# Megalithic architecture in the Levant: broader perspectives for defining what we are talking about

Florian Cousseau, Tara Steimer-Herbet

► To cite this version:

Florian Cousseau, Tara Steimer-Herbet. Megalithic architecture in the Levant: broader perspectives for defining what we are talking about. Levant: The Journal of the Council for British Research in the Levant, 2025, pp.1-16. 10.1080/00758914.2025.2506232. hal-05188710

HAL Id: hal-05188710

https://hal.science/hal-05188710v1

Submitted on 27 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Megalithic architecture in the Levant: broader perspectives for defining what we are talking about

Florian Cousseau & Tara Steimer-Herbet

**To cite this article:** Florian Cousseau & Tara Steimer-Herbet (02 Jul 2025): Megalithic architecture in the Levant: broader perspectives for defining what we are talking about, Levant, DOI: 10.1080/00758914.2025.2506232

**To link to this article:** https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2025.2506232

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Published online: 02 Jul 2025.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Submit your article to this journal

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

View related articles

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

View Crossmark data

CrossMark
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

# Megalithic architecture in the Levant: broader perspectives for defining what we are talking about

Florian Cousseau a and Tara Steimer-Herbet a

The phenomenon of funerary megalithic architecture in the Levant presents a variety of building techniques and morphologies characteristic of the region. This diversity brings inherent complexity in the definitions and classifications of megalithic monuments. The reasons for these difficulties lie in terminological and typological divergences across different cultures and epochs. By adopting a comparative approach between research conducted in Europe and the Levant, this study highlights the main obstacles faced by archaeologists working on megalithic monuments in the Levant, particularly in terms of classification and semantics. Trans-regional co-operation is therefore crucial, offering a solution to achieving more inclusive definitions and a better understanding of Levantine megalithic architecture.

**Keywords** Megalithic architecture, *dolmen*, tower tomb, definition

## Introduction

The universal nature of megalithic architecture makes it one of the most widely researched archaeological subjects. Due to geographical, chronological and academic differences, these monuments are often studied with very different approaches. A recent book, *Megaliths in the World* (Laporte *et al.* 2022), perfectly illustrates the diversity of perspectives and methodologies in this field.

The study of funerary monuments in the Levant and Europe is no exception to these issues. Definitions that are terminological and typological, often reflect the specific research contexts of each world region. The first and most notable example is the varied meanings attributed to the term *dolmen*, which differ not only by geographical region but also by the academic traditions of the researchers. Another example is the classification of tower tombs, which are prevalent in the Levant, but which

are seldom considered megalithic monuments despite their relevance (but see Rosen 2025). While these issues are well known, dialogue on such discrepancies is infrequent among academic circles. However, embracing cross-regional approaches to megalithic architecture has proven to be enriching and has introduced a new impetus for discussion about terminology.

The Levant region is exceptional for the study of funerary megalithic architecture. With over 15,000 recorded monuments, this region offers an exceptional architectural diversity, which testifies to the numerous experiments conducted by ancient builders (Fraser 2018; Steimer-Herbet 2004). They employed a variety of techniques, some of them unique and never repeated, such as the quadrangular chambers with a staircase in the Khirbet al-Umbashi cemetery in southern Syria (Fig. 1; Braemer *et al.* 2004), the tiered chambers of the Damiya-Ala Safat cemetery, Jebel Mutawwaq, or the isolated *dolmen* close to Tell al-Umayri in Jordan (Dabrowski 1996; Polcaro and Muniz 2018; Stekelis 1961). Other styles, such as the distinctive circular platform surrounding a rectangular chamber, were adopted, and replicated throughout the Levant. The state of preservation of this architecture plays a major role in the way they

<footnote><sup>a</sup>F.-A. Forel Department for Environmental and Aquatic Sciences, Laboratory of Prehistoric Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.</footnote>

<footnote>Florian Cousseau (corresponding author), F.-A. Forel Department for Environmental and Aquatic Sciences, Laboratory of Prehistoric archaeology and anthropology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. Email: florian.cousseau@durham.ac.uk</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1** Tomb 317 with a staircase in the Khirbet al-Umbashi cemetery, Syria (Braemer et al. 2004).</figcaption></figure>

are described during surveys. For example, what could be said about the shapeless stone heaps found by the thousands in the Homs region, in Palmyra in Syria, or in the Negev region in Israel (Cohen 1985; Iamoni 2014; Philip et al. 2002) if they are not excavated? Most often called cairns, they may once have been tower tombs, *dolmens* covered by a tumulus, or a small stone burial surrounded by several stone circles. There is a morphological variety in the construction of megalithic structures that invites deep reflection on what truly defines this architecture.

In 2018, the University of Geneva launched a Levantine megalithic research project aimed at studying the Menjez cemeteries in northern Lebanon (Akkar; funded by CPF — British Council). A team specializing in European and Levantine megalithic architecture has been working together to share experiences, questions, methodologies and analytical

tools. In addition to renewing and enhancing knowledge of the Menjez tombs, this trans-regional approach offers new insights into the definition of monumental funerary architecture in the region in the 4th and 3rd millennia BC.

## Perceptions of megalithic burials in Europe

### Classification based on the morphology of funeral spaces

Megalithic funerary architecture has long been a defining feature of the European landscape, often marked by large upright monoliths. These stones frequently represent only the visible portion of buried monuments due to taphonomy in temperate environments. They serve as markers for the funerary chambers within these structures; frequently resulting in numerous visits, incidents of looting and ancient excavations. It is only recently that researchers have begun to take an interest in the structures surrounding these burial spaces and the architecture itself. In this regard, European megalithic research has predominantly focused on funerary spaces, which remain the most accessible.

The first attempt to classify megalithic architecture was made by William Collings Lukis during his extensive travels to the British Isles and Brittany in France. In 1866, Lukis proposed a classification of megalithic architecture (Lukis 1866). He suggested that burials in Brittany could be divided into two groups: the first comprized the so-called simple chambers formed by a capstone supported by a few upright stones, also known as orthostats, and the second included chambers with an additional passage and thus a more complex shape. In 1876, Oscar Montelius added a third type, proposing a classification of northern European monuments into three groups (Montelius 1899):

1. Single closed chambers with a capstone.

2. Rectangular, polygonal, or circular chambers accessible via a passage.

3. Elongated rectangular chambers with no passage.

Major regional classifications, such as those by Georg and Vera Leisner for the Iberian Peninsula (Leisner and Leisner 1943; 1956), Jean L'Helgouach for Brittany (L'Helgouach 1965), and Audrey Henshall in Scotland (Henshall 1963; 1972), expanded upon the second group of passage tombs to include regional sub-types featuring distinctive characteristics in the layouts of their burial chambers.

This work demonstrates that European megalithic structures share the same morphological bases and engraved ornamentation, despite the large
geographical area they encompass (Daniel 1958; Laporte and Scarre 2015; Renfrew 1976; Twohig 1981). This common cultural practice has recently enabled Bettina Schulz Paulsson to propose that funerary megalithic architecture emerged via diffusionism from western France to neighbouring regions facilitated by maritime trade (Schulz Paulsson 2017; 2019).

