You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Quaternary
Download PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

8 May 2025

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

,
and
1
Architectural Design PhD Program, Department of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, 34485 Istanbul, Türkiye
2
Department of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, 34485 Istanbul, Türkiye
3
Engineering and Architecture Faculty, Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University, 50300 Nevsehir, Türkiye
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Quaternary2025, 8(2), 24;https://doi.org/10.3390/quat8020024
Version Notes
Order Reprints

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 [,,].
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 [,]. 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 [,]. 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 [,,].
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 []. 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 []. Lane [] 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. [], 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.

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 []. 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 [,]. The dwelling and sheltering can be seen as the main activity of architecture [].
The notion of ‘origin of architecture’ in architecture has been explored by various architectural perspectives [,], 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 [,,].
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 [,]. 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) [], 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 [,]. 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 [,,].
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 [,].
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 [,]. 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 []. 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 [,].
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 []. 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 [,]. 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 [,].
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 [] 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.
Figure 1. The sites in sub-Saharan Africa.
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 []. 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 [,,,,,,,,,]. It is noteworthy that Leakey et al. [] describe a rough circle of loosely piled stones on the living floor, and Leakey [] 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 [,,]. 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 []. Their shelter-building materials are lightweight and temporary, suitable for transport by various pack animals []. 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 []. 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 [,,,,,].
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 [,,,]. 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.
Quaternary 08 00024 g002
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 [], and the elevation, section, and plan of the ‘mongulu’ of the Baka people in southeastern Cameroon, adapted from [].
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 [,]. 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 [,,]. 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 [,,,,].
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 [,,,]. 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 [,,,]. 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 [,]. 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 [,]. 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 [,,,]. 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 [,,,]. 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 [].
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 []. 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 [,,] 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 []. The settlements of the hunter–gatherer tribes residing in Africa, along with the home base spatial organisation and ceremonial courtyards surrounding the settlements [], 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). 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 [,,,,,]. 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.
Table 3. The characteristics of the architecture of Homo species alongside an ethnoarchaeological comparison.

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. [] 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.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, H.B.K., M.E.Ş., and A.N.K.; methodology, H.B.K., M.E.Ş., and A.N.K.; validation, H.B.K., M.E.Ş., and A.N.K.; formal analysis, H.B.K., M.E.Ş., and A.N.K.; investigation, H.B.K., M.E.Ş., and A.N.K.; resources, H.B.K., M.E.Ş., and A.N.K.; data curation, H.B.K., M.E.Ş., and A.N.K.; writing—original draft preparation, H.B.K., M.E.Ş., and A.N.K.; writing—review and editing, H.B.K., M.E.Ş., and A.N.K.; visualisation, H.B.K., M.E.Ş., and A.N.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors report no potential conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Hill, A.; Ward, S.; Deino, A.; Curtis, G.; Drake, R. Earliest homo. Nature 1992, 355, 719–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Wanpo, H.; Ciochon, R.; Yumin, G.; Larick, R.; Qiren, F.; Schwarcz, H.; Yonge, C.; de Vos, J.; Rink, W. Early Homo and associated artefacts from Asia. Nature 1995, 378, 275–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Antón, S.C.; Potts, R.; Aiello, L.C. Evolution of early Homo: An integrated biological perspective. Science 2014, 345, 1236828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tobias, P.V. Homo habilis and Homo erectus: From the Oldowan men to the Acheulianpractitioners. Anthropologie 1980, 18, 115–119. [Google Scholar]
