rock overhangs, they may have deliberately modified their environment, potentially constructing basic shelters from branches, hides, and natural materials. This situation indicates initial purposeful shelter construction, moving beyond natural formations [7,8,9].

Indigenous African residential dwellings are resource-conscious and environmentally friendly. Builders primarily use locally sourced materials, ensuring that the designs adapt well to the climatic conditions and environment. Many traditional African houses feature simple circular plans, with the spatial organisation of home bases (often round) arranged around a central area for a fire. This housing design, characterised by rounded or conical structures, is quickly produced and movable, making it practical for energy efficiency in construction. Round huts and beehive-style structures are distinctive in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa [10]. Theoretically, using an analogy was a critical aspect of the argument. Such arguments, however, required either direct historical or relational evidence. For instance, a direct historical analogy necessitated that the discussion demonstrates cultural continuity between the source and the subject. This point would need proof of homologous relationships in genetic and cultural evolutionary studies such as Shennan’s work [11]. Lane [12] explored tracing living communities directly back into the past, noting that heritable continuity was rarely straightforward. Relational analogies, on the other hand, relied on direct relational links between the source and the subject, investigating both the causes of similarities and differences. According to Pargeter et al. [13], the quality of an analogical debate is revealed by examining whether the nature of the analogy is efficient in the first place. This study aimed to utilise both direct historical and relational analogy, but it is clear that the spatiotemporal leaps were merely unsubstantiated.

2. Material and Findings: How Architectural Activities May Have Evolved Until Homo habilis and Homo erectus and Related Species (Variations)

Current discussions in biological anthropology, evolutionary biology, and palaeoanthropology reveal differing opinions regarding the timing of the separation between humans and their common ancestor with chimpanzees. It is believed that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived around the time of Sahelanthropus tchadensis, roughly 7 million years ago [14,15]. The emergence of the Australopithecus species, one of the sub-tribe Hominina, dates to approximately 4–4.5 million years ago. This species is characterised by bipedalism and a jaw structure resembling that of modern humans. Based on the fossil evidence found, it is known that early human species associated with Homo habilis, along with others like Homo rudolfensis and Homo gautengensis, recognised as the first species of the Homo genus (H. rudolfensis belong to 2.5/1.9–1.85/1.55 million years ago and H. gautengensis belong to 1.78/1.43–1.26/0.82 million years ago) [16,17,18,19]. Subsequently, other species of the Homo genus appeared, including Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo antecessor, Homo floresiensis, and Homo neanderthalensis. Approximately 300,000 years ago, Homo sapiens, acknowledged as anatomically modern humans, emerged. Between 160,000 and 90,000 years ago, Homo sapiens sapiens, the only surviving subspecies of Homo sapiens, appeared. In the evolutionary timeline of the human species, it remains uncertain exactly when anatomically modern humans began to emerge, characterised by features such as bipedalism, increased brain size, and advanced toolmaking abilities. Additionally, the criteria accepted as the beginning of this process of humanisation is a subject of ongoing debate [20,21,22,23,24,25].

First African Homininae

The remains of the species Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Orrorin tugenensis are regarded as the first Homininae. This species showed initial signs of bipedalism, which is considered a key human trait. The first Homininae emerged after the last human–chimpanzee common ancestor and are considered the earliest species in the human evolutionary lineage. This suggests they might have walked upright occasionally, an essential feature in the human lineage [26,27,28]. It is understood that the fossils belonging to the Ardipithecus kadabba and Ardipithecus ramidus species from the hominin tribe are anatomically distinct from chimpanzees regarding bipedalism. Aside from standing on two legs, features such as brain size, jaw structure, and tooth configuration in the hominin tribe do not differ significantly from those of chimpanzees [29,30,31]. African hominids (Homininae) and species within the hominin tribe are generally believed to have led a tree-centred lifestyle similar to chimpanzees. It is reasonable to consider that African hominids (Homininae) and species of the hominin tribe typically inhabited forested environments. All these points support the idea that their anatomical structures were more suited for arboreal living. However, it has also been noted that related subfamily and tribe species also spent time on the ground and preferred arboreal life to protect from potential dangers [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40].

Ardipithecus species

The scarcity of fossils belonging to related species and the complex findings regarding their classification prevent us from making definitive claims about the nesting behaviour of these species. For instance, among the related species, the Ardipithecus species (Ardipithecus kadabba, Ardipithecus ramidus) are suggested to have built nests to enhance nighttime sleep quality, much like chimpanzees. However, unlike chimpanzees, it has been proposed that the height of the nest did not vary with sex [36,37,40,41,42,43,44]. For example, Ardipithecus ramidus displayed both bipedalism and arboreal behaviours, serving as a crucial connection in tracing the evolution from tree-dwelling ancestors to fully upright walking hominins. Furthermore, Ardipithecus species are considered to have been more advanced in infant care than chimpanzees, indicating that nest construction served purposes beyond merely improving sleep quality. In other words, there is a viewpoint that nest construction was also intended for the upbringing of the young [45,46,47,48,49,50].

Australopithecus species

The Australopithecus species (4.5–1.2 million years ago), considered a transitional form between African hominids (Homininae) (7.2–4.4 million years ago) and the human (Homo) species (2.3 million years ago to present), shared some similarities with Homo habilis and its variations (Homo rudolfensis, Homo gautengensis) regarding nesting behaviour. Homo habilis (2.3–1.65 million years ago) exhibited nesting behaviour similar to those of Australopithecus species. One can assert that Australopithecus species exhibited remarkable similarities with Homo habilis and its variations (Homo rudolfensis and Homo gautengensis) in nesting behaviour [51]. Coolidge and Wynn [51] provided no clear evidence for Homo nesting behaviours; they speculated about ground sleeping based on a few skeletal remains. Fossil records indicate that the oldest Australopithecus species appeared approximately 4.5 million years ago and spread across a significant area from east to south Africa. Within the sub-tribe Australopithecina, some species are thought to have contributed to the evolution of the human (Homo) genus. Different species belonging to the genera Paranthropus (2.6–0.6 million years ago) and Kenyanthropus (3.3–3.2 million years ago) evolved along a different path from that of human evolution, including Paranthropus aethiopicus, Paranthropus boisei, Paranthropus robustus, and Kenyanthropus platyops [52,53,54,55]. In Australopithecus, ‘nesting’ likely related to social behaviour or resting spots. Direct evidence of their nesting behaviours, akin to modern primates, is limited. Instead, we can see their habitats and social structures to infer nesting behaviours [56,57].