### European confusion surrounding the term ‘dolmen’

The term *dolmen* was coined in the 18th century by Théophile-Malo Corret de la Tour d'Auvergne in his book *Origines gauloises, celles des plus anciens peuples de l'Europe, puisées dans leur vraie source, ou recherches sur la langue, l'origine et les antiquités des Celto-Bretons de l'Armorique, pour servir à l'histoire ancienne et moderne de ce peuple, et à celle des Français* (La Tour d'Auvergne-Corret 1801; Le Bloas 2022). This word is a combination of the Breton words ‘taol’, meaning table, and ‘men’, meaning stone. According to La

Tour d'Auvergne, *dolmen* therefore referred to any architecture with the characteristic feature of a large stone slab covering a space.

This very broad use of the term *dolmen* still applies in France, where visiting the *dolmens* of a region equates to visiting all shapes of megalithic burials. In 1956, Jean Arnal proposed a more precise definition, *The dolmen is an open sepulchral chamber, generally megalithic, covered by a tumulus and designed to accommodate several burials* (Arnal 1956). Two details are important for a better understanding of this description:

* *Open sepulchral chamber:* access to the chamber is provided by a corridor, a removable slab, or an easily dismantled dry stone wall.

* *Generally megalithic:* all building techniques are included in the term *dolmen*, from those using monoliths to those built of dry stone.

J. Arnal therefore uses the term *dolmen* to refer to any funerary space (Fig. 2), regardless of architectural

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2** Dolmen as a part of a monument: Vocabulary associated with megalithic architecture in France (left) from Joussaume (1985) and its translation in anglophone literature (right), Joussaume (1988).</figcaption></figure>
form or building technique. It refers only to the burial space and not to the entire monument. To specify its architectural type, a qualifier is added, such as *dolmen à couloir* (Montelius type 2, equivalent to passage grave) or ‘*dolmen en allée couverte* (Montelius type 3, equivalent to gallery grave). Each type of *dolmen* is typically covered by a *tumulus*, a mass composed mainly of earth or stones. The term *tumulus* will become *tertre* for the first example and *cairn* for the second. If a tumulus covers several accessible burial chambers, there will be several *dolmens*. French research into megalithic architecture now generally follows this definition.

Megalithic research in the rest of Europe tends, however, to follow other standards. For example, Montelius' classification gave different criteria to the term *dolmen* in Northern Europe (Montelius 1899). When defining his classification in Swedish, he called the monuments in his first group *dös* (singular) and *dösar* (plural). When this term was translated into French (Montelius 1876) or German (Montelius 1899), *dös* was replaced by *dolmen*. In Northern Europe, therefore, this term is still used to describe simple sepulchral chambers closed by a capstone (Fig. 3A). In this case, however, it does not include access and is often exclusively megalithic, in contrast to its French definition. This becomes even more complicated when considering British and Irish research, where *dolmen* is used either for a very ruined monument whose original form is unknown, or for a very singular category of monument called *portal dolmen* (Fig. 3B) located in Ireland and the west of Great Britain (Cummings and Richards 2016).

The term *dolmen* therefore divides the European academic world, with different researchers using

different definitions (Laporte et al. 2011: 291). Some, such as Glyn Daniel, have even proposed that its use in anglophone literature be discontinued to put an end to this terminological confusion in international discussions (Daniel 1958).

## Megalithic construction: a collective effort

The study of the elevations of megalithic architecture is a recent field of research (Cousseau 2020; 2023; Joussaume 2016; Laporte et al. 2014) driven by a growing interest among archaeologists in the *tumulus* that envelop funerary spaces. Typological criteria have traditionally focused on architectural forms rather than building techniques. There is, however, a wide range of building techniques used to achieve similar results, particularly in the passage graves of group 2 as defined by Montelius.

As an example, the *cairn* of Barnenez in Finistère, France (Cousseau and Gassien 2023; Giot 1987; Laporte et al. 2017) is 70 m long by 15 to 25 m wide, and exhibits exceptional preservation (Fig. 4). It contains 11 funerary spaces, all of which correspond to the passage grave type 2 with circular chambers, except for chamber H which offers an original and unique form for Western France (Bueno Ramírez et al. 2015). At Barnenez, there is a strong variability in building techniques. Chambers C, E, F, G, G', I and J are exclusively built in dry stone and covered by a corbelled vault whereas chambers A and D, while also having corbelled vaults, have orthostats in their walls. Chamber B is delimited solely by orthostats and is covered by a capstone.

A recent study has shown a complex phasing in three stages of the site (Fig. 5), all referring to the

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3** *Dolmen as a specific type: A—Dyssen of Poskær Stenhus, Denmark (photograph: J.-M. Large) and B—Portal dolmen of Poulnabrone, Ireland (photograph: Y. Lelièvre).*</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4** Top: *Cairn* of Barnenez Bottom: chambers A, B, and C, during excavation; with different building techniques (top © F. Cousseau; bottom © Archéosciences-UMR6566).</figcaption></figure>

same chronological period of the Middle Neolithic (Cousseau and Gassien 2023). The first stage is that of a cemetery with several small independent monuments containing both dry stone and megaliths (orthostats, capstones) and integrating one or two passage graves. In the second stage, the cemetery is entirely covered by two long *tumulus* with the addition of new funerary spaces. Finally, the users of the *cairn* monumentalize it by transforming it into a single, giant *cairn*, with no new tomb being created during this last stage. This three-stage phasing shows no chronological difference between dry stone constructions and those using megalithic elements. The builders' objective seems to have been to create an elaborate form for the passage graves by using all possible construction variability.

Attempts at classifying monumentality were initially based on the size of the slabs. In his article 'What is Megalithism?', Bruno Boulestin proposes defining a Type I monumentality for structures containing elements over 15 tonnes and a Type II monumentality where these same elements are absent (Boulestin 2016). According to Boulestin,

the first type indicates a state or plutocratic society<fnref n="2" /> with strong power enabling the mobilization of a labour force. In contrast, the more discreet Type II megalithic structures, where the more discreet character of stone is associated with power through wealth, would correspond solely to a plutocracy. However, Boulestin's proposal does not take into account that the same monument, such as the Bougon tumulus in western France (Mohen and Scarre 2002), may contain both types. This division of architecture is also not reflected in recent palaeogenomic results and should be avoided. Neolithic aDNA studies in Western Europe have shown that members of the same family were interred in megalithic funerary structures with varying architectural styles (Cheronet et al. 2022; Fowler et al. 2021; Furtwängler et al. 2020; Sánchez-Quinto et al. 2019).

Luc Laporte was one of the first to draw attention to the intentions and motivations of the megalithic builders through the concept of an architectural project. In the conclusion of the book *Megaliths of the World* (Laporte 2022: 1389–402), he offers a more inclusive definition of megalithic architecture, in which the choice of a megalithic construction is, above all, a human behaviour. The presence of large blocks, often perceived as a rough trait of the builders, reflects a deliberate choice rather than a technical constraint. Megalithic architecture, whether or not it uses large stones, reflects collective practices and social organizations, revealing the worldview of past societies. One of the most striking aspects of these tombs is the considerable effort and co-operation required to handle and transport these stones, following a deliberately designed architectural plan (Fig. 6). Furthermore, groups of individuals gathered regularly to build or maintain these monuments; this collective effort or coercion could have a ritual or symbolic dimension.