  5. Vogelsang, R. The excavation of Stone Age sites. Field Man. Afr. Archaeol. 2017, 102–108. [Google Scholar]
  6. Joordens, J.C.A.; D’errico, F.; Wesselingh, F.P.; Munro, S.; de Vos, J.; Wallinga, J.; Ankjærgaard, C.; Reimann, T.; Wijbrans, J.R.; Kuiper, K.F.; et al. Homo erectus at Trinil on Java used shells for tool production and engraving. Nature 2014, 518, 228–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tobias, P.V. Early Man in East Africa: Recent excavations in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, have laid bare a new chapter in human evolution. Science 1965, 149, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Harris, S.C.W. The lifeways of Homo erectus inferred from archaeology and evolutionary ecology: A perspective from East Africa. In Early Human Behaviour in Global Context; Routledge: London, UK, 2003; pp. 123–148. [Google Scholar]
  9. Mussi, M.; Skinner, M.M.; Melis, R.T.; Panera, J.; Rubio-Jara, S.; Davies, T.W.; Geraads, D.; Bocherens, H.; Briatico, G.; Le Cabec, A.; et al. Early Homo erectus lived at high altitudes and produced both Oldowan and Acheulean tools. Science 2023, 382, 713–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Denyer, S. African Traditional Architecture: An Historical and Geographical Perspective; Africana: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  11. Shennan, S. Evolution in archaeology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2008, 37, 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lane, P. The use and abuse of ethnography in the study of the southern African Iron Age. Azania Archaeol. Res. Afr. 1994, 29, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pargeter, J.; MacKay, A.; Mitchell, P.; Shea, J.; Stewart, B.A. Primordialism and the ‘Pleistocene San’ of southern Africa. Antiquity 2016, 90, 1072–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Brunet, M.; Guy, F.; Pilbeam, D.; Lieberman, D.E.; Likius, A.; Mackaye, H.T.; Ponce de Leon, M.S.; Zollikofer, C.P.; Vignaud, P. New material of the earliest hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad. Nature 2005, 434, 752–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Macchiarelli, R.; Bergeret-Medina, A.; Marchi, D.; Wood, B. Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis. J. Hum. Evol. 2020, 149, 102898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Grine, F.E.; Fleagle, J.G. The first humans: A summary perspective on the origin and early evolution of the genus Homo. In The First Humans–Origin and Early Evolution of the Genus Homo; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 197–207. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kimbel, W.H.; Villmoare, B. From Australopithecus to Homo: The transition that wasn’t. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2016, 371, 20150248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Losos, J.B. The Princeton Guide to Evolution; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  19. Sanderson, S.K. Human Nature and the Evolution of Society; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  20. Durant, J.R. Human Origins; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  21. Wood, B.; Richmond, B.G. Human evolution: Taxonomy and paleobiology. J. Anat. 2000, 197, 19–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Groves, C.P. Towards a Taxonomy of the Hominidae. In Humanity from African Naissance to Coming Millennia; Tobias, P.V., Raath, M.A., Moggi-Cecchi, J., Doyle, G.A., Eds.; Firenze University Press: Firenze, Italy, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  23. Foley, R. Species diversity in human evolution: Challenges and opportunities: Aspects of hominid evolution. Trans. R. Soc. S. Afr. 2005, 60, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wood, B. Reconstructing human evolution: Achievements, challenges, and opportunities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107 (Suppl. 2), 8902–8909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Welker, B. The History of Our Tribe: Hominini; Open SUNY Textbooks: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  26. Andrews, P.; Harrison, T. The last common ancestor of apes and humans. In Interpreting the Past; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 103–121. [Google Scholar]
  27. Maxwell, S.J. The Quality of the Early Hominin Fossil Record: Implications for Evolutionary Analyses. Ph.D. Thesis, Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  28. Roos, C.; Kothe, M.; Alba, D.M.; Delson, E.; Zinner, D. The radiation of macaques out of Africa: Evidence from mitogenome divergence times and the fossil record. J. Hum. Evol. 2019, 133, 114–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Senut, B. Arboreal origin of bipedalism. In Human Origins and Environmental Backgrounds; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2006; pp. 199–208. [Google Scholar]
  30. Harcourt-Smith, W.H. The first hominins and the origins of bipedalism. Evol. Educ. Outreach 2010, 3, 333–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hawks, J. Ardipithecus. Int. Encycl. Biol. Anthropol. 2018, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tuttle, R.H. Knuckle-walking and the evolution of hominoid hands. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1967, 26, 171–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Groves, C.P.; Pi, J.S. From ape’s nest to human fix-point. Man 1985, 20, 22–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fruth, B.; Hohmann, G. Nest building behavior in the great apes: The great leap forward? In Great Ape Societies; McGrew, W.C., Marchant, L.F., Nishida, T., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996; pp. 225–240. [Google Scholar]
