Writers' Workshop for ARCH 531 / McGill University / School of Architecture / Fall 2012

Week Three: Origins of Dwelling

Vitruvius was to suggest that the origins of communal living were in response to the gift of fire.  As he narrates in The Ten Books of Architecture: “Therefore it was the discovery of fire that originally gave rise to the coming together of men, to the deliberative assembly, and to social intercourse.  And so, as they kept coming together in greater numbers into one place, finding themselves naturally gifted beyond the other animals in not being obliged to walk with faces to the ground, but upright and gazing upon the splendour of the starry firmament, they began in that first assembly to construct shelters.  Some made them of green boughs, others dug caves on mountain sides, and some, in imitation of the nests of swallows and of the way they build, made places of refuge out of mud and twigs.”[1]

This account finds resonance deep into the nineteenth century, as in Gottfried Semper’s rendition of the meaning of settlement: “Before men thought of erecting tents, fences, or huts, they gathered around the open flame, which kept them warm and dry and where they prepared their simple meals.  The hearth is the germ, the embryo, of all social institutions.  The first sign of gathering, of settlement and rest after long wanderings and the hardship of the chase, is still the set of the fire and the lighting of the crackling flame.  From early times on, the hearth became the place of worship.”[2]

Eighteenth-century theorist M.-A. Laugier, although clearly indebted to Vitruvius, speaks of a different primal building in which the need for comfortable repose is of great importance for the “savage” man.  “He wants to make himself a dwelling that protects but does not bury him.  Some fallen branches in the forest are the right material for his purpose; he chooses four of the strongest, raises them upright and arranges them in a square; across their top he lays four other branches; on these he hoists from two sides yet another row of branches which, inclining towards each other, meet at their highest point.  He then covers this kind of roof with leaves so closely packed that neither sun nor rain can penetrate.  Thus man is housed.”[3]

After reading the additional passages in The Ten Books of Architecture where Vitruvius comments on the actual buildings made by these first people, discuss whether or not you think he sees these constructions as being primarily concerned with physical need.

 


[1] Vitruvius, The Ten Books of Architecture, trans. M.H. Morgan (New York: Dover, 1960), 38.

[2] Gottfried Semper, “The Basic Elements of Architecture,” in Gottfried Semper: In Search of Architecture, by Wolfgang Hermann (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989), 198.

[3] Marc-Antoine Laugier,  An Essay on Architecture, trans. Wolfgang and Anni Hermann (Los Angeles: Hennessey and Ingalls, 1977), 11-12.

14 responses

  1. The origin of architecture is an interesting question, and has certainly been written about in great abundance. Having read the chapter on the subject written by Vitruvius, it seems to me that he disagrees on the subject of the origin put forth by Laugier. The impression that I get from the passage, is that while comfort is certainly an important factor, the original comfort provided by the fire was more a means of gathering. What resulted from these gatherings, and what ultimately led to the development of built structures, was communication and the sharing of knowledge, as well as the desire to one-up your neighbour by having a much better dwelling. “And since they were of an imitative and teachable nature, they would daily point out to each other the results of their building, boasting of the novelties in it; and thus, with their natural gifts sharpened by emulation, their standards improved daily.”1

    When Vitruvius discusses the actual dwellings created by these first cultures, the construction of them seems to be dependent on the availability of building materials and climate. Where there is a profusion of wood, then that is the primary building material. Where there are only grasses available, then that is what is used for construction. It is interesting to note that he does not discuss the need for such structures. Concerns that we now take for granted seem to be taken for granted by Vitruvius as well. In only one passage does ne make mention of any climatic necessity, when discussing the dwellings of the Phrygians: “Thus their fashion in houses makes their winters very warm and their summers very cool.”2

    This lack is very interesting, any thoughts?

    1 Vitruvius, The Ten Books of Architecture, trans. M.H. Morgan (New York: Dover, 1960), 39.

    2 IBID, 40.

    September 24, 2012 at 4:52 pm

  2. You raise a good point sfumato. Could he be less concerned with the composition of architecture and more with the nature of origins? He does later defend his decision to place this account in Book II, against the wishes of some critics, as if to suggest that the personal qualities of an architect are more foundational.

    September 25, 2012 at 10:10 am

  3. labyrinth

    While there is no doubt that physical need played a large role in the development of shelters by the first men, it is not this aspect that Vitruvius highlights in his writings. The tone of his book indicates that human ingenuity and intelligence were the driving forces behind the development of architecture, rather than physical need.