According to Laporte, the stone — whether small or large — serves as a means of communication between the living and the dead, as well as between members of the community. It conveys messages of mnemonic knowledge, identity, group belonging and status, thus becoming an integral part of the cultural landscape and a legacy for future generations. The size of the stones holds less significance in megalithic construction. Rather, it is the intention behind their

<footnote n="2">²Boulestin (2016) uses the definitions of A. Testart, who considers that a state is represented by a centralized bureaucracy with a monopoly of power over a defined territory. In plutocratic societies, political power is largely influenced or controlled by the wealthiest individuals (Testart 2005).</footnote>
### Phase 3

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

### Phase 2

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

### Phase 1

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5** Architectural phasing of the cairn of Barnenez in three stages obtained through building archaeology (Cousseau and Gassien 2023).</figcaption></figure>

selection, acquisition and arrangement that holds the most importance.

## Perception of stone funerary architecture in the Levant

### A long road towards a common classification

The little-known megalithic monuments of the Levant have faced significant challenges in gaining recognition within academic circles, both locally and internationally (Joussaume 1985; 2003; Steimer and Braemer 1999). This struggle for affirmation stems from various cultural, semantic and geopolitical barriers. Early explorers in the Holy Land, for instance, initially described these monuments (Fig. 7) using the European term *dolmen* to denote structures with large upright monoliths (Scheltema 2008: 18). However, this classification led to misunderstandings, particularly regarding the exclusion of stone tombs that did not meet strict megalithic criteria, such as the widespread tower tombs found in the Levant and Arabia. Another misconception arose from attributing a common cultural origin, due to their shared monumentality, between the Levant and Europe (Fraser 2018: 4). The notion of diffusionist thinking about the ‘megalithic phenomenon’ from the East

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6** Collective effort for the modern construction of megalithic architecture in Sumba, Indonesia (Steimer-Herbet 2018).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7** *Dolmen from Damiya-Ala Safat (Jordan) with a porthole (© Steimer-Herbet).*</figcaption></figure>

to the West gained traction in the early 20th century with the work of Gordon Childe. Childe posited that this architectural phenomenon originated from the monumental state architecture of the eastern Mediterranean in the 3rd millennium BC (Childe 1939: 301; 1954: 69). Advancements in radiocarbon dating since the 1960s have challenged this view, placing the origins of the first European megalithic architecture much earlier in the 5th millennium BC.

In the Levant, funerary megalithic architecture emerged in the 6th millennium BC (Abu-Azizeh et al. 2014; Iamoni 2014) following several millennia of commemorative monuments or community buildings utilizing numerous monoliths (such as Gobekli Tepe — Schmidt [2015]; Atlit Yam — Galili et al. [2013]; Aïn Ghazal — Kafafi [2011]; al-Thulaythuwat — Abu-Azizeh et al. [2021]). This recent revelation regarding the shared characteristics of megalithic monuments, spanning from central Anatolia to the shores of the Mediterranean, supports the notion of a pan-Levantine phenomenon independent of other megalithic centres (Belmonte et al. 2013: 451; Edens 2012: 186; Schath 2017; Schath et al. 2011; Scheltema 2008: 18; Steimer and Braemer 1999: 218; Worschech 2002: 13; Zohar 1992: 43).

Archaeologists working in these regions developed their own techniques for studying this stone architecture, often confining themselves to concise descriptions within the rigid framework of national borders

and affiliations (Edens 2012; Epstein 1985; Haiman 1992; Nasrallah 1963; Stekelis 1935; Tallon 1959). Theses on this subject in the 2000s generated an inventory of existing structures, their distribution and modes of occupation in Levantine landscapes, as well as a discussion on the social relationships between sites (Bradbury 2011; De Vreeze 2010; Steimer-Herbet 2004). In the first part of his thesis (Fraser 2018), James Fraser highlights the problems with the typologies published by Claire Epstein, Gaetano Palumbo and Tara Steimer-Herbet (Palumbo et al. 1990; Epstein 1985; Steimer-Herbet 2004), which are often based on observations of ruined tombs and therefore only reflect their final state. In his opinion, the main problem is the size of the chambers: for example, the Jaulan ‘trilithons’, classified as *dolmens* by C. Epstein, were too small and he excluded them from the category of ‘mega-lithic monument’ (Epstein 1985). To this criterion of chamber size and the stones used to create it, Fraser adds a precise chronological framework. *Dolmens* in the Levant are thought to have been built during the Early Bronze Age 1 (3500–2900 BC), though few studies have tackled the problem of tower tombs (Steimer-Herbet 2010). Tower tombs appeared at the beginning of the 4th millennium BC, at the same time as *dolmens*, but were found in different geographical areas, with a preference for desert or semi-desert regions in Arabia, the Syrian and Jordanian
Harra, and the Sinai (Bar-Yosef et al. 1986; Steimer-Herbet 2013; 2022): researchers in the Levant and Middle East have only just begun to classify them as megalithic tombs (Munoz 2022).

The research, mentioned above, on megalithic architecture in the Levant laid the foundations for the content of this article. This pioneering work, while shedding light on certain aspects of these monuments (e.g., typology, chronology), also highlighted the extent of the remaining grey areas, marked by a profusion of unanswered questions and unresolved debates in the scientific literature. This complexity is exacerbated by the vastness of the territories concerned and the diversity of terminology used to describe megalithic structures.

## Vast territories and a multiplicity of terms

The first obstacle is semantic. From a purely typological point of view, the list of megalithic funerary monuments is long and refers to local specificities. The terms used to describe the tower tombs of Sinai are not the same as those of the Omani peninsula or Yemen. Often, they are names given by the inhabitants of the region or by archaeologists who have given them rather fanciful names. For example, the tower tombs in Sinai known as *nawamis*, which translates as ‘mosquito’ in Arabic (Bar-Yosef et al. 1983). In Yemen, they are known as *dirm* (de Maigret 1996) and in Oman as ‘beehive tombs’ or Hafit tombs, the eponymous name of the site (Cardi et al. 1976). They are all, however, the

same monument in terms of construction technique, size and chronology.

Steimer-Herbet (2004) made an early attempt at simplification in ‘Classification des sépultures à superstructure lithique dans le Levant et l’Arabie occidentale’ (IVe et IIIe millénaires avant J.-C.), which distinguished three families of monuments (A, B, C).

In the first family (A), which includes ‘burials with a lithic superstructure built using upright slabs, most often megalithic, with or without a capstone’, the chambers are mostly rectangular and commonly called *dolmens*. They often have a capstone and stone paving. On average, dolmenic tombs are around 3 m long and 2 m wide, with a height of around 1 m. The chamber may have a passage or an opening leading inside (movable slab, porthole, door cut into the rock — Figs 7–8). The roof may consist of either a single slab or several slabs placed side by side. The *dolmen* is almost always enclosed by a wall, the shape of which varies (rectangular — Fig. 1; square, or circular — Fig. 7) as does the height. *Dolmens* can also have oval chambers, as in the case of the Khirbet ed-Dabab cemetery (Syria) (Braemer et al. 2004).