  35. Johanson, D.C. Lucy, Thirty Years Later: An Expanded View of Australopithecus afarensis. J. Anthropol. Res. 2004, 60, 465–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. White, T.D.; Asfaw, B.; Beyene, Y.; Haile-Selassie, Y.; Lovejoy, C.O.; Suwa, G.; WoldeGabriel, G. Ardipithecus ramidus and the paleobiology of early hominids. Science 2009, 326, 64–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Stewart, F.A. The Evolution of Shelter: Ecology and Ethology of Chimpanzee Nest Building. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  38. Duda, P.; Zrzavý, J. Evolution of life history and behavior in Hominidae: Towards phylogenetic reconstruction of the chimpanzee–human last common ancestor. J. Hum. Evol. 2013, 65, 424–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sayers, K.; Lovejoy, C.O. Blood, bulbs, and bunodonts: On evolutionary ecology and the diets of Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, andearly Homo. Q. Rev. Biol. 2014, 89, 319–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Fruth, B.; Tagg, N.; Stewart, F. Sleep and nesting behavior in primates: A review. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2018, 166, 499–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fowler, A. Behavioural Ecology of Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes vellerosus) at Gashaka, Nigeria. Ph.D. Thesis, University of London, London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  42. Koops, K.; McGrew, W.C.; de Vries, H.; Matsuzawa, T. Nest-building by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) at Seringbara, Nimba Mountains: Antipredation, thermoregulation, and antivectorhy potheses. Int. J. Primatol. 2012, 33, 356–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. van Leeuwen, K. Landscapes of the Apes: Modelling Landscape Use of Chimpanzees and Early Hominins Across an Environmental Gradient. Ph.D. Thesis, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  44. Stewart, F.A.; Pruetz, J.D. Sex bias and social influences on savanna chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus) nest building behavior. Int. J. Primatol. 2020, 41, 849–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gibbons, A. The First Human; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lovejoy, C.O. Reexamining human origins in light of Ardipithecus ramidus. Science 2009, 326, 74–74e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Barnard, A. If chimps could talk. In Social Anthropology and Human Origins; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011; pp. 18–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. DeSilva, J.M. A shift toward birthing relatively large infants early in human evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 1022–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Stanford, C.B. Chimpanzees and the behavior of Ardipithecus ramidus. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012, 41, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Henrich, J.; Tennie, C. Cultural evolution in chimpanzees and humans. In Chimpanzees and Human Evolution; Muller, M.N., Ed.; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  51. Coolidge, F.; Wynn, T. The effects of the tree-to-ground sleep transition in the evolution of cognition in early Homo. Before Farming 2006, 2006, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Strait, D.S.; Grine, F.E. Cladistics and early hominid phylogeny. Science 1999, 285, 1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Cela-Conde, C.J.; Ayala, F.J. Genera of the human line age. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 7684–7689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Strait, D.; Grine, F.E.; Fleagle, J.G. Analysing hominin phylogeny: Cladistic approach. Handb. Paleoanthropol. 2015, 1989–2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Herries, A.I.; Martin, J.M.; Leece, A.B.; Adams, J.W.; Boschian, G.; Joannes-Boyau, R.; Edwards, T.R.; Mallett, T.; Massey, J.; Murszewski, A.; et al. Contemporaneity of Australopithecus, Paranthropus, and early Homo erectus in South Africa. Science 2020, 368, eaaw7293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Dart, R.A. Australopithecus africanus: The man-ape of South Africa. Nature 1925, 115, 195–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. McHenry, H.M.; Coffing, K. Australopithecus to Homo: Transformations in body and mind. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2000, 29, 125–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Berger, L.R.; DeRuiter, D.J.; Churchill, S.E.; Schmid, P.; Carlson, K.J.; Dirks, P.H.; Kibii, J.M. Australopithecus sediba: A new species of Homo-like australopith from South Africa. Science 2010, 328, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kivell, T.L.; Kibii, J.M.; Churchill, S.E.; Schmid, P.; Berger, L.R. Australopithecus sediba hand demonstrates mosaic evolution of locomotor and manipulative abilities. Science 2011, 333, 1411–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Irish, J.D.; Guatelli-Steinberg, D.; Legge, S.S.; de Ruiter, D.J.; Berger, L.R. Dental morphology and the phylogenetic ”place” of Australopithecus sediba. Science 2013, 340, 1233062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Kimbel, W.H.; Rak, Y. Australopithecus sediba and the emergence of Homo: Questionable evidence from the cranium of the juvenile holotype MH1. J. Hum. Evol. 2017, 107, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Roberts, P.; Boivin, N.; Lee-Thorp, J.; Petraglia, M.; Stock, J. Tropical forests and the genus Homo. Evol. Anthropol. Issues News Rev. 2016, 25, 306–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Coolidge, F.L.; Wynn, T.; Overmann, K.A.; Hicks, J.M. Cognitive archaeology and the cognitive sciences. In Human Paleoneurology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 177–208. [Google Scholar]
  64. Zhongming, Z.; Linong, L.; Xiaona, Y.; Wangqiang, Z.; Wei, L. Chimpanzee’ nests’ Shed Light on the Origins of Humanity. 2018. Available online: http://resp.llas.ac.cn/C666/handle/2XK7JSWQ/115301 (accessed on 10 February 2022).
