Взаємодія культур у печері Атлантерра (Кадіс, Іспанія): діахронні зв’язки між графічними традиціями палеолітичної та постпалеолітичної доби
This article analyses the diachronic interaction between Palaeolithic and post-Palaeolithic graphic traditions documented in the Atlanterra Cave (Cadiz, Spain). Through a spatial and graphic approach, it explores how later motifs engaged with earlier imagery in terms of distribution, scale, superimp...
Збережено в:
| Опубліковано в: | Археологія |
|---|---|
| Дата: | 2026 |
| Випуск: | 2 |
| Сторінки: | 5-20 |
| ISSN: | 2616-499X |
| Автори та афіліації: |
|
| Автор: | |
| Формат: | Стаття |
| Мова: | Англійська |
| Опубліковано: |
Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine
2026
|
| Теми: | |
| Онлайн доступ: | https://arheologia.com.ua/index.php/arheologia/article/view/446 |
| Теги: |
Додати тег
Немає тегів, Будьте першим, хто поставить тег для цього запису!
|
| Назва журналу: | Chemistry, Physics and Technology of Surface |
| Завантажити файл: |  |
Репозитарії
Chemistry, Physics and Technology of Surface| _version_ | 1872824666067828736 |
|---|---|
| author | De Lara López, Hugo |
| author_facet | De Lara López, Hugo |
| author_institution_txt_mv | [
{
"author": "Hugo De Lara López",
"institution": "PhD, Professor-tutor, researcher, the National University of Distance Education, the Department of Prehistory and Archaeology",
"orcid": ""
}
] |
| author_sort | De Lara López, Hugo |
| baseUrl_str | https://arheologia.com.ua/index.php/arheologia/oai |
| collection | OJS |
| container_end_page | 20 |
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 5 |
| container_title | Археологія |
| container_volume | |
| datestamp_date | 2026-07-07T18:28:00Z |
| description | This article analyses the diachronic interaction between Palaeolithic and post-Palaeolithic graphic traditions documented in the Atlanterra Cave (Cadiz, Spain). Through a spatial and graphic approach, it explores how later motifs engaged with earlier imagery in terms of distribution, scale, superimposition, and visual hierarchy. The study highlights the reconfiguration of graphic space across different chrono-cultural phases. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.15407/archaeologyua2026.02.005 |
| first_indexed | 2026-08-07T01:06:23Z |
| format | Article |
| fulltext |
НАЦIОНАЛЬНА АКАДЕМIЯ НАУК УКРАЇНИ • IНСТИТУТ АРХЕОЛОГIЇ НАН УКРАЇНИ
НАУКОВИЙ ЖУРНАЛ – ЗАСНОВАНИЙ У 1947 р.
ВИДАЄТЬСЯ ЩОКВАРТАЛЬНО
КИЇВ 2 2026
АРХЕОЛОГIЯ
Головний редактор
ЧАБАЙ В. П., член-кореспондент НАН України, Iнститут археологiї НАН України
Редакцiйна колегiя
БОЛТРИК Ю. В. – кандидат історичних наук, Інститут археології НАН України
БУЙСЬКИХ А. В. – доктор історичних наук, Інститут археології НАН України
ГАРДІ С. Е. – PhD, Альянс для боротьби зі злочинністю в інтернеті, Велика Британія
ДЖІНДЖАН Ф. – професор, доктор хаб., Університет Сорбонни, Париж-1, Франція
ЗАЛІЗНЯК Л. Л. – професор, доктор історичних наук, Інститут археології НАН України
КАЙЗЕР Е. – професор, доктор хаб., Вільний університет Берліна, Німеччина
МОТУЗАЙТЕ МАТУЗЕВІЧУТЕ (КІН) Ґ. – професор, PhD, Вільнюський університет, Литва
ОТРОЩЕНКО В. В. – професор, доктор історичних наук, Інститут археології НАН України
ПЛАВІНСЬКИЙ М. О. – кандидат історичних наук, Варшавський університет, Польща
ПОТЄХІНА І. Д. – кандидат історичних наук, Інститут археології НАН України, Україна
РАБІНОВІЦ А. – PhD, Техаський університет в Остіні, Сполучені штати Америки
ФОРНАСЬЄ Й. – професор, доктор, Галле-Віттенбергський університет імені Мартіна Лютера, Німеччина
ШЕВЧЕНКО Т. М. – кандидат історичних наук, Інститут археології НАН України (відповідальний секретар)
ШНЕЕВАЙС Є. – доктор хаб., Центр археології Ляйбніца, Німеччина
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF UKRAINE • INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY NAS OF UKRAINE
SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL – FOUNDED IN 1947
FREQUENCY: QUARTERLY
Editor-in-Chief
CHABAI V. P., Corresponding Member of the NAS of Ukraine, Institute of Archaeology
of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Editorial Board
BOLTRYK Yu. V. – PhD in History, Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine
BUISKYKH A. V. – DSc., Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine
DJINDJIAN F. – Professor, Dr. Hab., University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, France
FORNASIER J. – Professor, Ph.D., Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
MOTUZAITĖ MATUZEVIČIŪTĖ (KEEN) G. – Professor, Ph.D., Vilniaus universitetas, Lithuania
HARDY S. A. – PhD., Alliance to Counter Crime Online, United Kingdom
KAISER E. – Professor, Dr. Hab., Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
OTROSHCHENKO V. V. – Professor, DSc., Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine
PLAVINSKI M. O. – PhD in History, University of Warsaw, Poland
POTEKHINA I. D. – PhD in History, Institute of Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine
RABINOWITZ A. – PhD in Classical Archaeology, The University of Texas at Austin, USA
SHEVCHENKO T. M. – PhD in History, Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine (Executive Secretary)
SCHNEEWEISS J. – Dr. Hab., Leibniz-Zentrum für Archäologie, Germany
ZALIZNIAK L. L. – Professor, DSc., Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine
ARHEOLOGIA
KYIV 2 2026
ЗМIСТ CONTENTS
Articles
DE LARA LÓPEZ H. Culture Clash in Atlanterra
Cave (Cadiz, Spain): Diachronic Interactions
between Palaeolithic and Post-Palaeolithic Graphic
Traditions
BROVENDER Yu. M. On the Problem of Food Re-
sources of the Kartamysh Inhabitants
BAUKOVA A. Yu. Artemis Anahita. Persian Trace
in the Culture and Identity of the Roman City
LAPTIEV O. O. «Fire-Steel Brooches», «Tongs» or
«Ducks»? An Attempt at Attributing a Category of
Saltiv Artefacts
Publications
of Archaeological Materials
TEMÜR A., KANCA S. A Group of Archaic Period
Terracotta Figurines in the Samsun Museum
SYMONENKO O. V. A Red-Slip Amphora from a
Sarmatian Grave in the Cherkasy Region
KRYZHANOVSKYI V. O. Non-Ferrous Metal-
working in Kyivan Podil (10th — First Half of the
13th Century)
SOROKIN S. O., SYTYI Yu. M. Materials of the
Second Half of the 13th–15th Centuries from Desna Ri-
ver Chernihiv Region
Статтi
ДЕ ЛАРА ЛОПЕЗ, У. Взаємодія культур у печері
Атлантерра (Кадіс, Іспанія): діахронні зв’язки між
графічними традиціями палеолітичної та постпа-
леолітичної доби
БРОВЕНДЕР Ю. М. До проблеми харчових
ресурсів мешканців Картамишу
БАУКОВА А. Ю. Артеміда Анаїта. Перський
слід в культурі та ідентичності римського міста
ЛАПТЄВ О. О. «Фібули-кресала», «щипчики»
чи «качечки»? Спроба атрибуції однієї категорії
салтівських артефактів
Публiкацiї
археологiчних матерiалiв
ТЕМУР А., КАНЧА С. Група теракотових
фігурок архаїчного періоду в музеї Самсуна
СИМОНЕНКО О. В. Червонолакова столова
амфора із сарматського поховання на Черкащині
КРИЖАНОВСЬКИЙ В. О. Обробка кольо-
рових металів на Київському Подолі (X — перша
половина XIII ст.)