    There are several passages that reinforce this notion. First, Vitruvius states that, “finding themselves naturally gifted beyond other animals in not being obliged to walk with faces to the ground, …and also in being able to do with ease whatever they chose with their hands and fingers, they began in that first assembly to construct shelters” [1]. While the word ‘shelter’ implies a physical need for protection, it is man’s superiority over other creatures that Vitruvius emphasizes as the driving force behind the act of building. He goes on to describe how the dwellings improved through the mutual sharing of knowledge between humans, and that, “with their natural gifts sharpened by emulation, their standards improved daily” [2]. Though he mentions physical need as a reason for improvement, such as the pitched roof to drain the water [3], it is mankind’s ‘natural gifts’ that are the driving force behind the development of building types. Finally, he adds, “from the fact that nature had not only endowed the human race with senses like the rest of the animals, but had also equipped their minds with the powers of thought and understanding, thus putting all other animals under their sway, they next gradually advanced from the construction of buildings to the other arts and sciences, and so passed from a rude and barbarous mode of life to civilization and refinement” [4]. Throughout his entire description of the origins of architecture, Vitruvius constantly references human intelligence and ingenuity, and thus infers that our superiority over nature is the driving force behind the act of building, and not our primitive physical needs.

    [1] Vitruvius, The Ten Books of Architecture, trans. M.H. Morgan (New York: Dover, 1960), 38.

    [2] Vitruvius, The Ten Books of Architecture, trans. M.H. Morgan (New York: Dover, 1960), 39.

    [3] Vitruvius, The Ten Books of Architecture, trans. M.H. Morgan (New York: Dover, 1960), 39.

    [4] Vitruvius, The Ten Books of Architecture, trans. M.H. Morgan (New York: Dover, 1960), 40.

    September 25, 2012 at 12:18 pm

  4. Contrary to sfumato and labyrinth, I believe primitive buildings were primarily concerned with physical needs. 🙂

    Vitruvius states that “[…] it was the discovery of fire that originally gave rise to the coming together of men, to the deliberative assembly, and to social intercourse.”[1] Then, “[…] being able to do with ease whatever they chose with their hands and fingers, they began in that first assembly to construct shelters.” Therefore, Vitruvius suggests that comfort is what drove primitive buildings. Interpreting what he meant by “standards improved daily”[2] seems to be crucial in understanding how much he believes these constructions are concerned with physical need. Our own standards being so high, and having so little to do with basic physical need, we are fast to forget that these could have been questions relevant to the first houses. Again, when Vitruvius states that Book II “treats of the origin of the building art, how it was fostered, and how it made progress, step by step, until it reached its present perfection.”[3] it is impossible to withdraw comfort from perfection. While the treatise in its whole is not about primitive huts as much as architecture, he stays concerned with temperature, moisture and health throughout.

    An important shift happens when “[…] men made progress by becoming daily more expert in building, and as their ingenuity was increased by their dexterity so that from habit they attained to considerable skill, their intelligence was enlarged by their industry until the more proficient adopted the trade of carpenters. […] [The human race] next gradually advanced from the construction of buildings to the other arts and sciences, and so passed from a rude and barbarous mode of life to civilization and refinement.”[4] Only from that point on does the necessity for architecture to have concerns beyond the realm of the physical needs is clearly stated. While in the treatise as a whole they are not as relevant as proportions, I believe Vitruvius chose to tell architects that they’re endempted to the first settlers, and if the the role of architecture has changed, it started with the basic requirement for warmth.

    – – –
    [1] Vitruvius, The Ten Books of Architecture, trans. M.H. Morgan (New York: Dover, 1960), 38.
    [2] Ibid., 40.
    [3] Ibid., 42.
    [4] Ibid., 40.

    September 25, 2012 at 2:09 pm

  5. nickireckziegel

    I would tend to believe that Vitruvius felt that these primitive structures were more concerned with a sense of community and gathering than with physical need. Following the discovery of fire, the first instinct was to share its comforts with others. “In that gathering of men, at a time when utterance of sound was purely individual, […] from indicating by name things in common use, the result was that in this chance way they began to talk, and thus originated conversation with one another.”1
    I think that what Madek refers to as a “requirement for warmth” is actually less of a requirement and more of a comfort (a want vs. a need). The sharing of fire “gave rise to the coming together of men,”2 and it was this “deliberative assembly” that instigated the first dwellings. People needed shelters in order to live as a community. Through collective sharing of knowledge, people were then able to develop and perfect their shelters.
    Undoubtedly, the outcome of these dwellings led to improved well-being and satisfied several physical needs, and these likely contributed to the further development of the shelters. However, to discuss the “origin” of the dwelling, in Vitruvius’ terms, is to discuss the “coming together of men” and “social intercourse.”