  65. Stanford, C.B. Arboreal bipedalism in wild chimpanzees: Implications for the evolution of hominid posture and locomotion. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2006, 129, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Coolidge, F.L.; Wynn, T.G. The Rise of Homo Sapiens: The Evolution of Modern Thinking; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  67. Boaz, N.T. Status of Australopithecus afarensis. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1988, 31, 85–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ungar, P. Dental topography and diets of Australopithecus afarensis and early Homo. J. Hum. Evol. 2004, 46, 605–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Stern, J.T., Jr.; Susman, R.L. The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1983, 60, 279–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Susman, R.L.; Stern, J.T., Jr.; Jungers, W.L. Arboreality and bipedality in the Hadar hominids. Folia Primatol. 1984, 43, 113–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hunt, K.D. Ecological morphology of Australopithecus afarensis. In Primate Locomotion; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1998; pp. 397–418. [Google Scholar]
  72. Ward, C.V. Interpreting the posture and locomotion of Australopithecus afarensis: Where do we stand? Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2002, 119, 185–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Green, D.J.; Gordon, A.D.; Richmond, B.G. Limb-size proportions in Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus. J. Hum. Evol. 2007, 52, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Delson, E.; Tattersall, I.; Van Couvering, J.; Brooks, A.S. Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory, 2nd ed.; Garland Pub: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  75. Hammond, A.S.; Ward, C.V. Australopithecus and Kenyanthropus. In A Companion to Paleoanthropology; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 434–456. [Google Scholar]
  76. Spoor, F.; Leakey, M.G.; O’Higgins, P. Middle Pliocene hominin diversity: Australopithecus deyiremeda and Kenyanthropus platyops. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2016, 371, 20150231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Colell, M.; Segarra, M.D.; Pi, J.S. Hand preferences in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), bonobos (Pan paniscus), and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) in food-reaching and other daily activities. Int. J. Primatol. 1995, 16, 413–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Lock, L.C. Nesting and Nighttime Behaviours of Captive Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes); University of Stirling: Stirling, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  79. Lowenstine, L.J.; McManamon, R.; Terio, K.A. Comparative pathology of aging great apes: Bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Vet. Pathol. 2016, 53, 250–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Anderson, J.R.; Ang, M.Y.; Lock, L.C.; Weiche, I. Nesting, sleeping, and night time behaviors in wild and captive great apes. Primates 2019, 60, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Beck, B. Chimpanzee orphans: Sanctuaries, reintroduction, and cognition. In The Mind of the Chimpanzee: Ecological and Experimental Perspectives; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2010; pp. 332–346. [Google Scholar]
  82. Grine, F.E. Evolutionary History of the Robust Australopithecines; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  83. Robinson, J.T. Adaptive radiation in the australopithecines and the origin of man. In African Ecology and Human Evolution; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 385–416. [Google Scholar]
  84. Prasetyo, D.; Ancrenaz, M.; Morrogh-Bernard, H.C.; Utami Atmoko, S.S.; Wich, S.A.; van Schaik, C.P. Nest building in orangutans. In Orangutans: Geographical Variation in Behavioral Ecology; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 269–277. [Google Scholar]
  85. Van Schaik, C.P. The Primate Origins of Human Nature; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  86. Stoinski, T.S.; Steklis, H.D.; Mehlman, P.T. (Eds.) Conservation in the 21st Century: Gorillas as a Case Study; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  87. Kyrrestad, I. Nesting Behaviour of the Great Apes. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Szent Istvan University, Godollo, Hungary, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  88. Fruth, B.; Hohmann, G. Comparative analyses of nest building behavior in bonobos and chimpanzees. Chimpanzee Cult. 1994, 100, 109. [Google Scholar]
