# Exploring Levantine megalithic building techniques: the case study of ST_004 from Menjez (Akkar, Lebanon)

Méryl Defours Rivoira, Florian Cousseau, Tara Steimer-Herbet

► To cite this version:

Méryl Defours Rivoira, Florian Cousseau, Tara Steimer-Herbet. Exploring Levantine megalithic building techniques: the case study of ST_004 from Menjez (Akkar, Lebanon). Levant: The Journal of the Council for British Research in the Levant, 2025, pp.1-19. 10.1080/00758914.2025.2509418. hal-05161085

HAL Id: hal-05161085

https://hal.science/hal-05161085v1

Submitted on 14 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>

# Exploring Levantine megalithic building techniques: the case study of ST_004 from Menjez (Akkar, Lebanon)

Méryl Defours Rivoira, Florian Cousseau & Tara Steimer-Herbet

To cite this article: Méryl Defours Rivoira, Florian Cousseau & Tara Steimer-Herbet (14 Jul 2025): Exploring Levantine megalithic building techniques: the case study of ST_004 from Menjez (Akkar, Lebanon), Levant, DOI: 10.1080/00758914.2025.2509418

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2025.2509418

<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: 14 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>

# Exploring Levantine megalithic building techniques: the case study of ST_004 from Menjez (Akkar, Lebanon)

Méryl Defours Rivoira IDª, Florian Cousseau IDª and Tara Steimer-Herbet IDª

The aim of this paper is to present a new methodological approach for the study of megalithic buildings in the Levant by presenting the case study of the megalithic monument ST_004 from the cemetery of Qana Maabour in Menjez (Akkar, Lebanon). Conducted within the framework of the MEG-A Project — First Megalith in the Northern Levant (2022–2026) — led by T. Steimer-Herbet and Z. Wygnańska, this research aims to characterize the cultural and technical dynamics that inspired the construction of these monuments. We seek to explore the megalithic building techniques used by ancient builders, reconstruct the history of these monuments through the application of new tools in the field of buildings archaeology, and uncover the symbolic practices that guided their design through a geoarchaeological approach.

**Keywords** Buildings archaeology, geoarchaeology, megalithic tombs, Late Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age, Lebanon, Akkar

## Introduction

Research on Levantine megalithic monuments has significantly advanced since the early 2000s, thanks to an increase in extensive surveys (Armendáriz et al. 2008; 2012; Bradbury and Philip 2011; Fraser et al. 2009; Ibáñez et al. 2010; Ji 1997a; Khouri et al. 2006; Steimer-Herbet and Criaud 2008; Steimer-Herbet and Zuobee 2014; Thuesen 2004). However, while thousands of megalithic monuments have been identified, only a fraction have been studied in detail (Aveni and Mizrachi 1998; Bahat 1972; Braemer et al. 2004; 2011; Epstein 1985; Fernandez-Tresguerres Velasco 2011; Fernandez-Tresguerres Velasco and Junceda Quintana 1991; Freikman and Porat 2017; Kerner 2019; Polcaro and Muniz 2018; Polcaro et al. 2014; 2024; Steimer-Herbet 2006; Steimer-Herbet and Besse 2017; Steimer-Herbet et al. 2022; Tallon 1964; Vinitzky 1992). Several classifications and

typologies for such monuments have already been proposed (Epstein 1985; Fraser 2018; 2022; Joussaume 1985; Steimer-Herbet 2004; 2022; Stekelis 1961; Zohar 1992) and numerous reviews of this constantly evolving field have been published (Avner 2002; Fraser 2018; Steimer-Herbet 2004; 2004–2005). This study, which is part of the MEG-A project led by T. Steimer-Herbet and Z. Wygnańska (Wygnańska et al. 2025), aims to contribute to this field by employing a novel method to reconstruct the actions of ancient builders in Menjez, hopefully shedding light on megalithic building techniques. This approach, inspired by methods used in Western Europe (Cousseau 2020; 2023), combines principles developed in buildings archaeology with geoarchaeological techniques and 3D tools (Metashape, Cloud Compare, Meshlab). This innovative method will help deepen our understanding of Levantine megalithic societies and highlight their technological and cultural behaviours. This article presents this new method and its use in relation to megalithic monuments from Menjez, providing fresh perspectives into Levantine megalithic architecture.

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

<footnote>Méryl Defours Rivoira (corresponding author), Department F.-A. Forel for Environmental and Aquatic Sciences; Laboratory of Prehistoric Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Geneva, Switzerland. Email: meryl.defours@unige.ch</footnote>
# Materials and methods

## Corpus

Lebanese megalithic sites were primarily recorded in the northern areas near Mount Hermel (Tallon 1959) and in 'Akkar (Matsumoto and Wada 2001; Mouterde 1940; Steimer 2000; Steimer-Herbet et al. 2018; 2019; 2020; Tallon 1958; 1964; Wygnańska n.d.) (Fig. 1). Menjez and its surroundings host the largest concentration of such monuments (Artin 2014: 23), with 87 dolmens recorded in the 1960s by M. Tallon, who was the first to undertake excavations in Menjez (Tallon 1964). Many of these monuments began to disappear as a result of the expansion of the modern village of Menjez, agricultural activities, and the use of blocks from these structures in the construction of modern buildings.