    1 Vitruvius, The Ten Books of Architecture, trans. M.H. Morgan (New York: Dover, 1960), 38.
    2 Ibid., 38

    September 25, 2012 at 3:50 pm

  6. UVN

    I agree with sfumato and labyrinth.

    Vitruvius seems to be describing the origin of dwelling as a consequence of gathering; the first huts, as well as the gradual improvement and refinement of these, stem from social interactivity, and not from primary physical needs. Emphasis is not put on the shelter as protection, it is allocated to the beginning of a ritual of gathering – the rite of communal building is more important than the building themselves. Vitruvius alludes to the one primitive need that is not solely physical: the need for interaction and communication. For instance, the act of discovering that warmth from fire produced comfort is only conducive once the knowledge is shared with others (thus the origin of language): “observing that they were very comfortable standing before the warm fire, they […] brought up other people to it, showing them by signs bow much comfort they got from it […] and thus originated conversation with one another.” [1] This interaction, led them to improve their constructions “by observing the shelters of others […] [as] they would daily point out to each other the results of their building”. [2]

    As labyrinth has mentioned, Vitruvius also differentiates men from animals, perpetuating the element that sets us apart from such beings with solely physical needs and survival instincts: “nature had not only endowed the human race with senses like the rest of the animals, but had also equipped their minds with the powers of thought and understanding […] thus they next gradually advanced from the construction of buildings to the other arts and sciences, and so passed from a rude and barbarous mode of life to civilization and refinement.” [3] Contrary to Madeck’s perception, as well as the more literal interpretation of this passage as sequential, I see the beginning of construction and the one of “crude society” as happening simultaneously. Unlike animals, of which the conduct is more likely to be described as “barbarous”, the origin of dwelling is synonymous to the origin of civilization – which, in turn, is defined by the intellectual and cultural interaction between human beings.

    Lastly, points 4 and 5 in his The Origin of the Dwelling House chapter account the varying sequences of construction that different civilizations have adapted according to their environment; through both the content and the rhythm of the sentences, one can understand that the objective is to depict the rituals of building according to site. Here, again, the construction of dwellings is perceived as a communal ritual.

    [1,2,3] Vitruvius, The Ten Books of Architecture, trans. M.H. Morgan (New York: Dover, 1960), 38-40.

    September 25, 2012 at 4:52 pm

  7. Amalin

    I also agree with sfumato.

    The origin of architecture described by Vitruvius seems to be intertwined with the beginnings of basic communication and association: “The men of old were born like the wild beasts, in the woods, caves, and groves, and lived on savage fare. As time went on, the thickly crowded trees in a certain place, tossed by the storms and winds, and rubbing their branches against one another, caught fire, […].” [1] At first people fled, frightened by the flames, but as the blaze gradually died off they converged, captivated by the heat. They kept the fire burning and it soon became a point of gathering – a social event. “Therefore, it was the discovery of fire that originally gave rise to the coming together of men, to the deliberative assembly, and to social intercourse.” [2] As the assembly grew, they began to communicate – and more importantly – they became conscious of the importance of this new bond.

    The fire offered to earth by the supra-lunar world in this tale sparked a genuine discovery, responsible for the buildings made by the first people. The social nature of the deliberative assembly Vitruvius speaks of enabled the primitive architectural dwelling. Humanity shared its knowledge of fire providing comfort, which then led to the progress of building techniques. However, Vitruvius seems to suggest that the “coming together of men” leading to this sharing of knowledge was the initial motivator rather than physical need. As suggested in Gottfried Semper’s definition of the settlement – man’s capacity to confine space existed long before he thought to raise walls. Moreover, in Vitruvius’ description of the fire, we can easily imagine the space limited by the warmth produced by the flames. I assume the constructed dwellings began as a way to further define these gatherings that led to the first explicit communities. Clearly, physical need played an important role in the progress of architecture and comfort, but the initial constructions Vitruvius speaks of were guided by the “gathering of men”.