  89. Fruth, B.I. Great Ape Nest-Building. Int. Encycl. Primatol. 2017, 484–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Hernandez-Aguilar, R.A. Chimpanzee nest distribution and site reuse in a dry habitat: Implications for early hominin ranging. J. Hum. Evol. 2009, 57, 350–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Gebo, D.L. Climbing, brachiation, and terrestrial quadrupedalism: Historical precursors of hominid bipedalism. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1996, 101, 55–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Schmitt, D. Insights into the evolution of human bipedalism from experimental studies of humans and other primates. J. Exp. Biol. 2003, 206, 1437–1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Thorpe, S.K.; Holder, R.L.; Crompton, R.H. Origin of human bipedalism as an adaptation for locomotion on flexible branches. Science 2007, 316, 1328–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Kibii, J.M.; Churchill, S.E.; Schmid, P.; Carlson, K.J.; Reed, N.D.; DeRuiter, D.J.; Berger, L.R. A partial pelvis of Australopithecus sediba. Science 2011, 333, 1407–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Bromage, T.; McMahon, J.; Thackeray, J.F.; Kullmer, O.; Hogg, R.; Rosenberger, A.; Schrenk, F.; Enlow, D. Craniofacial architectural constraints and their importance for reconstructing the early Homo skull KNM-ER 1470. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2008, 33, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Leakey, L.S.; Tobias, P.V.; Napier, J.R. Anewspecies of genus Homo from Olduvai Gorge. Curr. Anthropol. 1965, 6, 424–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Gabel, C. Review of Olduvai Gorge, Volume 4, Parts I-IX: The Skulls, Endocasts and Teeth of Homo habilis, by P. V. Tobias. Int. J. Afr. Hist. Stud. 1993, 26, 206–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Potts, R. Home Bases and Early Hominids: Reevaluation of the fossil record at Olduvai Gorge suggests that the concentrations of bones and stone tools do not represent fully formed campsites but an antecedent to them. Am. Sci. 1984, 72, 338–347. [Google Scholar]
  99. Stanistreet, I.G.; Stollhofen, H.; Njau, J.K.; Farrugia, P.; Pante, M.C.; Masao, F.T.; Albert, R.M.; Bamford, M.K. Lahar inundated, modified, and preserved 1.88 Ma early hominin (OH24 and OH56) Olduvai DK site. J. Hum. Evol. 2018, 116, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Campbell, B.G.; Loy, J.; Cruz-Uribe, K. Humankind Emerging; Fresman: Scott, KS, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  101. Ozdemir, M. Residential choice in different countries: Maslow, evolution of human brain and culture. Int. J. Econ. Stat. 2015, 3, 32–38. [Google Scholar]
  102. Zaccheo, A.; Palmaccio, E.; Venable, M.; Locarnini-Sciaroni, I.; Parisi, S. A brief history of food, food safety, and hygiene. In Food Hygiene and Applied Food Microbiology in an Anthropological Cross Cultural Perspective; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 7–15. [Google Scholar]
  103. Roth, L.M. Understanding Architecture: Its Elements, History, and Meaning, 3rd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  104. Velo, J.; Kehoe, A.B. Red ocher in the paleolithic. In The Life of Symbols; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 101–111. [Google Scholar]
  105. Clark, J.D. Transitions: Homo erectus and the Acheulian: The Ethiopiansites of Gadeband the Middle Awash. J. Hum. Evol. 1987, 16, 809–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Pregill, P.; Volkman, N. Landscapes in History: Design and Planning in the Eastern and Western Traditions; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  107. Chamberlain, A. Pre-Homo sapiens Place-Worlds. In Handbook of Landscape Archaeology; David, B., Thomas, J., Eds.; Left Coast Press: Walnut Creek, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 102–108. [Google Scholar]
  108. Carotenuto, F.; Tsikaridze, N.; Rook, L.; Lordkipanidze, D.; Longo, L.; Condemi, S.; Raia, P. Venturing out safely: The biogeography of Homo erectus dispersal out of Africa. J. Hum. Evol. 2016, 95, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Tattersall, I. An evolutionary framework for the acquisition of symbolic cognition by Homo sapiens. Comp. Cogn. Behav. Rev. 2008, 3, 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Groves, C.P.; Mazák, V. An Approach to the Taxonomy of the Hominidae: Gracile Villafranchian Hominids of Africa. Cas. Pro Mineral. Geol. 1975, 20, 225–247. [Google Scholar]
  111. Klein, R. Hominin dispersals in the Old World. In The Human Past; Thames & Hudson: London, UK, 2005; pp. 84–123. [Google Scholar]
