SOME NOTES ABOUT THE SOCIAL SPACE AND ITS INFLUENCE IN THE DESIGN OF

THE LABYRINTH FIGURE

Manuel Santos Estévez

Laboratorio de Arqueoloxía da Paisaxe do Instituto de Estudos Galegos Padre Sarmiento (CSIC-
XuGa)

1
Abstract
< A formal study is made of the figure of the labyrinth. We may find this figure within a
large number of cultures, same of them situated at a sufficient chronological and geo-
graphical distance to reject diffusion as the only factor explaining its distribution over
the planet, this is specially clear between America and Europe . Starting out with a for-
mal and structural analysis of the labyrinth, the possibility of a polygenetic origin of this
figure is proposed, without the need for contact between the societies that designed it.
Another interesting aspect is observing how different societies’ concept of space influ-
enced the ways of representing different types of labyrinths. In the case of labyrinth we
can find a concentric divition of the desing and the space in prehistoric times an a radial
division in historical times.>
Key words
Labyrinth, concentric divition, radial divition, spacial structure.
Resumen
Se realiza un estudio formal de la figura del laberinto. Es posible encontrar esta figura
en un gran número de culturas, algunas de ellas situadas a una suficiente distancia cro-
nológica y geográfica como para rechazar la difusión como único factor para explicar su
distribución en el planeta, esto es especialmente claro entre América y Europa. Par-
tiendo de un análisis formal y estructural del laberinto, se propone una posible poligéne-
sis de esta figura, prescindiendo de la necesidad de un contacto entre las sociedades que
han diseñado dicha figura. Otro importante aspecto es observar como las diferentes co-
cepciones que del espacio tienen las sociedades influyen en la forma de diseñar la
misma figura. En el caso del laberinto podemos detectar una división concéntrica del
diseño y del espacio en épocas prehistóricas y una división radial en tiempos históricos.
Palabras clave
Laberinto, división concéntrica, división radial, estructura espacial

2
Throughout the history of investigation, labyrinths have posed an enigmatic figure, although this
enigma has been more the result of their distribution than their shape or design. Labyrinths with the
same complex design may be found in Europe, North America and Asia. In reality, it would come as
no surprise that a design as complex as the one we are dealing with were included within a single cul-
tural framework, although as we shall see, the societies in which labyrinths appear have some common
aspects, and although their apparent complexity obliges us to consider a single point of origin and a
diffusion that took place through successive copying, they are so geographically widespread and dis-
continuous that it is possible to reject diffusion as the only factor to explain their perplexing distribu-
tion 1 ; although into the european context, we can use the diffusion as a most reasonable explanation,
but I consider very complicate in the case of Northamerica. This said, although the chronological peri-
ods of cultures that designed labyrinths are very extensive, ranging from what are perhaps the most an-
cient representations dating from the end of second milenium BC: a representation on a clay fragment
from the palace of King Nestor in Pylos dated from 1200 BC, (Kern 2000) and the jar from Tell
Rifa´at in Syria from the 1300 BC, but the majority of this type of design belongs to the first milenia
BC: oinochoe of Tagliatella from the seventh century BC or the rupestrian representation in Valca-
monica from Early Iron Age (Saward, 2003); in Atlantic Europe, we have same problems with the cro-
nological frame, the figure of labyrinth is associated with the Atlantic Rock Art Style dated from the
end of 3º milenium to the end of II milenium BC (Bradley 1997, Santos and Criado 2000, Parcero et
al. 1998), but probably the labyrinth belongs to the last period of the Atlantic Style and it could be con-
temporary with the designs in Valcamonica in the first half of I milenium B.C.

Other designs dated, in fact, they only appear in a limited number of types of society, and this is
where we may find one of the keys for understanding some aspects of this figure. In fact, at least in
Europe, no figures of labyrinths have been found in Palaeolithic contexts, at least in their most classic
form which we refer to as the Ancient Labyrinth2 , and it seems that the latest examples were made in
Roman and Mediaeval times 3 , when new designs of this figure appeared, the most common version in
historical times is the labyrinth divided by four parts, frequently associated with the legend of the
Minotaur (Figure 1). In fact, the types of societies in which the ‘ancient’ model of the labyrinth seems

1 A similar question we can find out in Lévi-Strauss ´s work related with the similarities beetween masks from Northwest America and An-
cient China (Lévi-Strauss 1958)
2 By ‘classical form’ we mean that which is represented on Cretan coins, with an identical design to Prehistoric labyrinths.
3 Although if we include some examples in given ethnographical contexts, the lifespan of this figure may be extended to more recent times:
in fact, in Scandinavia this may go as far as Mediaeval times, such as the case of Ulmekärr (Bohuslän), although the type of society we may
find in Scandinavia is more similar to that of the Iron Age in Western Europe than the Roman culture.

3
belong to societies in late Prehistory and the first primitive states, this design started their transforma-
tion with the Roman culture, and completely disappeared with the appearance of the feudal society.

Figure 1. Ancient labyrinth (Mogor-Galicia) and Roman labyrinth (Hipona – Algiers).