Efforts to preserve and study these monuments have intensified in recent years. The Valorisation et Protection des dolmens de Menjez project<fnref n="1" />, launched in 2017, aimed at enhancing and protecting the megalithic heritage in collaboration with various international partners (University of Geneva, the Château-Musée de Bélesta, the Museum of Lebanese Prehistory and the municipality of Menjez). Subsequent investigations in 2018 involved cleaning, studying, and creating 3D-models of 12 monuments which were later made accessible to the public (Steimer-Herbet et al. 2018; 2019; 2020). Simultaneously, a survey campaign was conducted in the 'Akkar region.

The MEG-A project, initiated in 2022 and funded by Swiss and Polish research institutes,<fnref n="2" /> seeks to address two main objectives. Firstly, it aims to define the identity and practices of the megalith builders' communities in the 'Akkar, with a focus on establishing a more precise chronological framework and cultural context. With this goal in mind, building study plays a crucial role in this project, enabling us to understand the technical and cultural dynamics of these megalithic societies in the 'Akkar region. Secondly, it aims to reconstruct the palaeoenvironment of 'Akkar and study the subsistence strategies of megalithic communities during the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age, the periods to which the megalithic monuments of Menjez are

attributed.<fnref n="3" /> During the first campaign of the MEG-A project in 2022, only 45 of the original dolmens in Menjez were identified (Steimer-Herbet et al. 2022; Wygnańska et al. n.d.). The current corpus includes 29 megalithic monuments, all of which have been surveyed, studied and modelled in 3D. These 29 monuments fall into three main types: circular tombs, which are predominant in Menjez, with a total of 26 monuments among the current corpus; rectangular tombs (n = 2); and 1 elongated tomb with multiple chambers.

## Methods

For this purpose and for the first time in the Levant, MEG-A adapted and applied a new methodology to the study of megalithic structures. This methodology is based on two fundamental pillars: the methods developed in buildings archaeology; and geoarchaeological techniques (Defours Rivoira et al. 2024). Buildings archaeology, traditionally applied to the study and restoration of medieval and modern European buildings, involves studying the structure as a whole by considering its elevations. The objective is to reveal the history of a monument, though the dissection and reconstruction of its architectural phases, in order to understand its formation and evolution (Laporte 2016; 2022). In addition to buildings archaeology, this study also considers the geological and geomorphological characteristics of the basalt monoliths that constitute the raw material used in the construction of megalithic monuments.

Applying buildings archaeology tools to megalithic monuments was first implemented on the, almost entirely, dry-stone-built Neolithic Tumulus C of Péré at Prissé la Charrière in France (Cousseau 2015; Laporte and Parron-Kontis 2010; Laporte et al. 2014; 2021). The findings proved conclusive, with significant results for the application of stratigraphical reading on dry-stone masonry. Since this first experiment, this method has been used on other Neolithic megalithic monuments presenting the same characteristics; from southern Spain to Great Britain (Cousseau 2020; 2023; Gouézin 2022; Linares-Catela 2017; van der Reijden 2020). In his PhD thesis, F. Cousseau (Cousseau 2023) was the first to expand the application of this new methodological approach, notably to the Cairn of Barnenez in Brittany, France

<footnote n="1">¹Project funded by the British Council — Cultural Protection Fund (CPS-552-17, PI: T. Steimer-Herbet).</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²MEG-A Project — First Megalith Builders in the Northern Levant (2022–2025), funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (FNS — Project n°202350, PI: T. Steimer-Herbet, Laboratoire d'Archéologie Préhistorique et Anthropologie, Université de Genève, Switzerland) and the National Science Center (NCN — Project n°202/39/I/HS3/02993, PI: Z. Wygnańska, Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures, Polish Academy of Science, Poland).</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³As there is no consensus among scholars working on Lebanon, defining precise chronological boundaries between Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I remains challenging (Badreshany 2024). Following Genz (2014; 2024), the Late Chalcolithic is placed between 3700 and 3000 BC. As no clear break is observed between the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I in Lebanon (Badreshany 2024) this period also includes the Early Bronze Age I.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1** Map of Lebanon with the location of known Lebanese megalithic sites (Menjez and its environs and Hermel) and a zoom on the different sectors defined by the MEG-A project in the municipality of Menjez (© MEG-A project - 2025).</figcaption></figure>

(Cousseau and Gassien 2023; Laporte et al. 2017). Cousseau combined buildings archaeology methods with a geoarchaeological reading of the orthostats and monoliths that shape the internal space of Neolithic megalithic monuments from Western Europe. This research was based on research, led by D. Sellier and E. Mens, on Carnac alignments (Brittany, France) (Mens 2008; Mens and Large 2009; Mens et al. 2022; Sellier 1991; 2013; 2023).