  112. Osvath, M.; Gärdenfors, P. Oldowan culture and the evolution of anticipatory cognition. Lund Univ. Cogn. Stud. 2005, 122, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  113. Wynn, T.G.; Tierson, F.D.; Palmer, C.T. Evolution of sex differences in spatial cognition. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1996, 101, 11–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Wynn, T. Archaeology and cognitive evolution. Behav. Brain Sci. 2002, 25, 389–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Antón, S.C. Natural history of Homo erectus. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2003, 122, 126–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. DeLouize, A.M.; Coolidge, F.L.; Wynn, T. Dopaminergic systems expansion and the advent of Homo erectus. Quat. Int. 2017, 427, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Mania, D. The zonal division of the Lower Palaeolithic open-air site Bilzingsleben. Anthropologie 1991, 29, 17–24. [Google Scholar]
  118. Ember, C.R.; Ember, M.; Peregrine, P.N.; Duvall, J.G.; Hale, L. Physical Anthropology and Archaeology: Study Guide; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  119. Currier, R.L. Unbound: How Eight Technologies Made Us Human and Brought Our World to the Brink; Simonand Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  120. Relethford, J.H. 50 Great Myths of Human Evolution: Understanding Misconceptions About Our Origins; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  121. Groves, C.P. A Theory of Human and Primate Evolution; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  122. Kappeler, P.M. Nests, tree holes, and the evolution of primate life histories. Am. J. Primatol. 1998, 46, 7–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Begun, D.R. The earliest hominins—Is less more? Science 2004, 303, 1478–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Ramesh, S.; Ramesh, S. Pre-History: Emergence and Palaeolithic to Bronze Age—10,000 BC to 800 BC. In The Rise of Empires: The Political Economy of Innovation; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 49–88. [Google Scholar]
  125. Rolland, N. The interpretation of Middle Palaeolithic variability. Man 1981, 16, 15–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Vaquero, M.; Pastó, I. The definition of spatial units in Middle Palaeolithic sites: The hearth-related assemblages. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2001, 28, 1209–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Müller, O. Homo faber. In Technikanthropologie; Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG.: Baden, Germany, 2020; pp. 289–294. [Google Scholar]
  128. Wood, B.; Collard, M. Is Homo Defined by Culture? In Proceedings-British Academy; Oxford University Press Inc.: Oxford, UK, 1999; Volume 99, pp. 11–24. [Google Scholar]
  129. Bruner, E.; Battaglia-Mayer, A.; Caminiti, R. The parietal lobe evolution and the emergence of material culture in the human genus. Brain Struct. Funct. 2023, 228, 145–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Ingold, T. Building, dwelling, living: How animals and people make themselves at home in the world. In Shifting Contexts: Transformations in Anthropological Knowledge; Routledge: London, UK, 1995; pp. 57–80. [Google Scholar]
  131. Rossi, A. L’architettura Della Città; Marsilio Press: Venice, Italy, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  132. Venturi, R. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture: With an Introduction by Vincent Scully; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  133. Breclaw, K.A. Homo Faber Reconsidered: Two Thomistic Reflections on Work. Thomist A Specul. Q. Rev. 1993, 57, 579–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Metcalfe, A.W. The hands of homo faber. Body Soc. 1995, 1, 105–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Tyrrell, G.N.M. Homo Faber: A Study of Man’s Mental Evolution; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; Volume 14. [Google Scholar]
  136. Gros, P. The theory and practice of perspective in Vitruvius’s De architectura. In Perspective, Projections and Design; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 5–17. [Google Scholar]
  137. McEwen, I.K. Vitruvius: Writing the Body of Architecture; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  138. Pollio, V. De Architectura: Libri X; Edizioni Studio Tesi: Pordenone, Italy, 1992; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  139. Medvedkova, O. 4 In the Beginning, There was Fire: Vitruvius and the Origin of the City. In Wounded Cities: The Representation of Urban Disasters in European Art (14th–20th Centuries); Brill: Leiden, The Netherland, 2015; pp. 75–99. [Google Scholar]