СОРОКІН С. О., СИТИЙ Ю. М. Нові матеріали
другої половини ХІІІ–ХV ст. з Чернігівського
Подесення
5
21
29
42
62
81
88
112
Iсторiя науки
СТАНИЦІНА Г. О. Листи Богдана Ханенка
в науковому архіві Інституту археології НАН
України
ЛИСИЙ І. О. Історіографія архітектурно-
археологічних досліджень галицького замко-
вого комплексу в період незалежності України
History of Science
STANYTSINA H. O. Letters of Bohdan Khanen-
ko from the Scientific Archive of the Institute of
Archaeology of the National Academy of Sciences
of Ukraine
LYSYI I. O. Historiography of Architectural and
Archaeological Research of the Halych Castle Com-
plex during the Period of Ukraine's Independence
128
144
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 2 5
Статтi
УДК: 903.27(460)”632”
https://doi.org/10.15407/arheologyua2026.02.005
© DE LARA LÓPEZ HUGO, 2026 ― PhD, Professor-tutor,
researcher, the National University of Distance Education,
the Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, Spain,
ORCID: 0009-0004-0564-7222, hdelara@invi.uned.es
© The Institute of Archaeology, the National Academy of
Sciences of Ukraine, 2026
CULTURE CLASH
IN ATLANTERRA CAVE (CADIZ, SPAIN):
DIACHRONIC INTERACTIONS BETWEEN
PALAEOLITHIC AND POST-PALAEOLITHIC GRAPHIC TRADITIONS
H. DE LARA LÓPEZ
mensional variability of dot motifs suggested
that prehistoric rock art could be understood as
a collaborative and community-based practice,
potentially involving individuals of different
ages and genders (De Lara López 2025; De Lara
López, Mas Cornellà, Solís Delgado 2025).
Beyond these aspects, the Atlanterra Cave
presents an additional and particularly relevant
feature: the long-term coexistence and interaction
of multiple graphic traditions executed on the same
rock surface. The presence of motifs attributed
to the Palaeolithic, the early post-Palaeolithic,
and the post-Palaeolithic schematic art phases
within individual panels provides an exceptional
opportunity to examine how successive visual
traditions engaged with pre-existing graphic marks
and later reinterpreted and reorganised them over
extended periods of time.
Rock art studies have long recognised the
analytical value of superimpositions, surface reuse,
and palimpsests for understanding diachronic
graphic processes. However, while these phe-
nomena have been extensively addressed from
a chronological perspective, comparatively less
attention has been paid to the ways in which size,
spatial distribution, and visual hierarchy contribute
to the internal reconfiguration of painted surfaces
through time, particularly at the level of individual
panels and localised graphic fields.
In this context, the present study focuses
on the spatial and dimensional relationships
between Palaeolithic, early post-Palaeolithic,
and post-Palaeolithic schematic art graphic
traditions documented in the Atlanterra Cave.
The analysis adopts a predominantly graphic and
spatial approach aimed at examining how later
graphic phases interact visually with earlier ones
through patterns of distribution, size, surface
occupation and superimposition, and how these
This article analyses the diachronic interaction
between Palaeolithic and post-Palaeolithic graph-
ic traditions documented in the Atlanterra Cave
(Cadiz, Spain). Through a spatial and graphic ap-
proach, it explores how later motifs engaged with
earlier imagery in terms of distribution, scale, su-
perimposition, and visual hierarchy. The study
highlights the reconfiguration of graphic space
across different chrono-cultural phases.
K e y w o r d s : southern Iberian Peninsula; Strait
of Gibraltar; Palaeolithic; post-Palaeolithic; rock
art; graphic space; visual hierarchy
Previous research on the Atlanterra Cave (Ca-
diz, Spain) has made it possible to identify one
of the oldest and most comprehensive graphic
sequences documented in the southern Iberian
Peninsula with regard to open-air rock art sites
(De Lara López 2025; De Lara López, Mas Cor-
nellà, Solís Delgado 2025) (fig. 1)1. These stud-
ies have also enabled the identification of formal
parallels between motifs recorded in the Atlan-
terra graphic repertoire and those documented
at other rock art sites, both within its immedi-
ate regional context and on the opposite shore of
the Strait of Gibraltar (De Lara López 2025; De
Lara López, Mas Cornellà, Solís Delgado 2025).
Furthermore, the analysis of the pronounced di-
1 The Atlanterra Cave is a small “cavity” that is traditionally
referred to as a cave, but with very little depth. Typically, in
Spain, these types of cavities are referred to as open-air sites
due to their minimal depth, despite being categorised as caves.
This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.en
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 26
interactions contribute to the reorganisation of
visual hierarchies within a multi-phase rock art
context.
Methodology
The present study is based on the analysis of
the Atlanterra Cave graphic repertoire, document-
ed through a combined approach integrating dig-
ital image processing, panel-based spatial organ-
isation, and comparative graphic assessment. The
methodological framework adopted seeks to en-
sure the accurate identification, reproduction, and
contextualisation of the motifs, while explicit-
ly acknowledging the limitations imposed by the
state of preservation of the rock surface and the
diachronic complexity of the site.
