Cave Art in Context: Methods for the Analysis of the Spatial Organization of Cave Sites

Abstract

Investigations of prehistoric cave art have long neglected the surrounding context: space, archaeological objects, and imprints. As a result, an integrative structural approach that analyzes cave art as part of an anthropomorphized landscape has not been available. This article draws on urban planning and the physiology of the human eye to provide an innovative archaeospatial analysis of cave sites. A set of relevant features from the caves of Bédeilhac, Fontanet, and Le Portel was selected and defined (light zone, chamber type, path network, mode of movement, and available space). An analysis of the prehistoric remains in the caves allows the reconstruction of different concentrations of human activities (cave art, archaeological objects, and imprints). The projection of these concentrations onto the structured map of the caves results in four types of locations: drawing location, supply location, drawing location with substantial activities, and drawing location with consumption activities. This approach opens new avenues for the archaeological perception of caves and their inhabitants: Upper Paleolithic humans were very familiar with caves and probably followed a master plan during their stay in the dark.

Cultural spaces inside and outside caves: a study in Guam, western Micronesia

“…Further distinctions include the distributions of midden deposits, burial features, pictographs on the cave walls and grinding basins in the limestone shelves outside the cave mouths. Additional clues to cultural use are offered by the water pools, areas of active stalactite and stalagmite growth, areas for standing or crawling, zones with and without natural lighting, exposed rock floors vs loose sediment, and other variables (Pastoors & Weniger 2011).…”

Geoarchaeological site documentation and analysis of 3D data derived by terrestrial laser scanning

“…The fusion of 3D surfaces and further measurements, such as punctual stratigraphic information or georadar transects is possible (Siart et al, 2013). The illumination analysis for the Ardales cave can be further carried out with regard to living conditions and recorded cave art (Pastoors and Weniger, 2011). For instance, the illumination of oil lamps and torches will be simulated in the 3D model.…”

Hidden Sites, Hidden Images, Hidden Meanings: Does the Location and Visibility of Motifsand Sites Correlate to Restricted or Open Access?

“…Today, many of the intangible cultural behaviours and practices related to rock art production and use are hardly visible in the archaeological record. To try to get answers to these and other questions when informants no longer exist, archaeologists have developed a wide set of tools to describe site location (size, visibility, perceptibility, difficulty of access, proximity to settlement areas and established routes, monumentality, proximity to water sources, site capacity and so forth) (Bradley 2000:66 and 2002Lenssen-Erz 2004Ouzman 2005;Lorblanchet 2010;Pastoors and Weniger 2011;Bourdier 2013;Bourdier et al 2017;Acevedo et al 2019). These data are analyzed using a variety of methods, ranging from purely descriptive approaches to the tangible features of the places, to mapping (GIS) or to more complex statistical methods (see for example Gillings 2015-statistical analysis to measure invisibility).…”

“…Along with landscape approaches, the internal topography of the sites (distance and openness to view) has been also analyzed to establish the visibility and perceptibility of the motifs in an attempt to deduce the intended audience of particular sites or specific areas within the sites (see Bradley 2000:69;Ross and Davidson 2006;Pastoors and Weniger 2011;Lenssen-Erz 2012;Jouteau et al 2019). The goal of this approach is to deduce if motifs were intentionally displayed in visible places so everyone could see them or if they were hidden to restrict access to specific people.…”