It is argued that the anatomical, behavioural, and cognitive features of species such as Australopithecus sediba (approximately 1.98 million years ago), which emerged in the later period, closely resemble those of Homo habilis, regarded as the first human species. Australopithecus sediba appears to be more closely related to Homo than to other Australopithecus species [58,59,60,61]. Concerning nesting behaviour, both Australopithecus species and Homo habilis, along with their variations, evolved from nesting in trees to nesting on land. In other words, fossils can be located in these genera and species, and the transformations in human nesting locations can be traced. This transition can be dated back to approximately 1.8–1.5 million years ago, when the Homo species adopted a terrestrial lifestyle and began constructing nests on the ground [51,62,63]. A notable issue is that Coolidge and Wynn [51] speculated about ground sleeping rather than nest-making per se. The study by Koops et al. [42] suggested that ground-nesting among a specific group of chimpanzees might indicate prior ground-nesting behaviours in hominins before Homo erectus. However, they provided little information regarding nest ‘architecture’, apart from mentioning that ‘simple’ chimpanzee nests are often too fragile to support an animal’s weight throughout the night and that elaborate nests are frequently associated with faeces found below or near the nest, providing no evidence of nest-building by hominins. Coolidge et al. [63]’s study was on the cognition surrounding ground-sleeping in hominins, yet found no evidence of any ground-sleeping architecture.

It is known that Australopithecus anamensis, accepted as one of the earliest Australopithecus species, based on fossil records and emerging approximately 4.5 million years ago, preferred sparsely wooded forest areas as its habitat [64]. Additionally, it is assumed that this species, exhibiting bipedalism similar to later humans, climbed trees due to its anatomical features, and lived like chimpanzees among the branches. Its anatomical structure evolved for short-distance travel on land, using trees as living and resting areas. Based on its habitat and anatomical characteristics, Australopithecus anamensis is thought to have nested in trees to sleep and rest, akin to chimpanzees. In this context, nesting behaviours are estimated to have resembled those of chimpanzees [37,40,65,66].

Fossil records indicate that the Australopithecus afarensis species, which emerged around 3.9 million years ago, possessed a more suitable skeletal structure than Australopithecus anamensis. Australopithecus afarensis is understood to have spent more time on the ground, stood on two legs, and favoured sparse forests and savannas as habitats [35,67,68]. Moreover, the nesting behaviour of Australopithecus afarensis shows similarities to that of Australopithecus anamensis and chimpanzees. This species is believed to have spent more time on the ground than Australopithecus anamensis and used nests in trees for sleeping, resting, and feeding. In Australopithecus afarensis, there is anatomical differentiation between male and female individuals. Males of this species are thought to have spent more time on the ground than females, similarly to chimpanzees and gorillas; gender differences also influenced the nesting patterns of chimpanzees and gorillas. Although the foot and leg structure of Australopithecus afarensis evolved for walking long distances, it is generally believed to have spent most of its time in trees [35,69,70,71,72].

Australopithecus africanus, estimated to have emerged approximately 3.3 million years ago and classified as an Australopithecus species, shared a habitat and anatomical structure akin to Australopithecus afarensis. This situation bolsters the view that this species’ nesting behaviour resembled that of chimpanzees. It is thought that Australopithecus africanus was not as well-suited for terrestrial living as Australopithecus afarensis, due to the sparsity of fossil records and its relatively small foot anatomy. Consequently, the notion that this species led a more arboreal lifestyle is prevalent [72,73]. Moreover, it is suggested that the nesting behaviours of Australopithecus bahrelghazali (3.6–3.3 million years ago), Kenyanthropus platyops (3.3–3.2 million years ago), and Australopithecus deyiremeda (3.5–3.3 million years ago) exhibited similarities with those of Australopithecus species, based on their ecological and anatomical characteristics [74,75,76].

Great apes/Hominidae nesting activity: A comparison with australopithecines

The nest-building characteristics of great apes/Hominidae (see Table 1) are crucial to discuss. Architectural activities concerning nesting behaviour and structural products are vital for understanding how habitat, purpose, material use, construction time, and typology have evolved into habitats like nests, shelters, or caves. We can consider the habitat of great apes/Hominidae to encompass both trees and ground surfaces. The objectives of nesting include protection from microorganisms, enhancement of sleep quality, care of offspring, thermoregulation, response to danger, and socialisation for orangutans (Pongo), gorillas (Gorilla), and chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan). For Australopithecina, nesting aims to improve sleep quality and layering, shield against dangers and predators, provide care for the young, store animal remains and tools, protect from microorganisms, regulate temperature, and facilitate socialisation. Information about nest construction was transmitted to subsequent generations through social learning. The form of the nest was influenced by environmental conditions, the availability and properties of materials, population structure, learning opportunities, the number of offspring, temporal activity patterns, frequency of use, and natural selection pressures for orangutans (Pongo), gorillas (Gorilla), and chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan) [77,78,79,80]. The external factors included environmental conditions, material availability and properties, population structure and learning opportunities, and natural selection pressures for Australopithecina. The nest was used temporarily. Behaviour patterns were associated with the design of sleeping places and nest production, which involved bending and breaking various tree branches for orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos. The sleeping platform (shelter or hut) was created by bending, splitting, and combining tree branches or stacking stones for australopithecines. The great apes and hominids differed in structural complexity, material use, and material culture. Orangutans constructed complex framed nests, demonstrating rigorous material selection and visible cultural elements. Gorillas varied their material selection based on availability and diversity; they employed sleeping platforms on the ground, enclosed environments, and trees. For chimpanzees and bonobos, there is a greater reliance on single-wood materials and narrower nests in chimpanzees, while bonobos exhibit a more selective use of different material types. The construction time was approximately 3 to 8 min [34,37,81].

In australopithecines, characteristics such as nest frameworks and materials are poorly understood due to the scarcity of archaeological evidence. However, concerning material culture, it is estimated that tools associated with cutting, mowing, and hunting were utilised in nests for nest construction and breaking up prey. For orangutans, this differentiation is influenced by day and night factors; for gorillas, it is based on rainfall and temperature, the presence of a herd leader, the individual’s sex, age, body size, differentiation across day and night, distance increases, and tree nesting in the absence of the pack leader. In the case of chimpanzees and bonobos, nesting on the ground surface relates to material abundance and diversity, with variations in day and night nests, seasonal differences in nest type, and changes in ground clearance in different habitats concerning sex, age, and predator pressure. Differences in nest typology are based on variations in activity patterns and gender, as well as habitat characteristics, for australopithecines. The learning process of nest construction begins at six months of age and is completed by three years in orangutans; for gorillas, it commences with the onset of walking and, in some cases, matures by six months, generally by two years. For chimpanzees and bonobos, the learning process of nest construction begins at weaning (around eight months) and matures by three years of age [40,82,83] (Table 1).