    [1] Vitruvius, The Ten Books of Architecture, trans. M.H. Morgan (New York: Dover, 1960), 38.
    [2] Ibid., 38.

    September 25, 2012 at 7:56 pm

  8. Trebuh

    In the ten books on architecture, Vitruvius exposes his idea on the origin of dwellings by stating, “the discovery of fire gave rise to the coming together of man”. [1]. As Vitruvius suggests, the first dwellings seem to take on a gathering purpose. He also adds: “As time went on, the thickly crowded trees in a certain place, tossed by storms and winds, and rubbing their branches against one another, caught fire, and so the inhabitants of the place were put to flight, being terrified by the furious flame.”[2] This passage refers to the notion that the first dwellings provided a means of protection, similar to what Laugier suggests about Vitruvius observations in his book An Essay on Architecture. This dual purpose of the early dwellings is evidenced by the evolution of the dwelling through the advancement of civilization.

    The early inhabitants moved from the wood and groves to their first dwelling, built only with the materials available near their site. Although fire did serve a gathering purpose for the people, over time their dwellings became influenced by their physical needs. Dwellings began to be erected taking into account the best means for protection from their surroundings, such as fire, predators, and naturally occurring events. One example is the evolution of the dwelling to protect against meteorological events: “Finding that such roofs could not stand the rain during the storms of winter, they built them with peaks daubed with mud, the roofs sloping and projecting so as to carry off the rain water.” [3] The first peoples began to work towards actively keeping themselves out of harms way, through the use of their dwelling to satisfy their physical need of protection.

    The adaptation of the dwelling to satisfy physical needs also led to a significant improvement in their quality. Vitruvius states: “their constructions passed from a rude and barbarous mode of life to civilization and refinement.”[4] Therefore, a direct relationship existed between the advancement of civilization and the evolution of their specific physical needs, which was reflected in the changing role of the dwelling. Thus, the transformation of the dwelling from a social role to a means for protection is evidence that the first people sought to fulfill their physical needs, even if at first, the main reason was the coming together of man.

    [1] Vitruvius, The Ten Books of Architecture, trans. M.H. Morgan (New York: Dover, 1960), 38.
    [2] Ibid. 38.
    [3] Ibid. 39.
    [4] Ibid. 40.

    September 25, 2012 at 8:55 pm

  9. beaupré

    In Vitruvius’s narration, he makes it clear that humans are far more superior to other animals. Our capacity to learn from nature and convey knowledge to one another enables us to innovate new means of survival in this world. He explains how humans constantly try to excel each other with new methods or technologies of building: “by observing the shelters of others and adding new details to their own inceptions, they constructed better and better kinds of huts as time went on.”[1]

    Humans have always yearned for better living and to alleviate nature’s impact on our bodies through improving means of construction. Once that threshold of basic comfort is surpassed, humans began to look for meaning in what they created. Architecture becomes more than just a shelter, but something that frames social relationships. In Laugier’s text, the primitive hut has a different significance for him: “It is by approaching the simplicity of this first model that fundamental mistakes are avoided and true perfection is achieved.”[2]

    Vitruvius seemed to have been more concerned with the advancement of human’s expertise in building. He explains that because we are endowed and equipped with powers of thought and understanding that we constantly refine our way of living from a “barbarous mode of life to civilization and refinement.”[3] Laugier provides a counterpoint to Vitruvius’s conception of human’s shelter as he attributes meaning to the origins of architecture: “Let us never lose sight of our little rustic hut…in an architectural Order only the column, the entablature and the pediment may form an essential part of its composition. If each of these parts is suitably placed and suitably formed, nothing else need be added to make the work perfect.”[4]

    [1] Vitruvius, The Ten Books of Architecture, trans. M.H. Morgan (New York: Dover, 1960), 38-39.
    [2] Marc-Antoine Laugier, An Essay on Architecture, trans. Wolfgang and Anni Hermann (Los Angeles: Hennessey and Ingalls, 1977), 12.
    [3] Ibid. 1, at 40.
    [4] Ibid. 2, at 12-13.

    September 25, 2012 at 9:18 pm

  10. Esiolé

    I disagree with Madeck. Is it only physical need that gave the primitive people the impulse to build shelters? Is it the act of building elaborate shelters to protect themselves that defines men, or rather the act of gathering, of living together, as a society? What is the difference between the primitive man and the animal? What differentiates an animal shelter from one built by a man?

