Space Analysis in Palaeolithic Cave Art: Towards a Multidisciplinary and Integrated Approach

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-024-09655-8 RESEARCH Space Analysis in Palaeolithic Cave Art: Towards a Multidisciplinary and Integrated Approach Olga Spaey1,2,3 · Diego Garate1,4 · Aritz Irurtzun3 Accepted: 13 May 2024 © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract We present a revision of the concept of space in Palaeolithic cave art. Previous research attempting to approach this notion encounters several gaps, which surface on multiple levels: subjectivity, vagueness, restrictions on its conceptualisation, its illustration (two-dimensional description and representation), among others. We reassess the key elements at play, interpretative attempts, and theoretical concepts to gain a better understanding of the notion of space as applied to cave art. This is achieved by examining the historiography not only in prehistory but also in related disciplines, integrating new theoretical approaches and insights from ethnoarchaeology, linguistics, cognitive science, and analytic philosophy. Following this analysis of the existing research, we propose a new method to address the aforementioned issues. This method relies on digital quantitative tools for spatial analysis and three-dimensional representation, such as geographic information systems (GIS) and 3D visualisation. Through the application of these advanced technological tools, we aim to offer a more comprehensive and precise representation of the spatial aspects in Palaeolithic cave art, enabling researchers to analyse and comprehend the complexities of spatial distribution in a systematic and quantitative manner. * Olga Spaey Diego Garate Aritz Irurtzun 1 Université Bordeaux-Montaigne, Pessac, France 2 Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain 3 CNRS, IKER UMR 5478, Bayonne, France 4 Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistóricas, Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain 13 Vol.:(0123456789) O. Spaey et al. Keywords Space · Parietal art · Upper Palaeolithic · Cave · 3D Introduction Palaeolithic cave art is now considered one of the most valuable sources for approaching the societies of hunters-gatherers from that era (Upper Palaeolithic (40.000–12.000 cal. BP) in Western Europe). Art, reflecting the thoughts of these groups, is thus a cornerstone of prehistoric research. These artistic manifestations are not located at random but are rather distributed in particular places, which can teach us a lot about their logic, meaning, and purpose. But what is a place? How far does the word ‘space’ lead us? Can we set about defining it, or at least offering an overview of the concepts it can mobilise? From Leroi-Gourhan’s caverne participante (1965) to Pigeaud’s caverne organisatrice (2013), what are the researchers’ proposals, and what can its analysis bring? In this article, we propose to revisit the key elements at play, the interpretative attempts, and the pitfalls that the prehistorian must confront. Indeed, as we will see, the existing literature highlights a number of difficulties that have been addressed with the tools available to date. These include the question of representing three-dimensional spaces on supports that only offer two, the subjectivity of the researcher when characterizing space and its divisions and the many facets of this notion. Indeed, until very recently, the only means available to represent space were limited to photography, plans, crosssections, and verbal description, the latter involving nontrivial degrees of subjectivity, which is extremely critical when evoking places as complex as underground cavities. The very vocabulary used to address this spatial issue quickly reveals its limitations. For if we try to use everyday words to study the space in cave art, we realise that they are bounded by our cultural frame of reference. Terms, seen in many publications, such as ‘corridor’, ‘background’, ‘ceiling’, or ‘room’ reveal their limited ability to represent the complex reality of the cave. The term ‘space’ is, as we will see, pulled in all directions: from the location of a motif on the wall to the physical perception of narrowness, passing through the notions of visibility, acoustics, appropriation, and structuring of the motifs. Faced with such multiplicity and technical constraints of representation, traditional analysis methods have shown serious limitations. In this text, we propose to open the classical vision to a new spectrum of possibilities, allowing us to conceive the concept of space in a more nuanced way and to determine which tools would be best adapted for its study. Indeed, the discipline now offers the possibility of reconsidering the question with new analytical instruments: geographic information systems (GIS) and three-dimensional visualisation, which put together provide quantitative data that pave the way for better informed cross-site comparisons and inferential arguments. 13 Space Analysis in Palaeolithic Cave Art: Towards a… Historical Background Archaeology of Cave Art First, let us examine what has been proposed by prehistorians and archaeologists in the research on space, particularly in the case of Upper Palaeolithic decorated caves. Proposed Structural Frameworks In the study of cave art, historically, the cave space has typically received little attention. This is evident at the scale of the wall, where works like Breuil (1952) abstract from the support and space between motifs altogether, as well as at a broader scale of the entire cavity. Thus, as Groenen (2013, 2019) comments, the works of Raphaël (pioneering in the field in the 1940s and early 1950s, only published posthumously in 1986), followed by Laming-Emperaire (1962) and LeroiGourhan (1965), were innovative on the matter in their time. However, the arbitrary and vague definition of sectors, the particular focus on iconography, and the search for an ideal model applicable to all caves (a sort of an archetype) relegated the role of space itself to a secondary position in their works. Caves as complex as El Castillo, Pech-Merle, or even Les Trois-Frères (Fig. 1) were consequently reduced to a general structure, whereas their layout and architectural characteristics offered the possibility of a broad and comprehensive spatial study. After these major structuring models, other researchers have explored their own ways of analysing space. They have proposed numerous notions to categorise, direct, and proportion the space. For instance, the concept of ‘panel’ proposed by Leroi-Gourhan (1972) was translated into ‘graphical ensemble’ by Sauvet (1993). It has long prevailed and continues to occupy a significant place in the division of space despite the many criticisms that have been made (Leroi-Gourhan, 1972), and the caves and shelters where this concept becomes completely arbitrary, as at Combarelles or Fuente del Trucho, for example. For his part, Vialou (1986, 2009) suggested dividing the description of space into two categories: (i) topographic (...truncated)