The second family, B, describes ‘tombs with a lithic superstructure of small vertical blocks, with or without capstone’. In the academic literature, these tombs appear under the common names of cist tombs (Stekelis 1935), tumuli (Avner 1990) and cairns (Abu-Azizeh et al. 2014).

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8 *Dolmen* from Ain Dakar (Syria) with opening cut in a slab (© Steimer-Herbet).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9 Tower tomb from Sinai (Egypt) (© Abu-Azizeh).</figcaption></figure>

Finally, the third family, C, ‘dry-stone superstructure tombs’, groups together circular, sometimes quadrangular, chambers, around 3 to 8 m in diameter, with dry-stone walls and corbelled vaults. This classification includes the famous tower tombs (Fig. 9).

Understanding ruined buildings is complicated, particularly when it comes to attributing function and morphology. In this regard, the case of the *cairns* is particularly instructive; for example, Wael Abu-Azizeh, working in the Badia at Al-Thulaythuwat in Jordan, first named a whole series of stone burial cairns (Abu-Azizeh *et al.* 2014). Exhaustive study and excavation revealed the cairns to be either, cist burials below tumuli or tower tombs: ‘while these funerary constructions [tower tombs] are merged in this study within a generic ‘*cairn*’ designation, they clearly differ architecturally from the cist grave burials below tumuli previously described.’ (Abu-Azizeh *et al.* 2014: 169). While the chronology differs between the cist tombs (Neolithic) and the tower tombs (Bronze Age), the common points are as follows: the funerary function, the use of stone, the above-ground construction, and the visibility on high points of the landscape.

The megalithic monuments of Qattina in Syria have also not escaped semantic difficulties. Surveyed in the early 2000s by two international teams, the southern part of the lake was studied by Graham Philip (Philip and Bradbury 2010) and the northern part

by Juan-José Ibáñez Estévez (Ibáñez Estévez *et al.* 2008). The teams applied two different approaches when examining the burials. The British team (lead by Graham Philip) largely worked using satellite photographs, identifying more than 300,000 white dots which were interpreted as *cairns*. These clusters of stones could have been graves or piles of stones left after clearing the fields. To the north, the Spanish team concentrated on the photogrammetric survey of stone structures, also described as *cairns* by the authors of the survey, although they added a reference to the neighbouring tombs at Menjez in Lebanon (Armendáriz *et al.* 2011: 55), described as *dolmens* by Maurice Tallon (Tallon 1964).

Attempts at classification often fail to withstand the test of new discoveries or the criteria proposed by different researchers (Fraser 2018; Steimer-Herbet 2004), and even less so when terms are used without clear explanation or understanding of their significance.

## Marginalized societies in the state of research

These semantic challenges stem primarily from geographical compartmentalization and geopolitical factors. Following World War II, research into megalithic architecture in the Middle East became confined within the rigid administrative borders defined by the emerging great powers (Fraser 2018). During the 1980s and 1990s, access to certain areas was
challenging. For instance, Saudi Arabia imposed severe restrictions on research concerning pre-Islamic periods (Zarins et al. 1979). Consequently, megalithic monuments were swiftly abandoned by researchers due to the lack of significant discoveries (Epstein 1985; Hanbury-Tenison 1989).

The numerous geopolitical upheavals have significantly complicated archaeological research and the preservation of megalithic sites. Amidst colonialism, armed conflicts, political transitions and economic pressures, there exists a complex landscape of megalithic studies. The various perceptions and nomenclatures have contributed to downplaying the significance of the Eastern megalithic phenomenon. Despite the existence of almost 15,000 known megaliths in the Levant and over 100,000 in Arabia, very little is understood about the societies that constructed these monuments.

It was not until the 1990s when researchers such as Sven Helms (Helms 1981), Uzi Avner (Avner 1984), Alison Betts (Betts 1988) and Frank Braemer (Braemer et al. 2004) turned their attention to communities in the arid and semi-arid zones of the southern Levant, on the fringes of the great civilisations, that our view of the builders of megalithic monuments changed. They soon discovered that these groups had developed megalithic architecture as early as the 6th millennium BC and that these structures were the only trace of an elaborate and stable symbolic system honouring both the dead and the living (Steimer-Herbet 2022). Between the end of the 6th millennium BC and the 3rd millennium BC, during the Chalcolithic (5000–3600 BC) and Early Bronze Age (3600–2000 BC), communities in the Levant made extensive use of stone to build platforms, sanctuaries and tombs, both in desert and semi-desert areas, as well as in more fertile areas such as the edges of the Leja plateau, the Orontes Valley, the Akkar hills along the Nahr el-Kébir, the Jaulan plateau, and the Jordan Valley.

Analyses by James C. Scott in 2017 marked a turning point in the understanding of ancient societies, particularly regarding the interaction between different territories over long distances. His work challenges the traditionally dichotomous view of history, where societies were often simplistically classified into binary categories such as sedentary vs. nomadic or civilized vs. barbarian (Scott 2017). This new approach highlighted the complexity of exchange networks and social dynamics, transcending these previous simplistic classifications.

In the context of the Levant, megalithic architecture offers a striking example of these nuanced

perspectives. Megalithic architecture in this region reflects a complex facet of ancient societies, which does not easily lend itself to rigid classification. These constructions, often located at crossroads of trade routes or in zones of ecological transition, bear witness to cultural exchanges and connections between distant communities, challenging the idea that they were isolated or marginal.

The paradigm shift initiated by Scott highlights the importance of reconsidering the way archaeological remains and their context are interpreted (Scott 2017). The traditional approach, often focused on identifying centres of power or ‘dominant’ civilisations, can obscure the wealth of interactions and mutual influences between different regions and cultures. Recognizing the complexity of these dynamics provides a better understanding, not only of the Middle East’s past, but also of global historical processes.

Adopting this new perspective takes time. Old conceptions are deeply rooted in the research and teaching of history and archaeology. Yet, the growing recognition of the complexity and interconnectedness of ancient societies offers a valuable opportunity to reassess and enrich our understanding of the past. In the specific case of megalithic architecture in the Levant, this means recognizing its role in regional exchange networks and its contribution to the region’s cultural diversity, above and beyond any supposed marginalization.

## Menjez and its hybrid tombs

Whether in Europe or the Middle East, and more particularly in the Levant, the building of megalithic monuments represents an intentional choice by communities to mark their environment. They mobilized their knowledge and skills to select and extract the stones, transport them, choose their location and apply various building techniques.

The monuments of Menjez in northern Lebanon, like many other monuments in the Levant, are a good example of the convergence of several skills and cultural traditions. In this village, in the Nahr el-Kébir Valley, the Reverend Father Maurice Tallon excavated ten groups of megalithic tombs (87 in all) between 1959 and 1969 in an area measuring 5×5 km (Tallon 1964): this site is not isolated, as several cemeteries have been found in neighbouring villages within a 10-kilometer radius. Thirty kilometres farther east, Homs Gap boasts many megalithic monuments, which were described during surveys and several test pits in the early 2000s. A study of the ceramics found there suggests that they
date from the Early Bronze Age 1 (Armendáriz *et al.* 2008; Philip and Bradbury 2010).