The identification and analysis of the motifs
required the use of advanced digital image-pro-
cessing tools applied to photographic documen-
tation obtained during fieldwork campaigns car-
ried out in the 1990s (Mas Cornellà 1994, 2002;
ed. Mas Cornellà 2000; Ripoll López, Mas Cor-
nellà 1999; Mas Cornellà, Ripoll López 2002; De
Lara López 2025; De Lara López, Mas Cornellà,
Solís Delgado 2025). Adobe Photoshop (Adobe
Systems Incorporated) and the ImageJ software,
specifically its DStretch plugin (Harman 2015),
were employed to enhance pigment visibility, de-
limit motifs, and produce accurate digital trac-
ings. The process of digital reproduction present-
ed significant challenges due to the condition of
the rock surface and the state of preservation of
the motifs. Several panels show advanced deteri-
oration, many figures are highly faded, and some
motifs appear infraposed beneath later graphic el-
ements, complicating their identification and de-
limitation. Despite these limitations, digital im-
age processing proved essential for highlighting
graphic features that are barely perceptible to the
naked eye and for improving the reliability of
motif documentation.
For analytical purposes, the painted surface of
the cave was divided into 16 panels. This segmen-
tation is artificial and does not reflect any known
original organisation of the graphic space, but
rather constitutes a methodological tool designed
to structure the analysis and facilitate a systema-
tic examination of the spatial distribution of mo-
tifs. Panel boundaries were established by con-
sidering both the dispersion of graphic elements
and the morphology of the rock surface to pro-
duce divisions that were as organic as possible.
The numbering of the panels follows the natural
progression of the rock surface from left to right.
Although a degree of arbitrariness is inherent in
this process, this approach allows for consistent
observations regarding the distribution, coexis-
tence, and superimposition of graphic phases.
For this study, a total of 896 individual graphic
motifs were documented, recorded, and classified
across the 16 panels. This corpus constitutes the
empirical basis for the spatial, dimensional, and
relational analyses presented in the following sec-
tions.
Our work has allowed us to classify the motifs of
the Atlanterra Cave into three chrono-cultural phas-
es: a Palaeolithic phase, an early post-Palaeolithic
phase, and a post-Palaeolithic phase of typical sche-
matic art (De Lara López 2025; De Lara López, Mas
Cornellà, Solís Delgado 2025) (fig. 2, 3). The attri-
bution of motifs to these phases was primarily based
on a combination of superimpositions and infraposi-
tions, patina analysis, and typological parallels. Su-
perimpositional relationships provided the most re-
liable relative chronological indicators, particularly
in cases when later motifs clearly overlapped earli-
er graphic elements. The characteristics of the pati-
nas and differential pigment alteration were also con-
sidered, especially when comparing motifs located
within the same panel. In addition, formal and typo-
logical parallels with other well-dated rock art con-
texts from the surrounding region and the Strait of
Gibraltar area were used to support chrono-cultur-
al attribution. A limited number of motifs for which
these criteria did not allow a confident assignment to
any of the three phases were classified as undeter-
mined for analytical purposes.
The size of the different motifs was assessed us-
ing the physical dimensions recorded in the pho-
tographic documentation, following Internation-
al Federation of Rock Art Organisations (IFRAO)
standards. This approach allowed for consistent
comparisons of motif size and surface occupation
across different panels and graphic phases with-
out the application of complex metric or statistical
models. The analysis focused on variables related
to the spatial organisation of the graphic record, in-
cluding the distribution of graphic phases by pan-
el, the coexistence of motifs belonging to different
phases within the same panel, the relative size of the
motifs, and the extent of surface occupation within
the panels. For analytical clarity, a distinction was
made between superimposition and coexistence.
Superimposition refers to cases in which a motif
physically overlaps and partially covers another, in-
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 2 7
a
b
0 1 2 m
Figure 1. a — outside view of the Atlanterra Cave without its current barriers (Mas Cornellà 1994). The cave is located on a
rocky ridge, facing west, and is at an elevation of approximately 72 metres above sea level. This small cave exhibits a semi-
spherical shape (4.80 m x 5 m x 4.80 m) and its formation is associated with the Aljibe sandstones (Hoyos Gómez et al. 1997).
b — topography (plant and section) of the cave (Mas Cornellà 1994)
dicating a direct diachronic relationship, whereas
coexistence denotes the presence of motifs belong-
ing to different phases within the same panel or vi-
sual field without direct physical contact.
Results
This section aims to describe the spatial distribu-
tion, coexistence, and formal relationships between
Palaeolithic and post-Palaeolithic motifs document-
ed in the Atlanterra Cave. The results presented be-
low focus exclusively on observable graphic pat-
terns, avoiding interpretative frameworks that are
developed in subsequent sections.
Technique, colour, and pigment variability
Thorough documentation of the Atlanterra Cave
confirms that painting was the only technique used
in the execution of the motifs. No evidence of en-
graving or other graphic techniques has been iden-
tified.
The graphic repertoire is characterised by the
predominance of red pigments, most likely derived
from iron oxide sources available in the immediate
surroundings of the site (Mas Cornellà et al. 2013).
These pigments display a wide range of tonal in-
tensities, from very dark to lighter hues, a variabil-
ity generally associated with pigment dilution pro-
cesses or with alterations of the rock surface (Mas
Cornellà 2005; Maura Mijares 2005; 2011).
Moreover, multiple forms of surface alteration
have been documented at the Atlanterra Cave, in-
cluding biological, physical, anthropogenic, and
animal-related processes (Mas Cornellà 1994;
Hoyos Gómez et al. 1997; Núñez Guerrero, Soler
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 28
Fig. 2. Digital tracing of the Atlanterra Cave, highlighting the motifs corresponding to the Palaeolithic phase (blue), the early
post-Palaeolithic phase (red) and the post-Palaeolithic phase of schematic art (green). Other figures whose phase cannot be
clearly identified are also included
0 50 cm
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 2 9
Fig. 3. Digital tracing of the Atlanterra Cave segmented into 16 panels. These panels have been colour-coded for ease of
reference. Based on the previous division into phases, the motifs within each panel exhibit the colours attributed to each phase
and to those figures whose phase remains undetermined
Núñez 2017). In addition to red tones, variations of
orange, pink, and purple hues have been recorded.
Possible ochre (yellowish) pigments have also
been observed in several panels (panels 1, 5, and
14). Comparable pigments have been documented
both in other Iberian contexts (Roldán García et al.
2016) and beyond, notably at Magara Sanar (Tang-
ier-Tétouan-Al Hoceima, Morocco), as previously
discussed (Solís Delgado et al. 2023).