    In a way, Vitruvius answers clearly to these questions. FIRE. But even though what first attracted men to fire was the physical need of warmth and comfort, its meaning and use go beyond any physical condition. Fire is the trigger that changed the way men live. Fire is what distinguishes them from animals. Without fire, men have no control over their environment. With the gift of fire, men gather, build and start to speak. With speech come thoughts, ideas, and inventions. They discover that they have skills. “[…] in being able to do with ease whatever they chose with their hands and fingers, they began in that first assembly to construct shelters.” [1] As animals, they used to live alone or in small packs; fire brought them together, in larger numbers. Together, they discovered a power they didn’t expect to find: the power to create and to learn from each other, which was not possible before. “And since they were of an imitative and teachable nature, they would daily point out to each other the results of their building, boasting of the novelties in it; and thus, with their natural gifts sharpened by emulation, their standards improved daily.” [2]

    A shift therefore happens in the way men view their environment. Even though the building of shelter was first driven by a physical need, men discover that they can control, in a way, their environment by building shelters. “Furthermore, as men made progress by becoming daily more expert in building, and as their ingenuity was increased by their dexterity so that from habit they attained to considerable skill, their intelligence was enlarged by their industry […]” [3] The shelters, contrarily to the ones built by animals out of a need to protect themselves, become a statement of man’s superiority over a nature he can study, adapt and transform to its physical needs. Thus, the act of building a shelter cannot be reduced to the notion of comfort and physical needs only. The shelter, first a protection, a way to adapt to environment, turns out to be an adaptation of the environment, a social statement.

    Beyond physical need that is common to all animals, the social importance of the hearth, the gathering around a fire as a founding element of man’s society reveals the true human nature – and his given superiority over nature.
    _________

    [1] Vitruvius, The Ten Books of Architecture, trans. M.H. Morgan (New York: Dover, 1960), p. 38.
    [2] Ibid., p. 39.
    [2] Ibid., p. 40.

    September 25, 2012 at 10:40 pm

  11. petersburg

    In the Ten Books on Architecture, Vitruvius refers “to durability, convenience, and beauty” [1] as three virtues of architecture; the first two can be closely related to the building as physical protection. The first dwellings were no exception; they were clearly shelters for comfort as Laugier believes. However, the idea of first permanent settlements does necessarily come along the gathering of people and the knowledge such as agriculture, as a first sign of human civilization. At the same time, the first buildings do their appearance with men settling down, since they have found comfort from fire and an appropriate environment for such civilized system, but then I believe that this can be seen as merely a catalyst of the origin of dwellings, according to Vitruvius’ writings. In fact, “the discovery of fire […] originally gave rise to the coming together of men, to the deliberative assembly, and to social intercourse” [2], which are promoting the transition in their lifestyle, from nomadic to sedentary, as it self-fostered men’s know-how that nurtured the development of technology, for instance, in agriculture. Consequently, the first people are adapting themselves to a new environment, almost alternating it in the way it suits their physical need. For instance, Vitruvius’ examples of tribes in different climates explain their respective way of adaptations for their needs, yet within their means: available materials, skills, etc. In other words, the author leaves the impression that rather than first dwellings were purely for the physical need, the social quality lead to an opportunity to reach the comfort. In another vein, he explains how this idea induces also to the aesthetic, the third virtue of architecture: “Since they were of an imitative and teachable nature, they would daily point out to each other the results of their building […] their standards improved daily. […] Then, taking courage and looking forward from the standpoint of higher ideas born of the multiplication of the arts […] observation and application led them from fluctuating and indefinite conceptions to definite rules of symmetry ” [3].

    [1] Vitruvius, The Ten Books of Architecture, trans. M.H. Morgan (New York: Dover, 1960), 17.
    [2] Ibid, 38.
    [3] Ibid, 40-41.

    September 25, 2012 at 10:50 pm

  12. VDSY

    In the same direction as pointed out by S.Fumato, Vitruvius doesn’t seem to be concerned by the physical need of these first settlers. He really put the emphasis on the «building art» developed.