Table 1. Comparison of nesting behaviour and products in terms of different characteristics in great apes and hominids (for orangutans, see [84,85]; for gorillas, see [86,87]; for chimpanzees and bonobos, see [37,88,89]; for australopithecines, see [37,40,90].

Nest-Building Behaviour in Great Apes/Hominidae
	Orangutans (Pongo)	Gorillas (Gorilla)	Chimpanzees and Bonobos (Pan)	Pre-Palaeolithic (8–2.5 million years ago) australopithecines (Hominina/Australopithecina)
Habitat	Trees	Ground Surface (Use of trees for sleeping)	Trees, rarely the ground	An evolution from trees to nesting on the ground
Purpose	Microorganism protection, better sleep quality, baby care, thermoregulation, danger stimulus, and socialisation.			Enhancing sleep quality, protecting from threats, caring for young, storing resources, preventing microorganisms, regulating temperature, and fostering socialisation.
Transfer to New Generations	Social Learning (Cultural) (A participatory construction activity)			Social Learning (?) (Cultural)
Factors Affecting Nest Form	Environmental Conditions (climate, availability for sleeping conditions), Material Availability and Properties, Population Structure and Learning Possibility, Number of Offspring, Temporal Activity Pattern, Frequency of Use, Natural Selection Pressure (Number of Hunters, etc.)			Environmental Conditions, Material Availability and Properties, Population Structure and Learning Possibility, Natural Selection Pressure (?)
Usage Period	Temporary Use (Daily or for a few days)			Temporary Use
Behaviour Patterns	Sleeping platform and nest production based on combining branches and branch segments by bending, breaking and joining together branches of different trees.			A sleeping platform or hut is created by bending, breaking, joining branches, or stacking stones (?).
Structure Complexity, Material Use, and Material Culture	Complex framed nest, rigour and differentiation in material selection, more material cultural elements (sleeping platform, pillow, sleeping cover, roof)	Differentiation in material selection for sleeping platforms on the ground and in trees.	Chimpanzees use more single-wood and narrower nests in woodland savannas, while bonobos are more selective with materials and have wider nests in dense woodlands.	Due to limited archaeological findings, specific features like framework and material remain unclear. However, material culture suggests that tools for cutting, mowing, and hunting were utilised in nests for building and processing prey.
Building Time and Frequency	Approx. 8 min (Daily Construction)	Approx. 5 min (Daily Construction)	Approx. 3 min (Daily Construction)	(?)
Typological Differentiation	Differentiation by day and night factors: day nests are sloppier, nocturnal nests feature complex materials, reuse of day nests, and more material culture elements.	Rainfall, temperature, herd leader presence, sex, age, body size, day/night differentiation (females and juveniles mostly in trees; males on the ground with material abundance, considering body size) and increased distance to tree nesting without the pack leader.	Nest on the ground surface related to material abundance and diversity, differentiation in the day and night nests, seasonal variation in nest type, variation in nest ground clearance in different habitats (especially rainy and dry climatic conditions) and concerning sex, age, and predator pressure.	Differentiation with activity pattern (sleeping, hunting, etc.), gender, and habitat characteristics (forest, savanna, etc.) (?)
Learning Process of Nest Construction	It starts at six months and ends at three years.	It starts with walking, maturing by six months to two years.	It starts at weaning, around eight months, and reaches maturity to nest at three years.	(?)

Table 1. Comparison of nesting behaviour and products in terms of different characteristics in great apes and hominids (for orangutans, see [84,85]; for gorillas, see [86,87]; for chimpanzees and bonobos, see [37,88,89]; for australopithecines, see [37,40,90].

Nest-Building Behaviour in Great Apes/Hominidae
	Orangutans (Pongo)	Gorillas (Gorilla)	Chimpanzees and Bonobos (Pan)	Pre-Palaeolithic (8–2.5 million years ago) australopithecines (Hominina/Australopithecina)
Habitat	Trees	Ground Surface (Use of trees for sleeping)	Trees, rarely the ground	An evolution from trees to nesting on the ground
Purpose	Microorganism protection, better sleep quality, baby care, thermoregulation, danger stimulus, and socialisation.			Enhancing sleep quality, protecting from threats, caring for young, storing resources, preventing microorganisms, regulating temperature, and fostering socialisation.
Transfer to New Generations	Social Learning (Cultural) (A participatory construction activity)			Social Learning (?) (Cultural)
Factors Affecting Nest Form	Environmental Conditions (climate, availability for sleeping conditions), Material Availability and Properties, Population Structure and Learning Possibility, Number of Offspring, Temporal Activity Pattern, Frequency of Use, Natural Selection Pressure (Number of Hunters, etc.)			Environmental Conditions, Material Availability and Properties, Population Structure and Learning Possibility, Natural Selection Pressure (?)
Usage Period	Temporary Use (Daily or for a few days)			Temporary Use
Behaviour Patterns	Sleeping platform and nest production based on combining branches and branch segments by bending, breaking and joining together branches of different trees.			A sleeping platform or hut is created by bending, breaking, joining branches, or stacking stones (?).
Structure Complexity, Material Use, and Material Culture	Complex framed nest, rigour and differentiation in material selection, more material cultural elements (sleeping platform, pillow, sleeping cover, roof)	Differentiation in material selection for sleeping platforms on the ground and in trees.	Chimpanzees use more single-wood and narrower nests in woodland savannas, while bonobos are more selective with materials and have wider nests in dense woodlands.	Due to limited archaeological findings, specific features like framework and material remain unclear. However, material culture suggests that tools for cutting, mowing, and hunting were utilised in nests for building and processing prey.
Building Time and Frequency	Approx. 8 min (Daily Construction)	Approx. 5 min (Daily Construction)	Approx. 3 min (Daily Construction)	(?)
Typological Differentiation	Differentiation by day and night factors: day nests are sloppier, nocturnal nests feature complex materials, reuse of day nests, and more material culture elements.	Rainfall, temperature, herd leader presence, sex, age, body size, day/night differentiation (females and juveniles mostly in trees; males on the ground with material abundance, considering body size) and increased distance to tree nesting without the pack leader.	Nest on the ground surface related to material abundance and diversity, differentiation in the day and night nests, seasonal variation in nest type, variation in nest ground clearance in different habitats (especially rainy and dry climatic conditions) and concerning sex, age, and predator pressure.	Differentiation with activity pattern (sleeping, hunting, etc.), gender, and habitat characteristics (forest, savanna, etc.) (?)
Learning Process of Nest Construction	It starts at six months and ends at three years.	It starts with walking, maturing by six months to two years.	It starts at weaning, around eight months, and reaches maturity to nest at three years.	(?)