Since 2018, an exhaustive study of the Menjez monument architecture has been underway. Methodological developments combining buildings archaeology and new technologies carried out in Western France have been adapted and applied to Menjez (Cousseau 2023; Defours Rivoira *et al.* 2024; Steimer-Herbet *et al.* 2019). At first glance, the architecture of Menjez, with buildings made of basalt boulders, appears uniform. However, observations of the buildings have revealed a wide range of shapes for the chambers and the structures containing them (crowns/platforms and enclosures). The chambers are circular, semi-circular, or quadrangular. The platforms are circular, or rectangular, and the enclosures are rectangular or elongated. While all sorts of combinations are available, they are not random. The megalithic monuments are not spread evenly over the Menjez area, but in small cemeteries located near the *wadis*. In most cases, a group corresponds to a combination. For example, all the chambers in group A are square, while those in group B (a few hundred metres away) are circular.

To detail the architecture of these monuments and their role in defining Levantine architecture, the following section will describe the most characteristic monument of the Menjez complex, ST_117.

ST_117 chamber is delimited by 12 standing stones or orthostats giving it a circular floor plan measuring 2.55 m in diameter and 1.10 m in height (Fig. 10). The use of dry-stone masonry to form the walls of the chambers is very rare at Menjez, where the builders opted for monolithic elements. The south wall, where the passage opens out, is formed by two blocks that are higher than the others, framing the transition between the passage and the chamber. As in all the monuments studied, the chamber has well-built horizontal paving despite the sloping ground. Above the standing stones, large, mostly triangular, slabs are laid horizontally or with a slight dip. Builders placed one side on the top of the orthostats, projecting slightly into the chamber, while the other side was placed on the mass of stone behind (see Defours Rivoira *et al.* 2025). Each of these stones corresponds to a corbel, a technique used to reduce the diameter of the chamber. The superimposition of the courses using this technique closes the chamber with a corbelled vault.

Based on the distinction between *dolmen* and tower tombs outlined above, the chambers at Menjez are

unclassifiable, exhibiting architectural features specific to both types. The monolithic appearance of the walls and paving of the chambers is reminiscent of *dolmens*, while their circular plan and vaulted roof are reminiscent of tower tombs.

Regarding ST_117, its chamber and passage are surrounded by a circular structure measuring 5.50 m in diameter. Its facade is currently visible on two courses to the west and three courses to the east. The difference in levels between the two sides can be explained by a variation in ground level. The observed height of this facade is not the original, corresponding to a ruined state, which suggests that the monument must have had a higher elevation.

The morphology of the circular crown/platform surrounding the burial space corresponds to both types: *dolmen* and tower tombs. *Dolmens* in the Levant are enclosed by a similar type of structure, exhibiting great variability in shape and height. The term tower tomb reflects its general morphology, and when height is added to the facade of ST_117 (Fig. 11), the tomb takes on the appearance of a tower, as seen in the Sinai (Egypt — Fig. 9) or the Arabian Peninsula.

ST_117 possesses a third stone structure surrounding the crown/platform, which takes the form of a quadrangular enclosure, in this case trapezoidal. Its walls are constructed from large, evenly sized cyclopean blocks laid side by side to form the walls, except at the south-eastern corner where two or three courses are visible. This suggests that either the corner received special treatment, possibly due to the sloping ground, or that the enclosure, now in a state of ruin, was originally taller with several courses. The inner space surrounding the circular cairn is not in-filled, but contains outcrops, and the enclosure extends around the crown to the north. Furthermore, the two structures are connected at the corners of the passage, indicating they were constructed simultaneously.

Tomb ST_117 thus features two contemporary enclosure structures: the circular structure and the quadrangular enclosure. Such a combination is relatively uncommon in Menjez, where structures typically feature only one of these two types. The diversity of shapes in the enclosures of the burial spaces is reminiscent of *dolmens*. ST_117, however, represents a distinctive characteristic of the Homs Gap and the Akkar hills, where megalithic structures, as documented by previous studies, exhibit a general plan that is either quadrangular or circular (Armendáriz *et al.* 2008; Philip and Bradbury 2010; Steimer-Herbet 2000).
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10 Architectural study done of the tomb ST_117 (© CPS Menjez Project-F. Cousseau).</figcaption></figure>

The architectural distinctiveness of the megalithic structures in Menjez prompts a pertinent inquiry regarding their classification within established typologies. These structures blend features typical of *dolmens*, with their monolithic composition, and

tower tombs, evident in their overall morphology and chamber design. Instead of posing a hindrance to classification, this hybridity ought to be viewed as an opportunity to enhance understanding of monumentalization practices in this region.
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11 Possible restitution of the general shape of ST_117 (© CPS Menjez Project-Y. Bernard).</figcaption></figure>

Classifying the architecture of Menjez as a new type, distinct from *dolmens* and tower tombs, might seem appealing initially, but this risks oversimplifying the richness and complexity of funerary and monumental practices. Instead, the diverse array of structures observed at Menjez suggests that they represent a convergence point between different architectural traditions, indicating a form of typological innovation.

The challenge in assigning a single broad type to these buildings lies in their inherent diversity, which reflects a multitude of technical, aesthetic and symbolic decisions made by the societies that erected them. Consequently, a more nuanced approach is necessary to fully comprehend them. The implementation of a chrono-classification, such as the ongoing work by Méryl Defours Rivoira at the University of Geneva (Switzerland), along with the establishment of precise criteria for their description are crucial steps in this objective.

By embracing a broader perspective that acknowledges the complexity and specificity of Menjez's architecture, its contribution to the collective endeavour of monumentalizing the landscape can be better recognized. This not only underscores their unique value within the megalithic heritage but also aids in understanding their position within a broader cultural and historical context. Ultimately, the architecture of Menjez serves as a reminder that categories and typologies, while useful, must remain flexible enough to encompass the richness of human expression across time and space.

## Conclusion

Megalithic architecture, whose definitions are widely debated in academic circles, often defies strict classifications, which, far from being a disadvantage, allows for a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon. The diversity of forms taken by these structures around the world reflects not only the cultural and
functional choices of the societies that built them, but
also the possible geological and technological con-
straints specific to each region. Some of these struc-
tures adopt a distinctly megalithic appearance
characterized by large stones, while others employ
dry stone or hybrid approaches, as seen at Menjez.

This scope of building techniques suggests the
necessity for flexibility in defining what constitutes
megalithic architecture. Adopting a rigid perspective
and restricting classifications to structures made
solely of large stones, as proposed by Fraser (2018)
and Boulestin (2016), could limit the comprehension
of megalithic architecture in its entirety. Such an
approach risks overlooking the variety of practices
and intentions behind the monumentalization of
burial sites, which seeks to leave a lasting imprint on
the landscape, shaping both the memory and the col-
lective identity of the living. In a more inclusive way,
researchers in the Middle East should consider, inde-
pendently of local classifications (dolmens, tower
tombs, cairns, cists, tumuli, etc.), that this variety of
stone funerary monuments belongs to the great
family of Levantine and worldwide megalithic
architecture.