    When we look at the way he has composed the structure of the text, the initial situation describes the men as : « born like the wild beasts, in woods, caves, and groves, and lived on savage fare.» [1] He does already introduce the specific conditions where they lived, that they have diverse habitats and they manage to survive in specifics conditions, defined locations. And then when he talks about the fire : « the inhabitants of the place were put to flight, being terrified […].»[2] he reinforced the relations to the «wild beasts» linked to the spirit of survival. But then the change happens when « they put on logs and, while thus keeping it alive, […].»[3] This was the first step to understand a phenomenon collectively. Then he goes on with the notion of the «coming together of men» until it reaches the point where they look further away than their immediate surrounding: «[…], finding themselves naturally gifted beyond the other animals in not being obliged to walk with faces to the ground, but upright and glazing upon the splendour of the starry firmament, […]»[4] This notion of walking upright and «glazing» brings out the idea of looking for a long time, staring and observing. That they could now think of something greater, higher.

    Vitruvius then draw immediately a parallel with the initial situation. The woods are now becoming « green bough constructions», the caves are now carved and the groves are referenced to the idea of the «nest of swallows». The human are looking back are their first habitats and are now thinking of ways to improve them and bring back this notion of comfort. The same references are brought back through the examples of huts in different environments, how they evolved with the «powers of thought and understanding»[5] that the human developped with the «coming together of men».

    It seems to me that he tried to identify the ways and conditions in which the first settlers brought back the notion of comfort in their lives and therefore start to fostered the Building Art.

    [1] Vitruvius, The Ten Books of Architecture, trans. M.H. Morgan (New York: Dover, 1960), 38.
    [2] Ibid, 38.
    [3] Ibid,38.
    [4] Ibid, 38.
    [5] Ibid, 40.

    September 25, 2012 at 11:53 pm

  13. Thank you, Labyrinth, for seeking out the various passages to highlight your argument about ingenuity. Human capacity to imitate is also mentioned by Vitruvius, furthering the distinction between mankind and animals. There is much to support Madeck’s idea that the need for physical shelter drove the actions of primitive man. Vitruvius seems also to call these animal needs into question though when he speaks of man staring at the celestial firmament above. Nickireckziegel stresses the social component of Vitruvius’s account, UVN underscores the idea of communal ritual, Amalin points to the significance of social gathering, Trebuh elaborates on a “coming together,” and Beaupré contrasts Laugier’s account with Vitruvius’s interest in social relationships. The origin of community certainly seems to be a crucial component resulting from this gift of fire. Language, building and eventually the cooking of food would likewise be results of this discovery. Esiolé underscores the significance of fire. The “furious flame” that then subsides and becomes artificially managed is at the core of this account. Petersburg makes a link between this section and the short but famous passage in Book I and of sociability leading to “an opportunity to reach comfort.” The transition from nomadic to sedentary life is a key component here. Prior to the origin of this community, fire was terrifying and language was non-existent. VDSY’s entry connects this origin tale to mankind’s observations of the skies and thoughts of something greater. This remains central and would point to Vitruvius’s stepping beyond the desire to keep warm and dry.

    September 26, 2012 at 10:54 am

  14. somer

    In the Chapter on the Origins of Dwelling in The Ten Books of Architecture I believe Vitruvius suggests that the primitive constructions arouse from social needs more so than physical ones. He begins by describing the discovery of fire as a trigger for events, which propelled human evolution. Fire, discovered by chance from nature, led to humans collectively gathering; as communal activities grew and became larger the first shelters were made. It began as a means for gathering but the evolution of the shelter continued, driven by social activities. The shelters became more technical as they watched and learned from one another. The ideas shared in the social context brought out new reasons for building and new inspirations for materials. He describes the development of shelter through imitation of each other;
    “ Then, taking courage and looking forward from the standpoint of higher ideas born of the multiplication of the arts, they gave up huts and began to build houses with foundations, having brick or stone walls, and roofs of timber and tiles; next, observation and application led them from fluctuating and indefinite conceptions to definite rules of symmetry” (1)
    Primitive construction was developed primarily based on human social needs and reactions. It is Human nature to imitate each other and also to imitate nature. The more common it became to build shelters the more it became a social necessity in order to be equal to each other. The different construction methods arose through the imitation of nature and the building materials that were available, but the need to build in the first place was initiated through communal gatherings, where knowledge was shared and social hierarchy became important.

    (1) Vitruvius, The Ten Books of Architecture, trans. M.H. Morgan (New York: Dover, 1960), 38

    September 26, 2012 at 12:57 pm