Homo habilis and Homo erectus species

Recent research indicates that newer Australopithecus species, such as Australopithecus garhi, which dates to approximately 2.6–2.5 million years ago, and Australopithecus sediba, dated to around 1.98 million years ago, spent more time on the earth’s surface compared to earlier Australopithecus species. The fossil record suggests that these species exhibited behavioural and cognitive traits akin to those of the first Homo species. Additionally, it is understood that these species possessed a skeletal structure conducive to ground movement while still retaining joint structures that facilitated tree climbing. Consequently, examination of the fossil remains has revealed that they display anatomical features suitable for a relatively terrestrial, and partially arboreal, lifestyle [29,69,91,92,93,94]. The discovery of tool-like artefacts in areas with fossil records of these species is critical evidence of their time spent on the ground. Nevertheless, these species are believed to have nested in trees, much like other Australopithecus species. Furthermore, it is recognised that Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, which share notable similarities with late-period Australopithecus species and are regarded as the first members of the Homo genus, spent more time on the earth’s surface than their late Australopithecus counterparts. It is understood that these species favoured sleeping on the ground instead of in trees, influenced by their anatomical features and the ecological traits of their habitats [40,66,95].

Remains of stone tool technology were discovered during excavations in the Douglas Korongo (DK) area (Ngorongoro Region, Arusha, Tanzania), situated east of the junction between the third and fourth faults in Olduvai Gorge, Bed I, one of the locations where Homo habilis fossils were first identified. Homo habilis, probably the earliest human species, lived in Olduvai Gorge. The Olduvai Gorge site is crucial in demonstrating the increasing developmental and social complexities among early Hominina. Archaeological remains dating back 1.8 million years, characterised by the regular arrangement of circularly designed stones, were also uncovered. The orderly arrangement of these stones has led some to interpret these remains as indicative of a settlement [4,7,96,97]. The question of whether the remains correspond to the Homo erectus or Homo habilis species and their variations is contentious. It has been argued that the interpretation of the circle as a deliberately constructed shelter has been scrutinised by Potts [98] and Stanistreet et al. [99]. Instead of representing an actual, built structure, it may signify an area that developed either naturally or predominantly under a shade tree.

Homo erectus and its variations were the first human species to have fully adapted to life on the ground, losing their anatomical characteristics of living in trees and embarking on great journeys that took them away from the African continent. Homo erectus and its related species, such as Homo ergaster and Homo antecessor, are believed to have developed nesting behaviour on land and constructed simple huts. Additionally, it is thought that they may have used natural and sheltered areas as habitats, similarly to Homo habilis. Archaeological findings suggest that there may have been a designated area for a hearth in the huts they constructed, evidenced by the discovery of fire associated with Homo erectus [100,101,102,103,104]. The fact that Homo erectus and its variations travelled long distances out of Africa and roamed across different continents indicates that they built temporary and quickly assembled huts, leading a nomadic lifestyle [105,106,107,108].

According to paleoanthropologists such as Ian Tattersall, the Homo ergaster species is regarded as a variation of Homo erectus, which inhabited Africa [109]. It is viewed as a subspecies of Homo erectus by primatologist Colin Groves and paleoanthropologist such as Vratislav Mazák [110]. There are no remains of structures or nests concerning the settlements of Homo ergaster, which emerged approximately 1.7 million years ago. It is believed that Homo ergaster constructed huts resembling small round beehives, as it represents a transitional form between Homo erectus and Homo habilis. However, no explicit references are given regarding how exactly Homo ergaster built these small beehive huts [5,111]. What evidence supports the assumption that Homo ergaster constructed beehive huts? It is understood that there was a significant leap between a few roughly arranged stones at Olduvai and the construction of an enclosed beehive structure—some evidence would have been necessary to make such a leap [112].

In contrast to Homo erectus, Homo ergaster were not out of the African continent and did not effectively utilise spatial memory and the ability to encode space for exploring new areas. This situation aligns the nesting behaviour and cognitive capacity of Homo ergaster more closely with that of Homo habilis [113,114,115,116]. Furthermore, it can be defined that a distinction between internal and external aspects is made in the nests built by Homo habilis or Homo ergaster. Archaeological studies suggest that a conceptual basis for this distinction has begun to emerge. We can state that the interior of the settlement area was maintained in a planned manner in regions where settlement remains are found. Additionally, it was observed that materials were more systematically arranged in the inner areas, and waste was discarded. This is quite understandable, but clearing a space of debris and beginning to utilise the area more does not necessarily imply the construction of beehive huts during the Earlier Stone Age in Africa. This situation may indicate that space was conceptualised as internal and external among Homo erectus. Simultaneously, it can be considered an indication that hygiene and privacy were gradually linked to shelter, alongside increasing protection and sleep quality [117,118,119,120]. Moreover, initiating fire use within the shelter is a crucial indicator that the housing concept has progressively begun to be utilised [121].

We may say that the spatial organisation and structural development of home bases in terms of architecture are linked to technology use, subsistence patterns, and the spatial organisation of great apes/Hominidae. Phylogenetic studies have examined the evolution of nesting and tree cavity use as living spaces within the order of primates or large-brained higher mammals. These studies have constructed phylogenetic trees that illustrate the evolution of primates exhibiting only nesting behaviour, those showing only tree cavity use behaviour, and those with both nesting behaviour and tree cavity use [122].

Table 2. Technologies, subsistence patterns, and spatial uses of great apes/Hominidae.

Period	Great Apes/Hominidae	Technology/Subsistence Pattern (+Behavioural Diversity)	Spatial Usage and Organisation (+Activities)
Pre-Palaeolithic	Sahelanthropus Orrorin Ardipithecus Australopithecus Paranthropus	unshaped tool use local food search secondary access to animal carcasses sharing of food at the point of food acquisition	dependence on arboreal shelter local behavioural diversity limited open space use short-distance migrations
Palaeolithic	Homo habilis Homo rudolfensis Homo ergaster Homo erectus	hand-held stone tools, and the use of fire for exploitation (?) long-distance food seeking primary access to animal carcasses sharing of food at the point of food consumption	Transport of raw materials over short distances to central or preferred locations increased use of open spaces longer distance (intercontinental) migration and colonisation

indicates that in the pre-Palaeolithic period, the use of unshaped tools, local food gathering, secondary access to animal carcasses, and food sharing at the point of food acquisition was notable in terms of technology, subsistence patterns, and behavioural diversity. Regarding spatial use and activities, there was a reliance on arboreal shelters, local behavioural diversity, limited use of open spaces, and short-distance migrations [123,124]. During the Palaeolithic period, discussions surrounding technology use and subsistence patterns focused on hand-held stone tools, the use of fire for exploitation, long-distance food seeking, primary access to animal carcasses, and food sharing during consumption. Regarding spatial use and activities, the transportation of raw materials over short distances to central or preferred locations increased, along with open spaces and longer-distance migration and colonisation [107,125,126] (Table 2). The diagram illustrates how the architectural concepts of early modern human species could be enacted across technological affordances and ways of living, transferring knowledge to new generations alongside spatial use and activity patterns.