Following the principles articulated at the
International Meeting of the Megaliths in the World
(Laporte et al. 2022), it appears more fitting to con-
ceptualize megalithic architecture as a category of
structures where the intention to erect an above-
ground stone edifice is evident. This definition thus
encompasses not only the physical aspects of the con-
struction (such as the size and type of stones used) but
also its symbolic and social significance, while under-
scoring the collective endeavour and aspiration to
create enduring landmarks. In essence, megalithic
architecture, far from being merely a matter of
material choice, reflects a human effort deeply
rooted in the cultures that practice it, bearing
witness to their relationship with the deceased and
the impact of these structures on the living.

Funding details

This work was supported by the SNFS under Grant
[SNFS — 100019E_202350] in the frame of the
MEG-A project: The First Megalith Builders of the
Northern Levant. A Multi-disciplinary Investigation
of Akkar’s Archaeological Landscape (Lebanon,
4th–3rd millennia BC) 2022–2025; the British
Council CPF Small Grant [CPS552-17] —
Valorisation and Protection of the Megalithic
Monuments of Menjez 2018–2019.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
author(s).

ORCID

Florian Cousseau http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6542-7094

Tara Steimer-Herbet http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8665-7278

References

Abu-Azizeh, W., Tarawneh, M., Abudanah, F., Twaissi, S. and Al-Salameen, A. 2014. Variability within consistency: cairns and funerary practices of the Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic in the Al-Thulaythuwat area, southern Jordan. *Levant* 46(2): 161–85.

Abu-Azizeh, W., Tarawneh, M., Crassard, R. and Sánchez Priego, J. A. 2021. Discovery and excavation of desert kites in the south-eastern Badia of Jordan. In, Betts, A. and Paul van Pelt, W. (eds), *The Gazelle's Dream: Game Drives of the Old and New Worlds: 225–51*. Sydney: Sydney University Press.

Armendáriz, A., Al-Maqdissi, M., Haïdar-Boustani, M., Ibáñez Estévez, J. J., Teira, L. and González Urquijo, J. 2008. The megalithic necropolis in the Homs Gap (Syria). A preliminary approach. In, Maria Córdoba, J., Molist, M., Carmen Pérez, M., Rubio, I. and Martínez, S. (eds), *Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (Madrid, April 3–8 2006)*: 151–62. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid ediciones.

Armendáriz, A., Ibáñez, J. J., Al-Maqdissi, M., Haïdar-Boustani, M., Teira, L. and González Urquijo, J. E. 2011. The megalithic necropolises to the west of Homs (Syria). In, Steimer-Herbet T. (ed.), *Pierres levées, stèles anthropomorphes et dolmens/standing stones, anthropomorphic stelae and dolmens: 55–68*. International Series 2317. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Arnal, J. 1956. Petit Lexique du Mégalithisme. *Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française*, 53(9): 518-31.

Avner, U. 1984. Ancient cult sites in the Negev and Sinai Deserts. *Tel Aviv* 11: 115–31.

—. 1990. Excavation of tumuli field in Eilat. *Excavation and Surveys in Israel* 9(94–95): 76–78.

Bar-Yosef, O., Hershkovitz, A., Arbel, G. and Goren, A. 1983. The orientation of Nawamis entrances in southern Sinai: expression of religious belief and seasonality. *Tel Aviv* 10: 52–60.

Bar-Yosef, O., Berfer-Cohen, A., Goren, A., Hershkovitz, I., Ilan, O., Mienis, H. K. and Sass, B. 1986. Nawamis and habitation sites near Gebel Gunna, southern Sinai. *Israel Exploration Journal* 36(3/4): 121–67.

Belmonte, J. A., González García, A. C. and Polcaro, A. 2013. On the orientation of megalithic monuments of the Transjordan Plateau: new clues for an astronomical interpretation. *Journal for the History of Astronomy* 44: 429–55.

Betts, A. V. G. 1988. The Black Desert Survey. Prehistoric sites and subsistence strategies in eastern Jordan. In, Garrard, A. N. and Gebel, H. G. K. (eds), *The Prehistory of Jordan: The State of Research in 1986*; 369–91. International Series 396. Oxford: BAR.

Boulestin, B. 2016. Qu'est-ce que le mégalithisme? In, Jeunesse, C., Le Roux, V. and Boulestin, B. (eds.), *Mégalithismes vivants et passés: approches croisées*; 57-94. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Bradbury, J. 2011. Landscapes of Burial? The Homs Basalt, Syria in the 4th–3rd Millennia BC. PhD. Durham University.

Braemer, F., Échallier, J.-C. and Taraqji, A. 2004. *Khirbet al-Umbashi: Villages et campements de pasteurs dans le «Désert noir» (Syrie) à l'âge du Bronze*. Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique. Beyrouth: Institut français du Proche-Orient.

Bueno Ramirez, P., de Balbin Behrmann, R., Laporte, L., Gouézin, P., Cousseau, F., Barroso Bermejo, R., Hernanz Gismero, A., Iriarte Cela, M. and Quesnel, L. 2015. Natural and artificial colours: the megalithic monuments of Brittany. *Antiquity* 89(343): 55–71.

Cardi, B., Collier, S. and Doe, D. B. 1976. Excavation and survey in Oman, 1974–1975. Journal of *Oman Studies* 2: 101–87.
Cheronet, O., Fernandes, Olalde, I., Rohland, N., Soler, L., Cros, J.-P., Large, J.-M., Scarre, C., Joussaume, R., Reich, D., Laporte, L. and Pinhasi, R. 2022. aDNA and kinship in French Atlantic façade megalithic monuments. In, Laporte, L., Large, J.-M., Nespoulous, L., Scarre, C. and Steimer-Herbet, T. (eds), *Megaliths of the World*: 1260–62. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Childe, V. G. 1939. *The Dawn of European Civilization*. London: Kegan Paul.

——— 1954. Prehistory. In, Barker, E., Clark, G. N. and Vaucher (eds), *The European Inheritance*: 3–155. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, R. 1985. *Archaeological Survey of Israel Map of Sede-Boqer-West (167) 17–03*. Jerusalem: Archaeological Survey of Israel.

Cousseau, F. 2020. Megolithic architectures: a methodological experience to study their elevation. In, Cousseau, F. and Laporte, L. (eds), *Pre and Protohistoric Stone Architectures: Comparisons of the Social and Technical Contexts Associated to Their Building: 36–50*. Oxford: Archaeopress.

——— 2023. *Bâtisseurs de mégalithes. Un savoir-faire néolithique dévoilé par l'archéologie du bâti*. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Cousseau, F. and Gassien, P. 2023. *Le cairn de Barnenez — Chef-d'oeuvre du néolithique*. Paris: Editions du Patrimoine.

Cummings, V. and Richards, C. 2016. The essence of the dolmen: the architecture of megalithic construction. In, Robin, G., D'Anna, A., Schmitt, A. and Bailly, M. (eds), *Fonctions, utilisations et représentations de l'espace dans les sépultures monumentales du Néolithique européen*: 131–41. Aix-en-Provence: Presses universitaires de Provence.

Dabrowski, B. 1996. Funerary sites near Tall al-'Umayri. *ADAJ XL*: 75–76.

Daniel, G. 1958. *Megalith Builders of Western Europe*. London: Hutchinson.

