Proposed papers should present case studies that illustrate how the concept of constrained space has been addressed by scientific disciplines studying human groups and environments in prehistory. How have the various possible forms of constraints (physical, climatic, ecological, cultural, etc.) been assessed in terms of research, movement and resource management (mineral, plant, animal)? The expected papers could, for example, discuss the parameters to be taken into account when studying relief constraints and the shortest routes: relief, physical or biophysical parameters, types and sizes of human groups, etc. Papers may draw on examples from ethnographic literature illustrating the adaptation of populations to spaces perceived as ‘constrained’ but nevertheless frequented. They may also present experiments conducted by the researchers themselves, comparing the direct practice of these spaces, considered a priori to be ‘constraining’ to their study, with work in lithic technology that has taken advantage of experimental cutting. Finally, particular attention may be paid to the relativity of the notion of constraint, in relation to the importance of the sites concerned (size, frequency of occupation and settlement, capacity, etc.) and their function in the use of the territories, particularly in relation to the resources studied (isolated temporary stop, permanent settlement or network of settlements). Contributions will also be invited to report on their reflections and choices regarding the modes of representation of constrained spaces at the different scales of time and space studied, as the mapping of these constraints is not always straightforward. Certain topographical features perceived today as barriers (large rivers, inlets) may not have been so during prehistory. The representation of these spaces cannot therefore be based on our contemporary perceptions or on the traditional representation schemes to which we are accustomed.