3. Discussion: Architectural Artefacts, Materials, and Settlement Forms of Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Present-Day Indigenous Peoples in Sub-Saharan Africa

The origin of architecture

The question of whether the ‘Homo Architecture’ of early Africa resembles the residential architecture of modern Africans—encompassing dwelling patterns, settlement designs, spatial usage, and home base organisation—is the central focus of this inquiry. Although early humans lacked modern building ways, they used natural materials to create protective, simple structures, such as huts or windbreaks crafted from branches, leaves, and animal hides. Furthermore, the ‘Homo Architecture’ concept also includes the technologies they developed to alter their habitats for survival. The idea reveals similar features to current indigenous dwellings’ layout and spatial organisation.

The emergence of the early human species to create tools marks a crucial turning point in the evolution of human architecture, transitioning from indigenous tools to modern technology. Philosopher Henri Bergson proposes the term ‘Homo faber’ instead of Homo sapiens to refer to beings who demonstrate intelligence by transforming raw materials into artificial objects, recognising their utility as tools [127]. Throughout evolution, tools evolved to be smaller and more intricate. Initially, they were used with the whole hand, then with fingers, and ultimately with fingertips. The ability to adapt and remain flexible in nest-building suggests that the skills required for construction rely on complex cognitive processes that deserve serious consideration [128,129]. The dwelling and sheltering can be seen as the main activity of architecture [130].

The notion of ‘origin of architecture’ in architecture has been explored by various architectural perspectives [131,132], leading to discussions that prompt us to consider whether there exists a concept of ‘indigenous’ within architecture that has paleoanthropological origins and archaeological references. The origin of architecture pertains to primitive types of architecture, which are characterised by basic, functional designs aimed at offering shelter from indigenous elements. The materials utilised in the dwellings were found in the natural environment. The circular or rounded structure is often chosen for its structural integrity and efficient use of space [133,134,135].

Roman architect and engineer Vitruvius traced the origin of architecture to the hut and shelter-type structures that pre-modern humans created by imitating animal shelters. He assessed the development of architecture as a process that progresses simultaneously with the evolution of civilisation [136,137]. Influenced by Lucretius (99-55 BC), he did not limit his discussions of origins solely to architecture. In his renowned work ‘De Architectura libri decem’ (probably written 20-15 BC) [138], he compiled mythical narratives about various origins, asserting that nature, myths, creation stories, and the crafts of societies shape architectural culture. Vitruvius elucidated the link between the onset of civilisation and architecture with the discovery of fire [137,139]. The notion that human settlements and communication began with the advent of fire is crucial. He argued that this communication environment spurred toolmaking and the construction of shelters by mimicking animals, ultimately leading to various shelter settlements [137,140,141].

Vitruvius, who stated that the origins of shelter construction began with the aim of protection from seasonal changes, claimed that a group of human-built gazebo-like structures made from tree branches protected against seasonal effects. He noted that another group created caves by digging into the mountains; some emulated the nesting behaviour of swallows, while others constructed nests by intertwining and weaving various thin branches and covering them with clay or mud. Vitruvius believed that human communities that communicate benefit from each other’s ideas in constructing better shelters. According to Vitruvius, the act of building shelters and the construction practices at the dawn of civilisation do not warrant being categorised under the notion of sophisticated architecture. The emergence of architecture developed through the gradual evolution of shelter construction and the growing demand for comfort resulting from societal advancement [142,143].

Following the path of Vitruvius, Marc-Antoine Laugier (1713–1769), who discussed the origin of architecture in his work ‘Essai sur l’architecture’, published in French in 1753, sought to discover the fundamental principles of architecture [144,145]. He examined the indigenous concept through the model of the small rural house (La Petite Cabane Rustique) consisting of four columns, four beams and a roof [146]. In his work, Laugier discusses the overarching principles of architecture based on design, technique, and decoration. Laugier asserted that contemporary architectural products imitate the designed rural house/cabin model, and that architectural structures are adequate to the extent that they resemble this model. The concept of the ‘primitive hut’ was first discussed by the architectural theorist Laugier; this idea was linked to the earliest products of modern humanity and basic design principles. The ‘primitive hut’ metaphor articulated by Laugier explores the indigenous house concept in design; unlike Vitruvius, he does not consider the ‘primitive hut’ solely in a physical context but contemplates the intangible qualities of indigenous shelter [144,147].

Gottfried Semper (1803–1879) posits that architecture’s origins lie in the treatment of building materials, the arrangement of settlements, and the design of dwellings. He identifies four fundamental elements of architecture: the hearth, the roof, the enclosure, and the mound. His theory examines the common assemblies and systems found in all indigenous architectural practices [148]. Architectural historian Joseph Rykwert (1926–2024), in his work titled ‘On Adam’s House in Paradise’, explores the historical journey of modern humanity and speculatively investigates the origins of the primordial housing form. Rykwert examined the indigenous design principles and original architectural concepts in hut architecture [149,150]. According to ethnologist and architectural anthropologist Nold Egenter (1938–…), the ‘primitive hut’ idea is essential for examining the origins of the contemporary human housing unit, namely, the primitive hut. Egenter’s term ‘primitive hut’, which facilitates theoretical inquiry into the primordial idea in architecture, represents a crucial starting point for the indigenous design principles of housing units in architecture [151,152].

The primordial elements in architecture emphasised the most visible shelter aspects related to indigeneity (authenticity, originality, fundamentals) and indigenous architecture. We understand the dwelling plan’s circularity, the building materials’ flexibility and availability, the incorporation of locally sourced materials in design, and the fireplace’s location in the home base organisation as essential elements of architecture.