  140. Patterson, R. What vitruvius said. J. Archit. 1997, 2, 355–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Fernández, G.; Fernández-Galiano, L. Fire and Memory: On Architecture and Energy; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  142. Hearn, M.F. Ideas that Shaped Buildings; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  143. Jones, M.W. Origins of Classical Architecture; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  144. Laugier, M.A. Essai sur L’architecture. Oberservations sur L’architecture; Pierre Mardaga Publisher: Brussels, Belgium, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  145. Kuletin-Ćulafić, I. Marc-Antoine Laugier’s aesthetic postulates of architectural theory. Spatium 2010, 23, 46–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. de Oliveira Viana, A. Em busca da casa perdida: A cabana primitiva segundo Laugier e Semper. Arq. Urb. 2020, 28, 10–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Bleijenberg, L.; Delbeke, M. The Afterlife of Vitruvian Origin Myths in Eighteenth-Century Conjectural Histories of Architecture. Arethusa 2016, 49, 199–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Mallgrave, H.F. Gottfried Semper: Architect of the Nineteenth Century; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  149. Rykwert, J. On Adam’s House in Paradise; New York Graphic Society: Cos Cob, CT, USA, 1972. [Google Scholar]
  150. Meister, M.W.; Rykwert, J. Afterword: Adam’s House and Hermits’ Huts: A Conversation. RES Anthropol. Aesthet. 1988, 15, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Egenter, N. Architectural Anthropology: Research Series: Forschungsreihe; Structura Mundi: Lausanne, Switzerland, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  152. Egenter, N. Semantic and Symbolic Architecture; Structura Mundi: Lausanne, Switzerland, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  153. Langdon, J.H. Case Study 11. The Habilis Workbench: Experimental Archaeology. In The Science of Human Evolution; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 83–90. [Google Scholar]
  154. Gengo, M.F. Interpreting evidence of human evolution. In Encyclopedia of Time; Birx, H.J., Ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009; Volume 1, p. 451. [Google Scholar]
  155. Leakey, M.D. Preliminary survey of the cultural material from Beds I and II, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. In Background to Evolution in Africa; Clark, J.D., Bishop, W.W., Eds.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1974; pp. 417–442. [Google Scholar]
  156. Leakey, M.D. Olduvai Gorge: Volume 3, Excavations in Beds I and II, 1960–1963; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1971; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
  157. Leakey, M.D. Recent discoveries of hominid remains at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Nature 1969, 223, 756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Isaac, G. The food-sharing behavior of protohuman hominids. Sci. Am. 1978, 238, 90–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Parker, S.T.; Gibson, K.R. A developmental model for the evolution of language and intelligence in early hominids. Behav. Brain Sci. 1979, 2, 367–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Mathpal, Y. Evidence of Prehistoric Man-Made Shelters in Central Indian Rock Paintings. Bull. Deccan Coll. Res. Inst. 1981, 40, 119–123. [Google Scholar]
  161. Scoon, R.N. Oldupai Gorge and Laetoli. In Geology of National Parks of Central/Southern Kenya and Northern Tanzania; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 115–128. [Google Scholar]
  162. Lipson, M.; Sawchuk, E.A.; Thompson, J.C.; Oppenheimer, J.; Tryon, C.A.; Ranhorn, K.L.; De Luna, K.M.; Sirak, K.A.; Olalde, I.; Ambrose, S.H.; et al. Ancient DNA and deep population structure in sub-Saharan African foragers. Nature 2022, 603, 290–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Schoenauer, N. 6000 Years of Housing; Norton Company: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  164. Njoh, W.J. Tradition, Culture and Development in Africa: Historical Lessons for Modern Development Planning; Ashgate: Farnham, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  165. Tempelhoff, J.W.N. A first generation African community grappling with urbanisation: The views of Platfontein’s San on water and sanitation service delivery. TD J. Transdiscipl. Res. S. Afr. 2014, 10, 52–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  166. Walton, J. Corbelled buildings in South Africa: Buildings of the stock farmer. VASSA J. 2007, 17, 15–22. [Google Scholar]
  167. Webley, L. The Namaqualand stockpost. Vernac. Archit. Soc. S. Afr. 2009, 21, 21–35. [Google Scholar]
  168. Sadr, K.; Mshuqwana, F. KWENENG. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 2020, 75, 75–86. [Google Scholar]
  169. Leonard, Y. The Baka: A People Between Two Worlds. Master Thesis, Providence University College & Theological Seminary, Manitoba, Canada, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  170. Oliver, P. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of the World; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  171. Oishia, T.; Fongnzossieb, E.F. A Preliminary Report on the Diversity of Forest Landscape Recognition Among the Baka Hunter-Gatherers of Eastern Cameroon. ASC-TUFS Working Papers 2019 Challenges of Development and Natural Resource Governance in Africa. Ph.D. Thesis, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Tokyo, Japan, 2019; pp. 247–257. [Google Scholar]