Yet the most interesting aspect of this figure is that despite its considerable complexity, its design is
identical in places as distant as Arizona, Galicia, the British Isles, Scandinavia, Valcamonica, Greece,
Iraq or India. I think that it is highly unlikely that the Europeans would have taken the labyrinth to the

4
heart of North America after the fifteenth century, as the design of the Ancient Labyrinth started to un-
dergo changes in Western Europe with the Roman Empire 4 , and it would be more likely in this case
that the design found amongst the Tohono O'otam people in North America would be more similar, for
example, to that found on Chartres cathedral than that in Mogor (Galicia) or Tintagel (England).

But in order to uncover the reasons for this mysterious geographical distribution, it is first necessary
to consider the figure and the main principles that dominate its formal structure.

The figure of the labyrinth has conserved a series of structural principles throughout the centuries.
By comparing, for example, an Ancient Labyrinth from the Protohistory such as the carving from Mo-
gor (Galicia) and another from the Roman period, such as that from Hipona in Algiers, we may see
that both follow the same principles:
1. They are single-track labyrinths. The aim of the designer was to show that there was only one
path and that it is not possible to stray away from it.
2. The labyrinths are inscribed within a symmetrical space.
3. The way of crossing them is by taking the longest possible path. This implies two things:

• That all of the space available has to be covered.

• That in principle, movement had to be by weaving through the labyrinth, (or in a spiral).
4. The labyrinth has to be crossed in several consecutive stages, excluding the possibility of cov-
ering it in a spiral way, as this figure does not make it possible to subdivide the path to be
taken.
5. The path is followed from the outside towards the centre, and vice-versa.

These are the five common rules for both types of labyrinth, although in order to fully understand
the Ancient Labyrinth we must define the rules that differentiate it from the later version, either from
Roman or Mediaeval times. Both designs have the same goal: to cover the longest path within an en-
closed space. Strangely enough, this same principle may be seen in the heating elements of modern ce-
ramic hobs, due to the fact that both the designers of labyrinths and oven technicians seek to cover a
circular space with as long a linear figure as possible, with the only possible practical solution being
the use of meanders or spirals. This may have also been the intention of a carving found in the Val di
Susa in the Western Alps (Figure 2), in which the same principle is applied, although within a triangu-
lar space.

4 In Roman times it is still possible to find labyrinths with the same design as that used in the Prehistoric period.

5
Figure 2. Meandering lines inscribed in a triangle in Val di Susa (Western Alps). Source: Arcà et al. 1995, and labyrinth from
India.

By carefully analysing the figure of the Ancient Labyrinth, we may see that it is divided into two
sections, whereas the Roman-Mediaeval version is divided into four. Movement in order to reach the
centre of the Ancient Labyrinth is divided into three stages (Figure 3), two of which are identical (B &
D). We first enter the interior until reaching the centre, then weaving in and out towards the perimeter.
In this way we leave a free space in the centre, to which we must return following the same steps as in
the first stage, thereby creating two identical figures in the two stages. Finally, connecting the end of

6
the first stage (B) and the last stage (D), must be done by using the longest path possible (C), a feature
found in both types of labyrinths. This means that the following conditions separate the Ancient Laby-
rinth from the Roman version:
1. The Ancient Labyrinth is in two sections, whereas the Roman-Mediaeval version is in at
least four.
2. In the case of Ancient Labyrinths, space is divided concentrically, and in the Roman-
Mediaeval version, either using a reticular or radial pattern.

Figure 3. Deconstruction of the walk-through in the Ancient Labyrinth.

However, this still leaves a number of questions unanswered. Why a labyrinth in two instead of
three sections? Why the concentric distribution? Why is it necessary to go round the labyrinth seven
times and no more to complete it? In order to answer these questions, we should remember that the
main principle of the Ancient Labyrinth is to follow the longest path possible within a enclosed space,
although if this were its only feature, then the path would have been easy to predict. For this reason,
different cultures from different periods divided the figure in two as with Prehistoric designs, or into

7
four or more sections in historical designs. Neither should we forget that the division of space into
concentric circles is a common feature in primitive Prehistoric cultures (Azevedo 2000) and in proto-
historic societies (García 2000), and that the division of space into reticulated shapes responds to a dif-
ferent way of thinking, closer to our modern concept of space, in which it is divided up according to
what may be measured and shared out (Criado 1993).

Returning to late prehistory, we may say that it is true that the Ancient Labyrinth could have been
divided concentrically in more than two sections, although this would not have made the figure more
complex, but instead just meant that it would have taken longer to cover. Also, the number of times
needed to go around the centre before reaching the end is the minimum required to create a symmetri-
cal figure and be able to connect the exterior and interior part of the labyrinth. This means that the
labyrinth represents the most qualitatively complex path possible, and an increase in its length or a lar-
ger number of concentric divisions would not increase its complexity. Bearing this in mind, it is not so
difficult to conceive the existence of the Ancient Labyrinth in Arizona amongst the Tohono O'otam
Indians, where, with a distinctly different style from that found in Europe or Asia, yet using the previ-
ously described rules, the result is a figure with an identical layout (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Labyrinth of the Tohono O'otam Indians (Arizona). Source: Phillips (2001).