Homo architecture today

The Khoisan are considered the earliest inhabitants of southern Africa. This group is divided into two main branches: the Khoe and the San. The San peoples, often referred to as Saan or Bushmen, encompass various indigenous hunter–gatherer cultures in southern Africa. Among them, the ǃKung predominantly inhabit the western edge of the Kalahari Desert. Historically, this group relied on traditional hunting and gathering methods for their livelihood until the last decades. The Himba, also known as OvaHimba, are a hunter–gatherer group with about 50,000 individuals, mainly residing in northern Namibia. The Twa people, another hunter–gatherer community, are spread across the Democratic Republic of Congo, including the Great Lakes Twa, who live in the dense forests near the Ruwenzori mountains. The Baka community focuses on hunting and gathering and resides in the southeastern rainforests of Cameroon (Figure 1). Langdon [153] mentions that modern hunter–gatherers may behave like early hominins in terms of ‘patterns of living’. The discussion here is based on the idea that although there is little clear evidence concerning domed huts or beehive huts closely resembling the shelters built by archeologically and/or ethnohistorically documented African populations, the settlement organisation and beehive-shaped or circular planned huts of these people may share similarities with the shelters constructed by early Homo species.

The earliest archaeological evidence of shelter may date back nearly 1.8 million years, when variations of Homo erectus and Homo habilis coexisted in similar geographical areas [154]. We say that if such structures had been regularly built for 1.8 million years as a part of generational skill transfer, we would expect to encounter them more frequently across the sub-Saharan African landscape. This landscape is littered with Early and Middle Stone Age artefacts. However, no other hominin architecture exists until the Later Stone Age/Holocene stone circles, stonewalling, and desert kites. The absence of evidence for hominin architecture during most of the African Stone Age necessitates critical thinking and extensive discussion before any analogy with African architecture can be established. However, there are meticulously constructed circular planned huts created by hunter–gatherers of Africa, and the Olduvai circle resembles the dwellings in southern Africa.

The Homo species that ceased nesting in trees and began to nest or settle on the ground during the process of human evolution include Homo habilis and its variations, Homo rudolfensis and Homo gautengensis. These human species are believed to have created nests for protection or rest while spending time on the earth’s surface. The fossil record indicates that the species Homo rudolfensis and Homo gautengensis preferred sheltered natural areas such as caves or elevated rocks. It is also thought that Homo habilis and its variants could manufacture tools and lead a terrestrial lifestyle. It is suggested that these species constructed simple huts known as ‘beehive type’ by combining surrounding branches, stones, and mud [51,120,153,155,156,157,158,159,160,161]. It is noteworthy that Leakey et al. [96] describe a rough circle of loosely piled stones on the living floor, and Leakey [157] proposes that the Olduvai stone circle is believed to be the remains of a windbreak. The studies on Oldowan sites at Olduvai uncovered expansive horizontal surfaces by recording relationships between tools and bones. The findings highlighted intentional circular arrangements of ancient land surfaces. They mentioned that the fossilised bones and artefacts created irregular circles, indicating specific activity and living areas [153,155,156]. One could argue that Homo habilis and its variations built simple domed huts or semicircular windbreaks reminiscent of those seen in African tribes.

The San peoples (Saan/Basarwa) are indigenous hunter–gatherer cultures, the earliest cultures of South Africa, whose lands include parts of Botswana, Namibia, Angola, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, and South Africa. Also nomadic, the San do not engage in agriculture or animal husbandry, as they subsist on game animals and plants. Today, San peoples living in Sub-Saharan Africa lead relatively isolated lives and have adopted architectural practices resembling early human settlement culture [162]. Their shelter-building materials are lightweight and temporary, suitable for transport by various pack animals [163]. The structures have a dome-like appearance, with a radius approximately equal to their height. The construction takes a dome-like form rather than simply placing a dome-like roof over a framework. More herbal ingredients are utilised, with materials such as grass, reed, and straw processed as filling material [164]. The ‘skerm’ is a notable example of the beehive housing units used by the Bushmen of the San people. Skerm, the beehive-type hut with a round plan (Figure 2), is designed with light, locally found, and plant-based building materials such as large leaves, reeds, pale grass, and tree branches. The loosely connected building materials are combined to shape the beehive-type building’s structure. The hut design and building technique conveys the indigenous architectural elements of Africa [10,163,165,166,167,168].

The ‘mongulu’ (leaf house) belongs to the Baka people, the indigenous people of the rainforests in southeastern Cameroon. The mongulu is directly built on the ground (Figure 2) and suitable for a nomadic life, as it has a rounded light body made by bending and joining tree sticks, branches, grass, and large tree leaves [164,169,170,171]. The beehive-shaped simple huts of the !Kung tribe are made of easily producible and locally found building materials. The roundly formed hut’s body is wrapped by knotting plant-based materials. In Okombambi/Okombambe, in Northwest Namibia, the residents are primarily from the Himba tribe, who have built circular planned dwellings. The tribe’s hut is structured with a simple round plan whose radius is approximately equal to its height. Architectural similarities may exist between the spatial organisation, layout, and form of the Twa (Batwa) people’s circularly planned and oval-shaped huts and the dwellings of the !Kung and Himba tribes.

Figure 2. The above figure illustrates the elevation, section, and plan of the ‘skerm’ of the San people or Bushmen living in South Africa, adapted from [163], and the elevation, section, and plan of the ‘mongulu’ of the Baka people in southeastern Cameroon, adapted from [170].

Figure 2. The above figure illustrates the elevation, section, and plan of the ‘skerm’ of the San people or Bushmen living in South Africa, adapted from [163], and the elevation, section, and plan of the ‘mongulu’ of the Baka people in southeastern Cameroon, adapted from [170].

According to the fossil record, Homo erectus, which originated in Africa, somehow reached all other continents except for America and Antarctica. Consequently, many fossils and archaeological remains associated with Homo erectus settlements have been discovered. Archaeological evidence of well-preserved shelters of Homo erectus includes remains of the Acheulean culture, dated to between 500,000 and 400,000 years ago [104,172]. It is known that they constructed circular huts by combining various branches, stones, and mud, similarly to the nesting habits of Homo habilis. These huts bear stylistic similarities to the shelter forms of the San peoples currently residing in sub-Saharan Africa [173,174,175]. The population inhabiting Homo erectus settlements increased after their earthly lifestyle evolved, leading to the emergence of settlement patterns comprising huts. The remains of a Homo erectus hut found on a hillside near Chichibu prefecture, Japan, are believed to date back to 500,000 years ago. Furthermore, settlement remains dated to 400,000 years ago discovered in the Mediterranean Basin and France, as well as the models derived from these remains, provide crucial insights into the architectural activities of Homo erectus [100,103,104,176,177].