Previous analyses conducted by M. Hoyos us-
ing electron microscopy with energy-dispersive X-
ray spectroscopy identified a white base beneath
the anthropomorphic figure from panel 7, along
with translucent pigment segments (Hoyos Gó-
mez et al. 1997). Although this white base could
not be clearly identified through the digital image
processing employed in the present study, this dis-
crepancy is likely related to differences in analyti-
cal resolution and methodological approach.
Chromatic identification was conducted using
the PANTONE+ Solid Coated colour guide inte-
grated into Photoshop, selected for its standardisa-
tion and chromatic precision (tab. 1).
Distribution of graphic phases
The documentation of the Atlanterra Cave has
made it possible to identify motifs executed during
three chrono-cultural phases, resulting in a relatively
complete graphic sequence spanning a broad Palaeo-
lithic phase, a concise early post-Palaeolithic phase,
and a post-Palaeolithic phase of typical schematic art.
The Palaeolithic phase constitutes the most exten-
sive and visually pervasive component of the site. Its
motifs are distributed across almost the entire paint-
ed rock surface and form the dominant graphic sub-
strate against which later interventions are situated.
This phase is characterised not only by its numeri-
cal predominance, but also by its spatial continuity
across panels. The wide extent of the Palaeolithic
phase is largely, though not exclusively, explained by
the presence of numerous groups of dots, which co-
exist with other figurative and non-figurative motifs
within the same graphic tradition (fig. 4).
In contrast, the early post-Palaeolithic phase is
extremely restricted in both number and spatial ex-
tent. Its presence is limited to a single zoomorphic
motif in panel 1 and to a more substantial concen-
0 50 cm
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 210
Table. 1. Chromatic identification of the Atlanterra Cave graphic repertoire
tration in panel 4, where it occupies a visually cen-
tral position within the panel (fig. 5).
The post-Palaeolithic phase of typical schemat-
ic art displays a wider spatial distribution than the
early post-Palaeolithic phase, although it remains
less extensive than the Palaeolithic phase motifs.
Motifs of this last phase are predominantly located
in panels that already contained Palaeolithic fig-
ures or in their immediate vicinity. This pattern is
particularly evident in the right-hand side of the
cave (fig. 6).
Overall, the distribution of graphic phases re-
veals a marked imbalance: a dense and continuous
Palaeolithic graphic substrate upon which later tra-
ditions intervene selectively, rather than expanding
into previously untouched areas of the rock surface.
Panel-by-panel distribution
Palaeolithic motifs have been identified in pan-
els 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, cov-
ering most of the rock surface. The panels in which
Palaeolithic motifs are absent (panels 6, 7, and 16)
are either very small in size (panels 6 and 16) or
spatially integrated within areas immediately ad-
jacent to panels densely occupied by Palaeolithic
figures (panel 7).
In general terms, the distribution of Palaeo-
lithic motifs within panels is structurally dense,
even though many individual figures currently dis-
play varying degrees of fading and pigment de-
terioration. Despite this differential preservation,
earlier motifs often remain key components of the
overall graphic organisation of the panels. This
structural density is explained largely, though not
exclusively, by the high number of Palaeolithic dot
groupings, which coexist with other motif types
belonging to the same phase.
The early post-Palaeolithic phase exhibits a
markedly different pattern. It is represented only
sporadically in panel 1, where a single zoomor-
phic motif has been identified, and is concentrated
primarily in panel 4. In this panel, the early post-
Palaeolithic motif occupies a central position and
partially superimposes a Palaeolithic quadruped
protome, creating a clear spatial and visual rela-
tionship between the two phases.
This highly localised distribution contrasts
sharply with the widespread presence of Palaeo-
lithic motifs and indicates a selective engagement
with specific panels rather than a generalised ex-
pansion across the cave.
Motifs belonging to the post-Palaeolithic phase
of typical schematic art are distributed across pan-
els 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16. In several
cases (panels 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14), sche-
matic motifs coexist spatially with Palaeolithic fig-
ures within the same panel. Although panel 7 does
not contain Palaeolithic motifs, it is in proximity to
panel 8, which is densely covered by Palaeolithic
groups of dots, situating it within a broader Palae-
olithic visual field.
Size, surface occupation, and spatial strategies
The Atlanterra Cave displays two contrasting
models of surface occupation associated with
different phases. During the Palaeolithic phase,
motifs occupy a large proportion of the rock
surface, primarily because of the high density of
groups of dots, although other Palaeolithic motif
types also contribute to the extensive occupation
of the rock surface.
By contrast, both post-Palaeolithic phases
exhibit strategies oriented towards the redirection
of visual attention rather than the saturation of
PANTONE+ SOLID COATED
Pantone Red Pantone Red 032 C
Pantone 4XX C Pantone 465 C Pantone 466 C Pantone 467 C Pantone 468 C
Pantone 510 CPantone 5XX C Pantone 504 C Pantone 505 C Pantone 506 C
Pantone 6XX C Pantone 681 C Pantone 682 C
Pantone 7XX C Pantone 727 C Pantone 728 C
Pantone 17XX C Pantone 1767 C Pantone 1797 C
Pantone 46XX C Pantone 4665 C
Pantone 47XX C Pantone 4735 C Pantone 4745 C Pantone 4755 C
Pantone 51XX C Pantone 5115 C Pantone 5125 C Pantone 5135 C
Pantone 74XX C Pantone 7415 C Pantone 7417 C Pantone 7418 C Pantone 7419 C Pantone 7420 C Pantone 7421 C
Pantone 75XX C Pantone 7513 C Pantone 7514 C Pantone 7584 C Pantone 7585 C
Pantone 76XX C Pantone 7604 C Pantone 7605 C Pantone 7606 C Pantone 7607 C Pantone 7608 C
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 2 11
Fig. 4. Digital tracing of the Palaeolithic
phase motifs at the Atlanterra Cave
the surface. This redirection is achieved either
through the execution of motifs at a larger size
than the surrounding Palaeolithic figures or
through superimpositions that partially cover or
incorporate earlier graphic elements.
On the left-hand side of the painted surface,
post-Palaeolithic motifs dominate central areas
of the cave. This dominance is achieved through
dense and elongated forms and, in some cases,
through direct superimpositions over Palaeolithic
figures (fig. 7, 8, 9).
On the right-hand side, a different pattern
is observed (fig. 10). Here, post-Palaeolithic
motifs generally assert their presence through
increased size rather than through systematic
superimposition, establishing a clear dimensional
contrast with nearby Palaeolithic motifs.
A clear case of direct reuse of Palaeolithic
graphic elements is documented in panel 13,
where a later motif was executed over pre-existing
Palaeolithic elements without fully obscuring
them (fig. 11).