  172. MacDonald, K. Fire-free hominin strategies for coping with cool winter temperatures in North-western Europe from before 800,000 to circa 400,000 years ago. PaleoAnthropology 2018, 2018, 7–26. [Google Scholar]
  173. Campbell, B.G. Humankind Emerging, 6th ed.; Harper Collins: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  174. Bedogne, V.F. Blueprint for Reconstruction: The Rebuilding of Our Planet’s Urban and Ecological Infrastructure and Perfection of Life on Earth; Wipfand Stock Publishers: Eugene, OR, USA, 2010; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
  175. Wadley, L. Who Lived in Mauermanshoek Shelter, Korannaberg, South Africa? Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 2001, 18, 153–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Wendl, N. (Ed.) Contemporary Art About Architecture: A Strange Utility; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  177. Koca, G. Ecological Properties of Wooden Building Materials. In Science, Ecology and Engineering Research in the Globalizing World; Christov, I., Strauss, E., Gad, A., Curebal, I., Eds.; St.Kliment Ohridski University Press: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2018; pp. 134–144. [Google Scholar]
  178. James, S.R.; Dennell, R.W.; Gilbert, A.S.; Lewis, H.T.; Gowlett, J.A.J.; Lynch, T.F.; McGrew, W.C.; Peters, C.R.; Pope, G.G.; Stahl, A.B.; et al. Hominid use of fire in the Lower and Middle Pleistocene: A review of the evidence [and comments and replies]. Curr. Anthropol. 1989, 30, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Stearns, P.N. Encyclopedia of Social History; Routledge: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  180. Balter, M. Did Homo erectus tame fire first? Science 1995, 268, 1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Gowlett, J.A.; Wrangham, R.W. Earliest fire in Africa: Towards the convergence of archaeological evidence and the cooking hypothesis. Azania Archaeol. Res. Afr. 2013, 48, 5–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Mania, D.; Weber, T. Bilzingsleben. III, Homo Erectus, Seine Kulturund Seine Umwelt; VEB Deutscher Verlagder Wissenschaften: Berlin, Germany, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  183. Mania, D.; Mania, U. The natural and socio-cultural environment of Homo erectus at Bilzingsleben, Germany. In The Hominid Individual in Context; Gamble, C., Porr, M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2005; pp. 98–114. [Google Scholar]
  184. Takruri, A. Africa’s History & Migrations 200,000 bc–3000 bc; Lulu Press, Inc.: Morrisville, NC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  185. Kumar, A. From Homo erectus to Sanand Twa Tribe. 2022. Available online: https://www.dailyblogging.in/blog/education/from-homoerectus-to-san-and-twa-tribe/576221515 (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  186. Vlček, E. A new discovery of Homo erectus in central Europe. J. Hum. Evol. 1978, 7, 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Hayden, B. Neandertal social structure? Oxf. J. Archaeol. 2012, 31, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Wenke, R.J. Patterns in Prehistory: Humankind’s First Three Million Years; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  189. Stringer, C. The status of Homo heidelbergensis (Schoetensack 1908). Evol. Anthropol. Issues News Rev. 2012, 21, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Biagi, P. Modeling the Past: The Paleoethnological Approach. J. Handb. Paleoanthropol. 2014, 817–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. de Lumley, H.; Pillard, B.; Pillard, F. L’habitat et les activités de l’homme du Lazaret. Mém. Soc. Préhist. Fr. 1969, 7, 183–222. [Google Scholar]
  192. de Lumley, H. La Grande Histoire des Premiers Hommes Européens; Odile Jacob: Paris, France, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  193. Frith, S. A Primitive exchange: On rhetoric and architectural symbol. Arq. Archit. Res. Q. 2004, 8, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Koops, K.; McGrew, W.C.; Matsuzawa, T.; Knapp, L.A. Terrestrial nest-building by wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Implications for the tree-to-ground sleep transition in early hominins. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2012, 148, 351–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Otte, M. The management of space during the Paleolithic. Quat. Int. 2012, 247, 212–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Twomey, T. The cognitive implications of controlled fire use by early humans. Camb. Archaeol. J. 2013, 23, 113–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Chu, W. A functional approach to Paleolithicopen-air habitation structures. World Archaeol. 2009, 41, 348–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Vegetation Response to the Hydro-Climatic Changes During the Late Quaternary
Previous
Palaeoenvironmental Synthesis of the Eastern Ebro Basin Loess–Palaeosol Sequences (LPSs)
Next