Archaeological studies have shown that Homo erectus used fire in a controlled manner. It has been established that Homo erectus produced various small hearths by cooking the soil around 200,000 to 150,000 years ago [178,179,180,181]. The Terra Amata archaeological site, located near Nice, France, where Homo erectus fossils have been found, is significant. At Terra Amata, researchers found temporary shelters built by Homo erectus from branches and animal bones, arranged in circular or oval shapes. These likely open-sided shelters had wooden frameworks but lacked roofs from materials like leaves, providing minimal protection against wind and rain. A key finding is the evidence of fire use, with hearth remnants in the shelters, indicating that Homo erectus used fire for warmth, cooking, and defence against predators. In the remains of Homo erectus shelters dated to about 400,000 years ago, it was observed that the foundations were made of flattened stones. It is understood that the foundations were established in the area after some soil excavation. The perimeter walls were built by placing poles on the foundations in such a way as to encircle them. Additionally, it was noted that filling materials such as tree branches were inserted between the central pillars. The remains of the hearth, which formed a hollow area covered with pebbles, were discovered related to the shelter. This aspect is one of the indicators that Homo erectus had an architectural design approach similar to that of today’s hunter–gatherers [100,102,173,174]. However, it must be noted that there are some theories regarding that the Terra Amata site in Nice did not yield Homo erectus fossils due to the nature of these structures.

At the Bilzingsleben archaeological site in East Germany, three shelter units, believed to belong to Homo erectus and dated to approximately around 400,000 to 250,000 years ago, were discovered, each featuring a central pillar made of mammoth ivory [182,183]. Homo erectus is the main hominin species at Bilzingsleben, with fossil remains indicating its presence in the area. Homo erectus likely built shelters from their environment, similar to those at Terra Amata in France. These settlement remains are thought to display characteristics similar to those of the San tribes living in the Kalahari Desert in Africa and the huts of the Twa (Batwa) people scattered throughout the equatorial region of Africa [184,185]. It has been noted that the remains of huts uncovered in the Terra Amata and Bilzingsleben archaeological excavations are generally oriented towards the southeast to shield them from the northwestern winds. This aspect is crucial, as the huts were used for a settled lifestyle rather than a nomadic one. The presence of ash in the area facing the entrances of the huts in the Bilzingsleben region suggests that the Homo erectus inhabitants here also used fire for cooking rather than heating. The hearth belongs to members of the same species in the Terra Amata region and is centrally located. At the archaeological site of Bilzingsleben, an area encircled by bones, ivory, and smooth-surfaced stones making up a circle with an 8.2 m diameter was uncovered. This situation leads us to believe that Homo erectus individuals who lived in Bilzingsleben organised this area for social and cultural activities [182,183,186,187]. As a result of archaeological excavations, it was revealed that the shelters in Terra Amata were nearly 8–15 m long and 4–6 m wide. In this context, fire may have played a central role in the socio-cultural activities of the same species here [182,183,186,188]. We may say that Homo erectus is described as utilising shelters across vast geographic spaces and periods, and we do not intend to attribute evidence of other species to Homo erectus. We acknowledge the theories suggesting that the remains from Bilzingsleben were initially classified as attributed to a subspecies of Homo erectus; this may now be attributed to early Neanderthals, or at least Homo heidelbergensis [189].

It seems there are some apparent similarities in terms of planned organisation between the shelter remains of early Homo species and the shelters constructed by local tribes living as hunter–gatherers in sub-Saharan Africa today. One could argue that the materials and techniques employed in the nests and dens of Homo habilis and Homo erectus exhibit architectural continuities with those of the San tribes today. Regarding nest-building behaviours or settlement organisation, the ‘skerm’ of the !Kung tribe among the San and the circular huts belonging to the Okombambi/Okombambe tribe in northwest Namibia may display notable similarities with the circularly arranged lava blocks associated with Homo habilis found in the Douglas Korongo (DK) area of Olduvai Gorge Bed I [190]. The remains of the shelters believed to belong to Homo erectus at the archaeological site of Ogasaka, near Chichibu in Saitama prefecture, Japan, and the region Terra Amata, eastern Nice, France, might reveal some similarities in terms of planning details. The Ogasaka site has been dated to around 500,000 to 300,000 years ago and is associated with Homo erectus in Japan. Although fossils are rare at the site, tools and their context strongly suggest that Homo erectus or a related hominin made them. The remains of the shelters thought to belong to Homo erectus, discovered in Terra Amata, near Nice, France, dated to 400,000 years ago, warrant attention. The rounded arrangement of the fire pit is made from flat pebbles to shield the fire from the northwest wind, and the area where tools were produced within the hut [191,192,193] merits further discussion. The location associated with Homo erectus at the Bilzingsleben archaeological site in the Sömmerda region of Thuringia, East Germany, offers insights into this species’ settlement patterns. The areas are configured in a circular pattern, and the circular sit stones may have been designed for living spaces and activity zones [183]. The settlements of the hunter–gatherer tribes residing in Africa, along with the home base spatial organisation and ceremonial courtyards surrounding the settlements [163], may exhibit similarities in their layout to the aforementioned living spaces of the early Homo species. Stone tools, animal bones, and shelter remains provide insights into Homo species’ living structures, enhancing our understanding of human evolution and dwelling. The similarities may say that the primordial concept in design represents a crucial starting point for indigenous design principles related to the spatial organisation of home bases.

We illustrate various characteristics of the architecture (idea, location, activity, and product) of Homo species alongside an ethnoarchaeological comparison (

Table 3. The characteristics of the architecture of Homo species alongside an ethnoarchaeological comparison.