0 50 cm
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 212
Fig. 5. Digital tracing of the early post-Palaeolithic
phase motifs at the Atlanterra Cave
Diachronic reuse and reconfiguration of the
graphic space
The combined analysis of distribution, size,
superimposition, and surface occupation indicates
that the Atlanterra Cave did not function as a
static or neutral graphic space. Instead, the rock
surface was repeatedly reconfigured through time
as successive graphic traditions engaged with an
inherited visual record. These engagements were
not uniform across the site, but varied according
to different phases, panel location, and the existing
density and configuration of earlier motifs.
The Palaeolithic phase established the main
graphic framework of the site. Its motifs are
widely distributed and densely arranged, covering
large portions of the rock surface and generating
a visually structured background rather than
an undifferentiated space. The groups of dots,
while not the only component of the Palaeolithic
repertoire, play a central role in shaping this initial
visual organisation due to their frequency and
spatial extension. Their pronounced dimensional
variability is consistent with repeated graphic
actions carried out over extended periods of time
and reinforces the interpretation of Palaeolithic
rock art at Atlanterra as a long-term, cumulative,
and potentially collaborative practice involving
multiple individuals of different ages and genders
(De Lara López 2025; De Lara López, Mas
Cornellà, Solís Delgado 2025).
Later graphic phases did not engage with the
space as a blank or neutral surface. Instead, they
interacted selectively with a pre-existing graphic
structure in which certain panels and sections
already possessed a high degree of visual density.
The tendency of post-Palaeolithic motifs to cluster
in areas previously occupied by Palaeolithic
imagery suggests that earlier graphic activity
retained visual relevance over time and actively
conditioned the spatial logic of subsequent
interventions. In addition, this pattern indicates
that not all areas of the cave were equally attractive
for later graphic action.
The early post-Palaeolithic phase represents
the first clear departure from the Palaeolithic
spatial logic. Although extremely limited in
number, its motifs are not randomly distributed.
Their concentration in the central area of panel 4
reflects a deliberate engagement with a visually
prominent sector within an already structured
graphic field. The execution of a dense and
visually complex motif in this location results in
a marked reorientation of visual attention. The
associated superimposition over a Palaeolithic
figure, while chronologically and spatially
significant, appears to be secondary to the broader
strategy of focalisation achieved through density
and central placement.
A more extensive reconfiguration occurs
during the post-Palaeolithic phase of typical
schematic art. These motifs display a broader
spatial distribution across the cave and employ
different strategies depending on local graphic
conditions. On the left-hand side of the painted
surface, schematic motifs tend to concentrate in
central areas and occasionally overlap Palaeolithic
figures, producing dense graphic clusters that
reorganise the visual focus of the panels. In
these contexts, superimposition functions as
one of several mechanisms for redefining spatial
hierarchies within panels already characterised by
high graphic density.
On the right-hand side, by contrast, schematic
motifs more often assert their presence through
increased sizing rather than through systematic
superimposition. Here, visual prominence is
achieved primarily through dimensional contrast
0 50 cm
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 2 13
Fig. 6. Digital tracing of the post-Palaeolithic phase of
schematic art motifs at the Atlanterra Cave
with nearby Palaeolithic motifs, establishing
new focal points without necessarily obscuring
earlier imagery. This variability indicates that
post-Palaeolithic schematic art did not rely on a
single mode of spatial intervention, but adapted its
strategies to the visual configuration inherited in
each section of the cave.
Across the site as a whole, the Palaeolithic
graphic elements are directly reused through
physical superimposition, which is a documented
but highly restricted phenomenon. Clear evidence
of such reuse has been identified only in panel 13,
where a later motif was executed over pre-
existing Palaeolithic elements (fig. 11). In other
panels, interactions between graphic phases are
expressed primarily through spatial proximity,
alignment, or shared surface occupation rather
than through direct overlap. This pattern suggests
that diachronic reuse at Atlanterra was selective,
context-dependent, and embedded within broader
strategies of visual reorganisation.
If we take together these considerations, they
may indicate that the post-Palaeolithic use of the
Atlanterra Cave involved an active and nuanced
reconfiguration of an inherited graphic landscape.
Later motifs did not merely coexist with earlier
ones, but engaged with them in ways that
modified visual hierarchies, redirected attention,
0 50 cm
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 214
Fig. 7. Left-hand side of the cave, centred on panels 3, 4, and 5, the area of greatest convergence between the three phases. Blue:
Palaeolithic phase. Red: Early post-Palaeolithic phase. Green: Post-Palaeolithic schematic art phase. Yellow: Undetermined
phase
and reshaped the internal structure of the rock
surface. This reconfiguration unfolded through
a range of spatial strategies — centralisation,
difference in sizing, occasional superimposition,
and selective reuse — reflecting diverse ways of
negotiating a graphic space already charged with
visual meaning.
Discussion
Visual hierarchy as a relational and diachronic
process
The results obtained at the Atlanterra Cave
indicate that visual hierarchy in rock art contexts with
multiple phases cannot be understood as an intrinsic
0 50 cm
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 2 15
or static property of individual motifs. Instead,
hierarchy emerges as a relational and diachronic
process, produced through interactions between
graphic elements executed at different moments in
time and according to different visual logics.
During the Palaeolithic phase, visual prominen-
ce appears to derive primarily from repetition,
density and spatial continuity rather than from
focalisation. The accumulation of motifs —
particularly, though not exclusively, groups of
dots — generates a broadly distributed visual field
in which attention is not consistently directed
towards isolated figures. Even though many
Palaeolithic motifs currently display varying
degrees of fading and surface alteration, their
original spatial arrangement and density continue
to structure the inherited graphic field encountered
by later phases.
Post-Palaeolithic graphic traditions, for their
part, introduce different criteria for organising
visual space. In these phases, prominence is no
longer achieved through cumulative saturation,
but through selective intervention. Increased
sizing, strategic placement within panels, and
punctual superimposition function as mechanisms
for redirecting visual attention within an already
structured graphic environment. Visual hierarchy at
Atlanterra therefore emerges through processes of
recontextualisation rather than replacement, with
earlier imagery remaining structurally relevant even
when partially obscured or visually subordinated.
This relational understanding of hierarchy
underscores the importance of considering rock
art panels not as static surfaces, but as dynamic
visual systems in which meaning and prominence
are continuously renegotiated through successive
graphic actions.
Early post-Palaeolithic and post-Palaeolithic
schematic art strategies of spatial engagement
Both post-Palaeolithic phases documented
at Atlanterra engage with earlier Palaeolithic
imagery, but they do so through distinct and
non-equivalent strategies. The distinction bet-
ween these phases lies not in the presence or
absence of superimposition, but in the role that
superimposition plays within broader patterns of
spatial organisation and visual intervention.