In summarizing the features of the Ancient Labyrinth, it is true to say that it is a complex figure, al-
though only a reduced number of conditions must be met in its design, meaning that it is not surprising
that it was invented by different cultures independently, and the diffusionist hypotheses is not indis-

8
pensable, at least on a large scale. In the case of Near East and Europe the coincidence in the chronol-
ogy of the Ancient Labyrinth could mean that the diffusionist hypothesis is correct.

One example that may help us to fully comprehend the design of the Ancient Labyrinth is that
found in southern India (Figure 2) (Santarcangeli 1997: 165), which complies with all of the features
referred to above, except that in designing the interior labyrinth, its creator opted for the other longest
possible path, the spiral, and not using meanders, clearly revealing the concentric division. However,
this figure could not have only been made using spirals, as this would have implied interwoven lines
that would have broken the continuous line of transit. Using meanders is the only way that allows to
make the longest path possible, and that in turn this path may be subdivided.

Here we have seen how the design of the labyrinth is the result of the combination of two factors.
The first is the result of a natural process of reasoning, where the labyrinth follows the longest path
possible between the outside and the centre of a regular, enclosed space. The second is cultural: in pre-
historic and protohistoric societies and early states as minoan culture the labyrinth is divided concen-
trically, reflecting a sequential and subjective concept of space, a space divided into a centre and pe-
rimeter whose centre moves according to the position of the subject (Criado et al. 2001), this prehis-
toric spatial conception is reflected in other spatial constructions (Figure 5) . However, in Roman or
Mediaeval labyrinths, the space is divided into squares or uses radial symmetry, and is sectioned: it is
an objective space, independent from the subject, the space of a society with a hierarchy organized ac-
cording to land ownership 5 .

5 The land ownership is specially important to understand the Roman and the Mediaeval societies. In early States, like the Minoan culture,
we have land ownership, but its importance is not comparable with Roman Empire or Feudal Times .

9
Figure 5. 1. Stonehenge, a concentrical division of the space. Source: Atkinson, R. J. C. (1987). Stonehenge. London: Wester-
ham Press). 2 Roman Fort, a square conception of the space (Source: www.gloriaderoma.com).

In conclusion, we propose the figure of the labyrinth as a good example of structural correspondence
between cultural, social and material production codes (Prieto et al. 2003), in this way, these corre-
spondences can explain the structural similarities in the spacial constructions sach as engraving de-
signs or architectural spaces.

References
Arcá, A., Fossati, A., Gambari, F.M., Mano, L., Mercando, L., Rostagno, E. and Santacroce, A., (1995). Immagini dalla Preis-
toria. Incisioni e pitture rupestri: nuovi messaggi dalle rocce delle Alpi occidentali. Corall Edizioni, Cuneo
Azevedo Netto, C. X., (2000). 'A espacialidade como instrumento da interpretaçao da Arte Rupestre', in Paisajes Culturales
Sudamericanos (C. Gianotti coord.), Traballos en Arqueoloxía da Paisaxe (TAPA), 19, 47-62. Laboratorio de Arqueolo-
xía e Formas Culturais. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.
Bradley, R., (1997). Rock Art and the Prehistory of Atlantic Europe. Routledge, London

10
Criado Boado, F., (1993) 'Límites y posibilidades de la arqueología del paisaje', Spal 2: 9-55.
Criado Boado, F., Santos Estévez, M. and Villoch Vázquez, V. (2001) 'Forms of Ceremonial Landscapes in Iberia from the
Neolithic to Bronze Age', Archaeolingua: 169-78. Ed. P.F. Biehl y F. Bertemes.
García Quintela, M., (2000) 'La construcción del territorio entre iberos y celtíberos', Kalathos 18-19, 201-239.
Kern, H., (2000) Through the Labyrinth. Prestel. Munich
Lévi-Strauss, C., (1958) Anthropologie Structurale. Paris: Librairie Plon.
Parcero Oubiña, C., Santos Estévez, M. y Criado Boado, F, (1998) 'Rewriting landscape: incorporating sacred landscapes
into cultural traditions', World Archaeology 20: 159-176. Ed. Routledge
Phillips, T., (2001) Through mazes to mathematics (consulted February 2006).
http://www.math.sunysb.edu/~tony/mazes/index.html
Prieto-Martínez, M.P., Cobas-Fernández, I. and Criado-Boado, F. (2003) 'Patterns of Spatial Regularity in Late Prehistoric
Material Culture Styles of the NW Iberian Peninsula', In Prehistoric Pottery: People, pattern and purpose (Ed. Alex Gib-
son) BAR International Series 1156, 147-187.
Santarcangeli, P., (1997) El libro de los laberintos. Ed. Siruela, Madrid
Santos-Estévez, M., Criado-Boado, F., (2000) 'Deconstructing Rock Art Spatial Grammar in the Galician Bronze Age', In
Signifying Place and Space: World perspectives of rock art and landscape (Ed. George Nash). BAR International Se-
ries 902, 111-122.
Saward, J. (2003) Labyrinths and Mazes. The Difinitive Guide. Gaia Books, London

11