Pre-Palaeolithic
cultural phases	Osteodontokeratic (Bone-tooth-horn) culture (?) (3.67–2.1 MYA)	Lomekwian Culture (3.3–2.6 MYA)	Oldowan Culture (2.6–1.7 MYA)
species	Sahelanthropus, Graecopithecus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, (Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus bahrelghazali, Australopithecus deyiremeda, Australopithecus garhi)
architectural activity and product	Nesting in trees and on the ground, mainly in the form of sleeping platforms with closed/sheltered or open nests (?) (basically arboreal life)
indigenous sample areas	Taurus–Menalla Region of the Djurab Desert (Chad), Azmaka (Bulgaria), Athens (Greece), Tugen Hills (Kenya), Afar Region (Ethiopia), Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania), Cradle of Humankind (South Africa), Shungura Formation (Ethiopia), Lomekvi and Lake Turkana Basin (Kenya), Bahr El Gazel (Chad), Hadar (Ethiopia), Laetoli (Tanzania)
biological comparison (architectural)	Orangutan (Pongo) nests, Gorilla (Gorilla) nests, Chimpanzee and Bonobo (Pan) nests and nesting activities
Palaeolithic
cultural phases	Oldowan Culture (2.6–1.7 MYA)	Advanced Oldowan Culture (Karari Industry) (1.5–1.25 MYA)	Acheulean Culture (1.76–0.13 MYA) (Abbevillian/Chellean Culture (0.6–0.4 MYA), Clactonian Culture (0.424–0.4) (Tayacian industry), Mugharan Culture (0.4–0.22 MYA))
species	Australopithecus sediba, Paranthropus, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo antecessor
architectural activity and product	Homo habilis and related species: beehive huts and windbreaks made with branches, stones, and mud. Homo erectus and related species: round and beehive-shaped huts using branches, flattened stones, and mud foundations. They exhibited spatial memory, defined indoor/outdoor spaces, hygiene practices, interior arrangement, and a shift from nests to houses. Increased population led to settlement patterns, temporary camps, social areas, hearth usage, terracotta ovens, and natural materials for paint.
indigenous sample areas	Generally (most of Africa, the Mediterranean Basin of Asia and Europe, the Arabian Peninsula, southern regions such as India, China and Indochina, and northern Oceania) Specifically (Cradle of Humankind (South Africa), Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania), Afar Region (Ethiopia), Lake Turkana Basin (Kenya), Terra Amata (France), Bilzingsleben (Germany))
possible ethnoarchaeological comparison (in terms of architecture)	Rounded-shaped or beehive-type huts such as skerm and baka mongulu belonging to semi-nomadic hunter–gatherer tribes living in more rural and forested areas such as the Kalahari Desert and Ituri Rainforests of Africa (San Tribes, Twa and Baka people, some Zulu, Sotho and Xhosa tribes, Bantu tribes such as Thembu, Namaqua, Pondo, Okombambi/Okombambe, etc.)

). This table focuses on cultural periodisation, species, architectural actions and products, indigenous sample areas, and biological comparisons related to nesting and nesting activities for the pre-Palaeolithic and Palaeolithic periods [37,72,194,195,196,197]. The table was crafted to support the study’s central argument, which asserts that indigenous architectural materials, artefacts, building techniques, and concepts may have been inherited throughout the phases of architectural culture. We stated that early nest-building or sheltering idea was important, while seeking evidence of hominin nests and shelter constructions. We recognised that the analogy produced in the table was flawed due to the unsubstantiated spatiotemporal leaps; it endeavours to highlight some commonalities in spatial organisation and building practices within architecture, particularly in nest-building forms—such as sheltering, nesting behaviour, and activity—and dwelling patterns, including spatial organisation, among modern human species. We emphasise that there may be notable similarities in plan organisation between the shelter remains of Homo habilis and Homo erectus and those constructed by contemporary local tribes. The dwelling areas inhabited by indigenous peoples through their settlements may share planning similarities with the aforementioned living spaces of early Homo species. This notion may bolster the perspective that indigenous architectural activities and products (artefacts, building materials, and techniques) have been transmitted throughout the evolution of indigenous architectural heritage.

4. Conclusions

The study focused on architectural artefacts and materials used for nest-building by human species that existed before today’s species. The findings may highlight some common convergences in nest-building forms and settlement organisation among modern human species. The discussion contributed to the literature on early Hominidae species nesting activities, including relationships between anatomy and architecture, as well as between habitat and architecture. It also reviewed ape nesting literature, particularly studies aimed at establishing connections with australopithecines and comparing nesting behaviours among apes. Additionally, we examined the nesting literature of Homo erectus and Homo habilis, along with the vernacular architecture of Africa. The study’s weakness arose from a lack of fossil evidence; however, it sought to address this deficiency through examinations of habitat and anatomy. Another challenge faced by the study involved identifying the indigenous elements of architecture for the human genus (Homo), because subspecies of Homo sapiens are classified in various ways across many sources.

The discussion revealed that Homo habilis and Homo erectus prioritised survival by creating shelters against environmental threats like weather and predators. Initially using natural formations, they gradually developed basic building techniques. Homo habilis began modifying their surroundings, showcasing advanced behaviours with simple tools. The invention of cutting and shaping tools allowed early humans to design and adapt living spaces actively. Homo erectus improved habitat modification with better toolmaking skills and utilised fire for warmth, cooking, and comfort, facilitating area clearing for shelter construction. They likely formed social groups to build communal shelters, envisioning semi-permanent structures. Their construction techniques featured natural materials for temporary dwellings akin to early huts. Innovations in fire management, toolmaking, and social organisation promoted intentional shelter building, paving the way for future architectural developments. Controlling fire provided warmth and security in colder climates, prompting the creation of hearths and intricate shelters using fire for heat and protection. Advanced tools like stone axes were vital for environment management, aiding shelter construction and wood shaping. They practised woodworking, leading to sturdier shelter designs. Living in small communities influenced their architectural methods, emphasising shared spaces for safety and warmth. The need for protection from predators informed shelter design, favouring locations with natural defences, which grew in popularity over time.

The remains of circularly designed nests and beehive-shaped huts constructed by early Homo species through the piling of stones may exhibit material and technical resemblances to the shelter plans and forms of present-day human species inhabiting sub-Saharan regions. The interplay between palaeoanthropology and ethnoarchaeology might reflect the architectural practices of the indigenous African people and may share similarities with the nest-building of early Homo species that are no longer extant.

We encountered significant disagreements regarding the nature of cultural and archaeological taxonomies and the use of analogical reasoning in comparisons between contemporary hunter–gatherer populations and Pleistocene hominin groups. Pargeter et al. [13] have already suggested that researchers should pay attention to these matters. We believe we may have identified something significant in asserting that early ‘Homo architecture’ in Africa resembled that of contemporary Africans. The discussion may support the idea that indigenous architectural artefacts, materials, and techniques have been passed down throughout the evolution of architectural culture.

We maintain that examining the architectural evidence of the first human species is invaluable for urban design, architecture, paleoanthropology, and ethnoarchaeology. Possible settlement forms and dwelling concepts of Homo species may provide new insights into placemaking theories. Early indications of building material usage may contribute to effective, ecologically sound urban design principles. Housing layouts and spatial knowledge of home bases warrant discussion, as potential construction methods and housing production strategies may reflect unique spatial approaches. We argue that the early housing forms and dwelling patterns created by early Homo species, presented in this paper, exhibited indigenous architectural achievements. The interventions and behaviours of early Homo species displayed an adaptability to the natural environment, facilitated by the indigenous housing units, settlement patterns, and dwellings.