The early post-Palaeolithic phase is cha-
racterised by a single, highly localised instance
of superimposition confined to panel 4. This
superimposition does not appear to constitute the
primary objective of the intervention. Rather, it
occurs in the context of the execution of a dense
and visually complex motif, possibly plant-like
in nature, whose principal effect is the redirection
of visual attention towards a central area of the
panel. The superimposition with a pre-existing
Palaeolithic figure is therefore best understood
as a secondary outcome of a strategy aimed at
focalisation through density and placement, rather
than as an explicit attempt to overwrite earlier
imagery.
In contrast, the post-Palaeolithic phase of
typical schematic art displays a broader and
more diversified range of spatial strategies.
Superimposition occurs occasionally and in a
spatially restricted manner across several panels,
functioning both as a means of reorganising graphic
Fig. 8. Undetermined quadruped 176 beneath the plant-like motif 174 in panel 4
a b
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 216
space and, in limited cases, as a form of selective
reuse of earlier motifs. These superimpositional
practices coexist with other mechanisms, such
as increased sizing and spatial dispersion, which
together form a flexible repertoire for asserting
visual prominence within different local contexts.
These differences suggest that post-Palaeolithic
engagement with the Atlanterra Cave was not
governed by a single or linear mode of interaction.
Instead, the early post-Palaeolithic and post-
Palaeolithic schematic art phases reflect distinct
ways of negotiating an inherited graphic landscape:
the former prioritising focalisation through density
and central placement, and the latter combining
punctual superimposition with size and spatial
strategies to achieve visual prominence across a
wider range of panels.
Culture clash as a graphic and spatial phe-
nomenon
Within this analytical framework, the notion
of culture clash can be approached as a heuristic
concept grounded in observable graphic relation-
ships rather than as evidence of direct social
confrontation. At Atlanterra, the interaction bet-
ween Palaeolithic and post-Palaeolithic traditions
does not manifest as systematic destruction or
erasure of earlier imagery. Instead, it takes the
form of a visual reconfiguration through which
later graphic systems impose new criteria of
organisation, size, and focalisation onto a surface
already structured by earlier practices.
This clash is best understood as a tension between
different ways of conceiving and organising graphic
space. The Palaeolithic phase emphasises repetition,
dispersion, and cumulative density, producing a
broadly distributed visual field. Post-Palaeolithic
traditions, by contrast, introduce selectivity,
hierarchy, and focal dominance, reshaping how
attention is directed within the same physical space.
Crucially, this process does not result in a
rupture with earlier imagery. The continued
structural presence of Palaeolithic motifs within
later compositions suggests that earlier graphic
practices retained relevance over time, even when
their visual impact was reduced. The resulting
palimpsest is therefore not only chronological but
conceptual, reflecting successive redefinitions of
visual order within a shared graphic landscape.
Conclusions
This study has shown that the Atlanterra Cave
cannot be understood as a simple cumulative
record of graphic activity, but rather as a dynamic
graphic landscape shaped by successive acts of
spatial negotiation and visual reorganisation. The
coexistence of Palaeolithic, early post-Palaeolithic,
and post-Palaeolithic schematic art traditions
within the same site reveals a long-term process in
which later graphic practices consistently engaged
with an inherited visual substrate rather than
operating on a neutral rock surface.
The Palaeolithic phase established a dense
and spatially extensive graphic framework
characterised by repetition, continuity, and
pronounced dimensional variability. While groups
of dots play a major role in explaining the wide
Fig. 9. Superimposition of the schematic anthropomorph 188
on dot 190 in panel 4: a — original photograph; b —
digital filtering using Photoshop; c — close-up view of the
superimposition
a
b
c
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 2 17
Fig. 10. Right-hand side of the cave (panels 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16). Blue: Palaeolithic phase. Red:
Early post-Palaeolithic phase. Green: Post-Palaeolithic
schematic art phase. Yellow: Undetermined phase
surface occupation of this phase, they coexist with
other figurative and non-figurative motifs that
together structure an initial visual background. This
configuration, likely produced through repeated
actions over extended periods of time, suggests a
cumulative and potentially collaborative graphic
practice that continued to shape the visual logic of
the site long after its initial execution.
0 50 cm
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 218
Fig. 11. Schematic anthropomorph 813 next to dots 815–832 and the oval element of group 814 in panel 13: a — original
photograph; b — digital filtering using Photoshop; c — digital filtering using DStretch to improve the visibility of the dots
The subsequent post-Palaeolithic phases did
not simply add new motifs to this background.
Instead, they interacted selectively with pre-
existing graphic structures, targeting panels and
sections that already possessed a high degree of
visual density or prominence. These interactions
took different forms depending on the phase and
local conditions, including focalisation through
density, increased size, occasional superimposition,
and, in one clear case, the reuse of earlier graphic
elements. Importantly, superimposition as a strategy
was neither systematic nor uniformly applied, but
embedded within broader strategies of visual
reorganisation.
The contrast between the early post-
Palaeolithic phase and the post-Palaeolithic
phase of typical schematic art highlights the
existence of distinct modes of engagement
with the inherited graphic space. The former is
characterised by a highly localised intervention
that redefines a key visual space through density
and central placement, whereas the latter
employs a more flexible and diversified set of
strategies to assert visual prominence across
multiple panels. These differences suggest that
post-Palaeolithic interactions with Palaeolithic
imagery at Atlanterra were neither homogeneous
nor incidental.
Viewed from a strictly graphic and spatial
perspective, the notion of culture clash provides a
useful framework for interpreting these diachronic
interactions. At Atlanterra, this clash does not
reflect direct social conflict or intentional erasure
of earlier imagery, but rather the superimposition
of different visual logics governing how the
graphic space was conceived, organised, and
prioritised over time. The site thus emerges as a
palimpsest in which multiple temporalities remain
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 2 19
simultaneously legible, and in which earlier
imagery continued to condition later graphic
practices.
Ultimately, the significance of the Atlanterra
Cave lies not only in the antiquity, richness, or
intercontinental connections of its graphic sequence,
but also in how that record structured subsequent
graphic behaviour. By foregrounding spatial
relationships, sizing and visual hierarchy, this study
emphasises the importance of considering rock art
panels as evolving visual systems, shaped by long-
term processes of engagement, reconfiguration and
reinterpretation rather than as static accumulations
of images.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to express gratitude to the
translator, María Ferre Fernández, for her work on
this article despite its challenges.
This publication is part of the project
NeoProModels: Patterns and processes in the
Neolithization of the South of the Iberian Peninsula,
Ref. PID2022-137946NB-I00, supported by MCIN/
AEI/10.13039/501100011033/FEDER, UE.