Defours Rivoira, M., Cousseau, F., Steimer-Herbet, T. 2024. The Levantine megalith building techniques: a groundbreaking method applied to Menjez's monuments (Akkar, Lebanon) from the 4th–3rd millennium BCE. *Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory*. doi.org/10.1007/s10816-024-09654-9.

——— 2025. Exploring Levantine megalith building techniques: the case study of ST_004 from Menjez (Akkar, Lebanon). *Levant* doi to be added

De Vreeze, M. 2010. Social Structures in Stone, the Damiyah Dolmen Field and its Regional Relevance with Special Focus on the Early Bronze Age. MA. Leiden University.

Edens, B. Y. 2012. Dolmens of Hatay (southern Turkey) and their connections in Anatolia and the Levant. *Levant* 44(2): 186–204.

Epstein, C. 1985. Dolmens excavated in the Golan. *Atiqot* 17: 20–58.

Fowler, C., Olalde, I., Cummings, V., Armit, I., Büster, L., Cuthbert, S., Rohland, N., Cheronet, O., Pinhasi, R. and Reich, D. 2021. A high-resolution picture of kinship practices in an Early Neolithic tomb. *Nature*: 1–4.

Fraser, J. A. 2018. *Dolmens in the Levant*. England: Routledge.

Furtwängler, A., Rohrlach, A. B., Lamnidis, T. C., Papac, L., Neumann, G. U., Siebke, I., Reiter, E., Steuri, N., Hald, J., Denaire, A., Schnitzler, B., Wahl, J., Ramstein, M., Schuenemann, V. J., Stockhammer, W., Hafner, A., Lösch, S., Haak, W., Schiffels, S. and Krause, J. 2020. Ancient genomes reveal social and genetic structure of Late Neolithic Switzerland. *Nature Communications* 11(1): 1915.

Galili, E., Kolska-Horwitz, L., Eshed, V., Rosen, B. and Hershkovitz, I. 2013. Submerged prehistoric settlements off the Mediterranean coast of Israel. *The Archaeology of Europe's Drowned Landscapes* 13: 181–204.

Giot, P. R. 1987. *Barnenez, Carn, Guennoc*. Rennes: Association pour l'avancement des travaux du laboratoire «Anthropologie-Préhistoire-Protohistoire-Quaternaire Armoricains».

Haiman, M. 1992. Cairn burials and cairn fields in the Negev. *Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research* 287: 25–45.

Hanbury-Tenison, J. W. 1989. Jabal Mutawwaq 1986. *Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan* 33: 137–44.

Helms, S. W. 1981. *Jawa*. London: Methuen.

Henshall, A. S. 1963. *The Chambered Tombs of Scotland. Volume 1*. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

——— 1972. *The Chambered Tombs of Scotland. Volume 2*. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Iamoni, M. 2014. Late Neolithic funerary evidence from Palmyra: the Rajem al-Majdur necropolis and the 'desert-kite and tumulus cultural horizons' in Central Syria. In, Morandini Bonacossi, D. (ed.), *Settlement Dynamics and Human-Landscape Interaction in the Dry Steppes of Syria*: 49–62. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Ibáñez Estévez, J. J., Haidar-Boustani, M., al Maqdissi, M., Armendáriz Gutiérrez, A., González Urquijo, J. E., Rodríguez, A., Teira-Mayolini, L., Terradas Battle, X. and Boix, J. 2008. La ocupación prehistórica al oeste de Homs (Siria). *Informes y Trabajos: Excavaciones en el exterior* (1): 141–48.

Joussaume, R. 1985. *Des dolmens pour les morts: les mégalithismes à travers le monde*. Paris: Hachette littérature.

——— 1988. Dolmens for the dead: megalith-building throughout the world. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

——— 2016. *Palets et minches de Gargantua. Mégalithisme dans le Centre-Ouest de la France*. Chauvigny: Association des Publications chauvinoises (A.P.C.).

——— 2003. *Les charpentiers de la pierre, monuments mégalithiques dans le monde*. Paris: La maison des roches.

Kafafi, Z. 2011. Upright stones of the Neolithic village 'Ayn Ghazal: location and function (Jordan). In, Steimer-Herbet, T. (ed.), *Pierres levées, stèles anthropomorphes et dolmens: Aspects cultuels des IVe et IIle millénaires au Levant et en péninsule Arabique*: 123–33. British Archaeological Report (International Series 2317). Oxford: BAR.

La Tour d'Auvergne-Corret, T.-M. 1801. *Origines gauloises, celles des plus anciens peuples de l'Europe, puisées dans leur vraie source, ou recherches sur la langue, l'origine et les antiquités des Celto-Bretons de l'Armorique, pour servir à l'histoire ancienne et moderne de ce peuple, et à celle des Français*. Hambourg: P. F. Fauche.

Laporte, L. 2022. Conclusion. In, Laporte, L., Large, J.-M., Nespoulous, L., Scarre, C. and Steimer-Herbet, T. (eds), *Megaliths of the World*: 1389–402. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Laporte, L. and Scarre, C. (eds). 2015. *The Megalithic Architectures of Europe*. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Laporte, L., Jallot, L. and Sohn, M. 2011. *Mégalithismes en France : nouveaux acquis et nouvelles perspectives de recherche*. *Gallia préhistoire* 53: 289–338.

Laporte, L., Parron, I. and Cousseau, F. 2014. Nouvelle approche du mégalithisme à l'épreuve de l'archéologie du bâti. In, Sénépart I., Billard C., Bostyn F., Praud Y. and Thirault, E. (eds), *Méthodologie des recherches de terrain sur la préhistoire récente en France nouveaux acquis, nouveaux outils, 1987-2012*: 169–86. Toulouse: Archives d'écologie préhistorique.

Laporte, L., Cousseau, F., Bueno Ramírez, P. and Gouezin, P. 2017. Le douzième dolmen de Barnenez: destructions et reconstructions au sein d'une nécropole mégalithique. *Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française* 114(1): 93–114.

Laporte, L., Large, J.-M., Nespoulous, L., Scarre, C. and Steimer-Herbet, T. (eds). 2022. *Megaliths of the World*. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Le Bloas, A. 2022. *La gloire de La Tour d'Auvergne: Une histoire de l'admiration au XIXe siècle*. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.

Leisner, G. and Leisner, V. 1943. *Die Megalithgräber der iberischen Halbinsel: der Süden*. Berlin: W. De Gruyter und C°.

Leisner, G. K. and Leisner, V. 1956. *Die Megalithgräber der Iberischen Halbinsel: der Westen*. Berlin: W. De Gruyter und C°.

L'Helgouchaj, J. 1965. *Les sépultures mégalithiques en Armorique : dolmens à couloir et allées couvertes*. Rennes: Travaux du Laboratoire d'Anthropologie Préhistorique de la Faculté des Sciences.

Lukis, W. C. 1866. On some peculiarities in the construction of Chambered Barrows. *Journal of the British Archaeological Association*: 249–63.

de Maigret, A. 1996. New evidence from the Yemenite 'Turret Graves' for the problem of the emergence of the South Arabian States. In, Reade, J. (ed.), *The Indian Ocean in Antiquity*: 321–37. London: Routledge.

