The evolutionary origins of how modern humans share and use space are often modelled on the territorial-based violence of chimpanzees, with limited comparison to other apes. Gorillas are widely assumed to be non-territorial due to their large home ranges, extensive range overlap, and limited inter-group aggression. Using large-scale camera trapping, we monitored western gorillas in Republic of Congo across 60 km 2. Avoidance patterns between groups were consistent with an understanding of the "ownership" of specific regions, with greater avoidance of their neighbours the closer they were to their neighbours' home range centres. Groups also avoided larger groups' home ranges to a greater extent, consistent with stronger defensive responses from more dominant groups. Our results suggest that groups may show territoriality, defending core regions of their home ranges against neighbours, and mirror patterns common across human evolution, with core areas of resident dominance and larger zones of mutual tolerance. This implies western gorillas may be a key system for understanding how humans have evolved the capacity for extreme territorial-based violence and warfare, whilst also engaging in the strong affiliative inter-group relationships necessary for large-scale cooperation. Understanding how neighbours use and share space is fundamental to understanding a species' large-scale social system 1. Patterns of space use can have considerable impacts on the likelihood of neighbours encountering one another, and the location of such encounters can greatly influence the behaviour shown when they meet 2-4. One key example of this is in species showing territoriality, where rates of aggression shown to out-group individuals can differ drastically depending on the location relative to the group's territory 5-8. Territories are commonly defined as regions of a home range that are actively defended against intruders to enable exclusive use by the individual or social unit 9. However, there is considerable variation in how the term has been used in different study systems 10 and broader definitions of territoriality also include areas of priority use 1,11 , for example, through site-specific dominance 8,12. Territories can be defended using physical aggression or advertised using less costly alternatives such as scent marking, calls or displays; with a broad diversity of territorial behaviors observed both within and among species 11 , including humans 13. It has been increasingly suggested that defining territoriality as a binary trait cannot explain the full diversity of territorial behaviours observed 1,11,14-16. Territoriality may be better described by a continuum from extreme territoriality where neighbouring conspecifics impose a hard boundary on movement, to species with more flexible territory boundaries such as the black bear where territoriality can vary, geographically and temporally 11 , through to non-territorial species in which the ranges of neighbouring conspecifics do not constrain an individual or group's movem...