Received: 19.01.2026
Accepted for publication: 26.01.2026
Published:28.06.2026
Уґо де Лара Лопез
PhD, професор-викладач і дослідник, Національний університет дистанційної освіти, Факультет передісторії та ар-
хеології, Іспанія, ORCID: 0009-0004-0564-7222, hdelara@invi.uned.es
ВЗАЄМОДІЯ КУЛЬТУР У ПЕЧЕРІ АТЛАНТЕРРА (КАДІС, ІСПАНІЯ): ДІАХРОННІ ЗВ’ЯЗКИ
МІЖ ГРАФІЧНИМИ ТРАДИЦІЯМИ ПАЛЕОЛІТИЧНОЇ ТА ПОСТПАЛЕОЛІТИЧНОЇ ДОБИ
У печері Атлантерра (Кадіс, Іспанія), розташованій на півдні Піренейського півострова, виявлено один із найбільших
комплексів наскельного мистецтва просто неба. Комплекс поєднує схематичні зображення трьох хронокультурних фаз:
палеолітичної, ранньої постпалеолітичної та постпалеолітичної. У статті досліджено просторові та графічні взаємозв’язки
між цими фазами, простежено взаємодію, переосмислення й реорганізацію палеолітичних зображень у пізніших мотивах.
Дослідження ґрунтується на аналізі 896 графічних мотивів, розміщених на 16 панелях, із переважним використанням
графічно-просторового підходу, зосередженого на закономірностях розподілу, масштабу, використання поверхні,
співіснування та накладання зображень. Особливу увагу приділено взаємодії з уже сформованим і щільно структурованим
палеолітичним візуальним середовищем.
Результати свідчать, що у палеолітичній фазі сформувалася безперервна й просторово розвинена графічна структура,
яка характеризується повторюваністю, високою щільністю та значною варіативністю розмірів. У наступній фазі нові
мотиви не просто додавали до наявного фону, а вибірково інтегрували в окремі панелі із застосуванням таких прийомів,
як фокусування, масштабний контраст і точкове накладання з метою перерозподілу візуальної уваги та реорганізації
візуальних ієрархій. Такі взаємодії радше відображають різні способи осмислення успадкованого графічного простору,
ніж єдиний або систематичний принцип його використання.
Із суто графічного погляду зафіксовані в Атлантеррі діахронні взаємозв’язки можна розглядати як прояв культурної
взаємодії, що відбиває різні уявлення про організацію графічного простору та визначення візуальних пріоритетів у різні
часові періоди. Таким чином, пам’ятка постає як динамічний графічний ландшафт, сформований у результаті тривалих
процесів взаємодії, реорганізації та переосмислення.
К л ю ч о в і с л о в а: південь Піренейського півострова, Гібралтарська протока, палеоліт, постпалеоліт, наскельне
мистецтво, графічний простір, візуальна ієрархія.
References
De Lara López, H. 2025. Manifestaciones rupestres prehistóricas en el sur de Europa y el norte de África: el entorno del
estrecho de Gibraltar. PhD Thesis. UNED.
De Lara López, H., Mas Cornellà, M., Solís Delgado, M. 2025. Chronocultural Proposal for the Atlanterra Cave (Cadiz, Spain).
Rock Art Research, 42 (2), p. 213-233. https://rockartresearch.com/index.php/rock/article/view/686
Harman, J. 2015. Using DStretch for Rock Art Recording. The International Newsletter on Rock Art, 72, p. 24-30.
Hoyos Gómez, M., Cañaveras Jiménez, J. C., Sánchez Moral, S., Sanz Rubio, E., Blanco Varela, M. T., Puertas Maroto, F.,
Palomo Sánchez, A., Sáiz Jiménez, C., Ariño Vila, X. 1997. Estudio de los procesos de alteración de las rocas y pinturas
de los abrigos de Atlanterra y Alemanes (Cádiz) y de los Letreros (Almería). Madrid: CSIC.
Mas Cornellà, M. 1994. Expediente de Declaración de Zona Arqueológica de Cueva de Atlanterra y cuevas de los Alemanes,
Tarifa (Cádiz). Cádiz: Dirección General de Bienes Culturales; Junta de Andalucía.
Mas Cornellà, M. (ed.). 2000. Proyecto de investigación arqueológica. Las manifestaciones rupestres prehistóricas de la zona
gaditana. Sevilla: Arqueología Monografías, Dirección General de Bienes Culturales; Junta de Andalucía.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 220
Mas Cornellà, M. 2002. Informe preliminar sobre el estudio de las cuevas del Moro y Atlanterra (Sierra de la Plata, Tarifa).
Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1999, II, p. 21-24.
Mas Cornellà, M. 2005. La Cueva del Tajo de las Figuras. Madrid: UNED.
Mas Cornellà, M., Jorge García, A., Gavilán Ceballos, B., Solís Delgado, M., Parra Crego, E., Pérez García, P. P. 2013. Minateda
Rock Shelters (Albacete) and Post-Palaeolithic Art of the Mediterranean Basin in Spain: Pigments, Surfaces and Patinas.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, p. 4635-4647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.07.019
Mas Cornellà, M., Ripoll López, S. 2002. Technologie et thématique de l’art rupestre paléolithique sous abris rocheux dans le
sud de la péninsule ibérique (Andalousie-Espagne). In: Sacchi, D. (ed.). L’art paléolithique à l’air libre: le paysage modi-
fié par l’image. Carcassonne: Groupe Audois d’Études Préhistoriques, p. 87-93.
Maura Mijares, R. 2005. Las manifestaciones rupestres prehistóricas en las cuencas de los ríos Turón y Guadalteba, Málaga.
PhD. Thesis. UNED.
Maura Mijares, R. 2011. Arte prehistórico en las tierras de Antequera. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía; Consejería de Cultura.
Núñez Guerrero, C., Soler Núñez, P. 2017. Proyecto de conservación y restauración de la Cueva de Atlanterra, Tarifa (Cádiz).
Technical report. Sevilla: Dédalo Bienes Culturales S.L.
Ripoll López, S., Mas Cornellà, M. 1999. La grotte d’Atlanterra (Cádiz, Espagne). The International Newsletter on Rock Art, 23, p. 3-6.