Mohen, J.-P. and Scarre, C. 2002. *Les tumulus de Bougon, Deux-Sèvres: complexe mégalithique du Ve au IIe millénaire*. Paris: Errance.

Montelius, O. 1876. Sur les tombeaux et la topographie de la Suède pendant l'âge de la Pierre. In, *Congrès international de anthropologie et d'archéologie préhistoriques. Compte-rendu de la 7e session, Stockholm, 1874*: 152–76. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & Söner.
—— 1899. *Der Orient und Europa; Einfluss der orientalischen Cultur auf Europa bis zur Mitte des letzten Jahrtausends v. Chr.* Stockholm: Kungl. Hofboktryckeriet.

Munoz, O. 2022. Protohistoric cairns and tower tombs in south-eastern Arabia (end of the 4th — beginning of the 3rd millennium BCE). In, Laporte, L., Large, J.-M., Nespoulous, L., Scarre, C. and Steimer-Herbet, T. (eds), *Megaliths of the World: 905–20*. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Nasrallah, J. 1963. Monuments mégalithiques de Syrie méridionale. *Annales Archéologiques de Syrie* 13: 13–78.

Palumbo, G., Mabry, J. and Kuijt, I. 1990. The Wadi el-Yabis Survey report on the 1989 Field Season. *Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan* 34: 95–112.

Polcaro, A. and Muniz, J. 2018. Preliminary report on the seventh season (2018) of Spanish-Italian excavations at Jabal al-Muqawqaq, Wādī Az-Zarqā', Jordan. *Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan* 60: 301–10.

Philip, G. and Bradbury, J. 2010. Preclassical activity in the basalt landscape of the Homs region, Syria: the implications for the development of sub-optimal zones in the Levant during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. *Levant* 42(2): 136–69.

Philip, G., Jabour, F., Beck, A., Bshesh, M., Grove, J., Kirk, A. and Millard, A. 2002. Settlement and landscape development in the Homs region, Syria: research questions, preliminary results 1999–2000 and future potential. *Levant* 34(1): 1–23.

Renfrew, C. 1976. Megaliths, territory and populations. In, De Laet S. J. (ed.), *Acculturation and Continuity in Atlantic Europe Mainly During the Neolithic Period and the Bronze Age: 198–220*. Bruges: De Tempel.

Rosen, S. A. 2025. Cairn fields and other megaliths as cultural markers in the southern Levantine deserts. Levant. doi to be added.

Sánchez-Quinto, F., Malmström, H., Fraser, M., Girdland-Flink, L., Svensson, E. M., Simões, L. G., George, R., Hollfelder, N., Burenhult, G., Noble, G., Britton, K., Talamo, S., Curtis, N., Brzobohata, H., Sumberova, R., Götherström, A., Storå, J. and Jakobsson, M. 2019. Megalithic tombs in western and northern Neolithic Europe were linked to a kindred society. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 116(19): 9469–74.

Schath, K. 2017. A modern look at Dolmen Culture from studies 2007–2014. *Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan* 58: 551–560.

Schath, K., Collins, S. and Al-Jarrah, H. 2011. Excavation of an undiscovered demi-dolmen and insights from the al-Hammam megalithic field, 2011 season. *Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan* 55: 329–48.

Scheltema, G. 2008. *Megalithic Jordan: An Introduction and Field Guide*. Amman: ACOR.

Scott, J. 2017. *Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States*. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Schmidt, K. 2015. *Le premier temple: Göbekli Tepe*. Paris: CNRS.

Schulz Paulsson, B. 2017. *Time and Stone: The Emergence and Development of Megaliths and Megalithic Societies in Europe*. Oxford: Archaeopress.

—— 2019. Radiocarbon dates and Bayesian modeling support maritime diffusion model for megaliths in Europe. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 116(9): 3460–65.

Steimer-Herbet, T. 2000. Etude des monuments de Mengez (Liban) d'après les carnets de fouilles du R. P. M. Tallon (1959–1969). *Syria* 77: 11–21.

—— 2004. *Classification des sépultures à superstructure lithique dans le Levant et l'Arabie occidentale (IVe et IIle millénaires avant J.-C.).* Oxford: Archaeopress.

—— 2010. Du Plateau du Jaulan au piémont oriental du Jebel al-Arab, architecture funéraire et cultuelle des périodes protohistoriques. In, Al-Maqdissi M., Braemer, F. and Dentzer, J.-M. (eds), *Hauran V. La Syrie du Sud du Néolithique à l'Antiquité tardive, recherches récentes: 349–58*. Beyrouth: Presses de l'Ifpo.

—— 2013. Dolmen and tower tombs (3600–2000 BC). In, Ababsa, M. (ed), *Atlas of Jordan: History, Territories and Society: 119–21*. Beyrouth: Presses de l'Ifpo.

—— 2018. *Indonesian Megaliths: A Forgotten Cultural Heritage*. Oxford: Archaeopress.

—— 2022. Megalithism in the Middle-East. In, Laporte, L., Large, J.-M., Nespoulous, L., Scarre, C. and Steimer-Herbet, T. (eds), *Megaliths of the World: 921–34*. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Steimer, T. and Braemer, F. 1999. Monuments funéraires mégalithiques au Proche-Orient. In, Guilaine, J. (ed.), *Mégalithisme de l'Atlantique à l'Ethiopie: 175–89*. Paris: Editions Errance.

Steimer-Herbet, T., Cousseau, F., Haïdar-Boustani, M., Porra-Kuteni, V., Caminada, A. and Besse, M. 2019. Monuments mégalithiques de Menjez (Akkar): études des architectures et gravures. Campagne 2018. *Bulletin d'Archéologie et d'Architecture Libanaises* 19: 229–58.

Stekelis, M. 1935. *Les monuments mégalithiques de Palestine*. Paris: Masson.

—— 1961. *La necropolis megalitica de Ala-Safat, Transjordania. Monografias*. Barcelona: Diputación Provincial de Barcelona. Instituto de Prehistoria y Arqueología.

Tallon, M. 1959. Tumulus et mégalithes de Hermel et de la Beqā Nord. *Mélanges de l'Université Saint Joseph* 36(3): 93–100.

—— 1964. Les monuments mégalithiques de Mengez. *Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth* 16: 7–21.

Testart, A. 2005. *Éléments de classification des sociétés*. Paris: Errance.

Twhohig, E. S. 1981. *The Megalithic Art of Western Europe*. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Worschech, U. 2002. *Cromlechs, Dolmen und Menhire, Vergleichende Studien zu Vor- Und Frühgeschichtlichen Grabanlagen in Jordanien*. Beiträge zur Erforschung der Antiken Moabitis (Ard el-Kerak). Francfort: Peter Lang.

Zarins, J., Ibrahim, M., Potts, D. T. and Edens, C. 1979. Saudi Arabian archaeological reconnaissance 1978: the preliminary report on the third phase of the Comprehensive Archaeological Survey Program — The Central Province. *Atlal. Journal of Saudi Arabian Archaeology* 3: 9–42.

Zohar, M. 1992. Megalithic cemeteries in the Levant. In, Bar-Yosef O. and Khazanov, A. (eds), *Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives: 43–63*. Madison: Prehistory Press.