Roldán García, C., Villaverde Bonilla, V., Ródenas Marín, I., Murcia Mascarós, S. 2016. A Unique Collection of Palaeolithic
Painted Portable Art: Characterization of Red and Yellow Pigments from the Parpalló Cave (Spain). PLoS One, 11 (10),
e0163565. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163565
Solís Delgado, M., Mas Cornellà, M., De Lara López, H., Maura Mijares, R., Lemjidi, A., Oumouss, A., Pérez González, J.,
Torra Colell, G., García Rivero, D., García Algarra, M., Maximiano Castillejo, A. 2023. Magara Sanar (Marruecos): arte
rupestre en el estrecho de Gibraltar. Policromía y cronología. Sagvntvm P.L.A.V., 55, p. 27-44. https://doi.org/10.7203/
SAGVNTVM.55.24429
|
| id | arheologia-com-ua-article-446 |
| institution | Chemistry, Physics and Technology of Surface |
| issn | 2616-499X |
| keywords_txt_mv | |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2026-08-07T01:06:23Z |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publisher | Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine |
| record_format | ojs |
| resource_txt_mv | arheologiacomua/1d/5895445dc05c01b61405523607acb51d.pdf |
| spelling | arheologia-com-ua-article-4462026-07-07T18:28:00Z Culture Clash in Atlanterra Cave (Cadiz, Spain): Diachronic Interactions Between Palaeolithic and Post-Palaeolithic Graphic Traditions Взаємодія культур у печері Атлантерра (Кадіс, Іспанія): діахронні зв’язки між графічними традиціями палеолітичної та постпалеолітичної доби De Lara López, Hugo southern Iberian Peninsula; Strait of Gibraltar; Palaeolithic; post-Palaeolithic; rock art; graphic space; visual hierarchy південь Піренейського півострова, Гібралтарська протока, палеоліт, постпалеоліт, наскельне мистецтво, графічний простір, візуальна ієрархія This article analyses the diachronic interaction between Palaeolithic and post-Palaeolithic graphic traditions documented in the Atlanterra Cave (Cadiz, Spain). Through a spatial and graphic approach, it explores how later motifs engaged with earlier imagery in terms of distribution, scale, superimposition, and visual hierarchy. The study highlights the reconfiguration of graphic space across different chrono-cultural phases. У печері Атлантерра (Кадіс, Іспанія), розташованій на півдні Піренейського півострова, виявлено один із найбільших комплексів наскельного мистецтва просто неба. Комплекс поєднує схематичні зображення трьох хронокультурних фаз: палеолітичної, ранньої постпалеолітичної та постпалеолітичної. У статті досліджено просторові та графічні взаємозв’язки між цими фазами, простежено взаємодію, переосмислення й реорганізацію палеолітичних зображень у пізніших мотивах.Дослідження ґрунтується на аналізі 896 графічних мотивів, розміщених на 16 панелях, із переважним використанням графічно-просторового підходу, зосередженого на закономірностях розподілу, масштабу, використання поверхні, співіснування та накладання зображень. Особливу увагу приділено взаємодії з уже сформованим і щільно структурованим палеолітичним візуальним середовищем.Результати свідчать, що у палеолітичній фазі сформувалася безперервна й просторово розвинена графічна структура, яка характеризується повторюваністю, високою щільністю та значною варіативністю розмірів. У наступній фазі нові мотиви не просто додавали до наявного фону, а вибірково інтегрували в окремі панелі із застосуванням таких прийомів, як фокусування, масштабний контраст і точкове накладання з метою перерозподілу візуальної уваги та реорганізації візуальних ієрархій. Такі взаємодії радше відображають різні способи осмислення успадкованого графічного простору, ніж єдиний або систематичний принцип його використання.Із суто графічного погляду зафіксовані в Атлантеррі діахронні взаємозв’язки можна розглядати як прояв культурної взаємодії, що відбиває різні уявлення про організацію графічного простору та визначення візуальних пріоритетів у різні часові періоди. Таким чином, пам’ятка постає як динамічний графічний ландшафт, сформований у результаті тривалих процесів взаємодії, реорганізації та переосмислення. Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine 2026-06-27 Article Article application/pdf https://arheologia.com.ua/index.php/arheologia/article/view/446 10.15407/archaeologyua2026.02.005 Arheologia; No 2 (2026): Arheologia; 5-20 Археологія ; № 2 (2026): Археологія; 5-20 Археология; № 2 (2026): Arheologia; 5-20 2616-499X 0235-3490 en https://arheologia.com.ua/index.php/arheologia/article/view/446/465 Copyright (c) 2026 Arheologia https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.en |
| spellingShingle | південь Піренейського півострова Гібралтарська протока палеоліт постпалеоліт наскельне мистецтво графічний простір візуальна ієрархія De Lara López, Hugo Взаємодія культур у печері Атлантерра (Кадіс, Іспанія): діахронні зв’язки між графічними традиціями палеолітичної та постпалеолітичної доби |
| title | Взаємодія культур у печері Атлантерра (Кадіс, Іспанія): діахронні зв’язки між графічними традиціями палеолітичної та постпалеолітичної доби |
| title_alt | Culture Clash in Atlanterra Cave (Cadiz, Spain): Diachronic Interactions Between Palaeolithic and Post-Palaeolithic Graphic Traditions |
| title_full | Взаємодія культур у печері Атлантерра (Кадіс, Іспанія): діахронні зв’язки між графічними традиціями палеолітичної та постпалеолітичної доби |
| title_fullStr | Взаємодія культур у печері Атлантерра (Кадіс, Іспанія): діахронні зв’язки між графічними традиціями палеолітичної та постпалеолітичної доби |
| title_full_unstemmed | Взаємодія культур у печері Атлантерра (Кадіс, Іспанія): діахронні зв’язки між графічними традиціями палеолітичної та постпалеолітичної доби |
| title_short | Взаємодія культур у печері Атлантерра (Кадіс, Іспанія): діахронні зв’язки між графічними традиціями палеолітичної та постпалеолітичної доби |
| title_sort | взаємодія культур у печері атлантерра (кадіс, іспанія): діахронні зв’язки між графічними традиціями палеолітичної та постпалеолітичної доби |
| topic | південь Піренейського півострова Гібралтарська протока палеоліт постпалеоліт наскельне мистецтво графічний простір візуальна ієрархія |
| topic_facet | southern Iberian Peninsula Strait of Gibraltar Palaeolithic post-Palaeolithic rock art graphic space visual hierarchy південь Піренейського півострова Гібралтарська протока палеоліт постпалеоліт наскельне мистецтво графічний простір візуальна ієрархія |
| url | https://arheologia.com.ua/index.php/arheologia/article/view/446 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT delaralopezhugo cultureclashinatlanterracavecadizspaindiachronicinteractionsbetweenpalaeolithicandpostpalaeolithicgraphictraditions AT delaralopezhugo vzaêmodíâkulʹturupečeríatlanterrakadísíspaníâdíahronnízvâzkimížgrafíčnimitradicíâmipaleolítičnoítapostpaleolítičnoídobi |