*The Levantine megalithic building techniques method*

For Menjez, a version of this method, referred to as the Levantine Megalithic Building Techniques Method (LMBT), adapted to the architectural features of these specific megalithic monuments, was developed and used. This included the development of new methodological tools and study criteria. LMBT establishes three stages for reading levels (Defours Rivoira et al. 2024). The first involves identifying the volumes and spaces of the megalithic structure and assigning them a function. To do this, it is necessary to take into consideration the monument's state of preservation, in particular the potentially missing pieces and any resulting limitations. This first step will enable the proposal of a typology for these monuments.

The second stage delves into buildings archaeology. It enables researchers to define the building methods used, determine the operational sequences that

governed their construction, and establish the architectural phasing, which involves reconstructing the history of the monument and assessing whether it resulted from a single or multiple architectural phases. In order to determine this, this study distinguishes between building stages and architectural phases, which refer to two distinct time scales (Cousseau 2023: 55–56). In practice, this second stage entails deconstructing the monument under study into various building units, conceptualized as stratigraphic units (Reveyron 2002: 6). Similar to a stratigraphic diagram, the identification of the connections and discontinuities between building units allows for an outline of the construction timeline. These are then studied according to several criteria: their masonry, material composition, employed block module (small module, 0–30 cm; medium module, 30–60 cm; large module, over 60 cm), geological supply and intended function.

The third stage involves describing the basalt monoliths, that constitute the raw material from which these monuments are made, from a geoarchaeological perspective, with particular attention being given to the orthostats that form the funerary chambers. There are differences in size, layout and shape between the orthostats in the chamber and the other blocks used in the construction of the megalithic monuments. The requirements and aesthetic considerations are not the same. Our study has defined
several analysis criteria. The first focus is on the
general aspect of these monoliths, including their
dimensions, general shape, position (i.e., vertical,
on edge, horizontal and inclination) and summit
morphology (i.e., flat, concave, convex, pointed,
ogival, or fusiform), in addition to their location
within the structure, which allows a function to be
assigned. A second focus examines the geomorpho-
logical characteristics of these monoliths, for this,
methods established on the granite monoliths
that make up the alignments of Carnac (Brittany,
France) are applied (Sellier 1991; 2013; 2023).
These methods were adapted to the geological and
geomorphological context of Menjez, which are
exclusively composed of basalt. The analysis criteria
focus on defining the morphology of the faces (flat,
concave, convex and irregular shapes), defining the
exposed face (i.e., the visible face of the monolith
during the monument's use), and its type (i.e.,
whether it is a fresh face [attached to the bedrock
before extraction] or a weathered face [the exposed,
outcropping surface]), notably by identifying
visible erosion forms. Another analysis criterion is
based on the typology of monoliths established by
E. Mens (2008), a method called mental refitting,
which consists of theoretically restoring the block
within its original outcrop. At Menjez, six different
types (type 0 to type 5) were distinguished, defined
according to the depth level from which the studied
block was extracted: type 0 corresponds to an
outcrop block completely detached from the sub-
strate; types 1-3 correspond to blocks extracted
from the surface outcrop levels; and types 4 and 5
correspond to blocks extracted from the deepest
levels of the original outcrop. The type of monolith
is determined by the characterization of its faces,
either fresh faces or weathered faces. Type 0 blocks
have no fresh face, while type 5 blocks have no
weathered face and are, therefore, composed exclu-
sively of fresh faces. Next, a geological criterion
was applied. Unlike in Western Europe where this
criterion was established (Cousseau 2023;
Cummings 2002; L'Helgouach 1995; Linares-
Catela et al. 2023; Scarre 2004), in Menjez, the exclu-
sive presence of basalt required adaptation of the
method used. In this part of Akkar the geological
environment is dominated by basaltic formations,
which are part of the so-called Homs nappe:
intense seismic activity, caused by tectonic move-
ments, has fractured the basaltic flows into systems
of straight fissures. The Akkar field consists of a
superposition of basaltic flows up to 200 metres
deep in some areas, with individual flows measuring

between 1.20 and 4 metres (Jean 2019: 25–26). The
accumulation of these successive flows has resulted
in the formation of curvilinear discontinuities.
The combination of rectilinear and curvilinear
fractures facilitated the extraction of basalt blocks
used in the construction of Menjez’s megalithic
monuments.

For our geological criterion, the basalt used, based
on the layer from which it was extracted, was distin-
guished. Basalt flows are characterized by marked tex-
tural variations, particularly in their vesicular
structure. A vesicular texture is defined by the pres-
ence of vesicles — small cavities in the rock that
form when gas trapped in the lava rises to the
surface as the basalt solidifies. The analysis of textural
variations has made it possible to identify three types
of basalt used in the local architecture, based on their
degree of vesicularity: Basalt B0 (without vesicles);
Basalt B1 (moderately vesicular, vesicles measuring
less than 1 cm); Basalt B2 (numerous vesicles on the
surface, measuring over 1 cm). The study of the
monoliths provides information about the raw
material supply, as well as information about the sym-
bolic encoding expressed by the builders in the
architecture.

Case study: the megalithic monument ST_004

Qana Maabour

The Qana Maabour (MA1) sector is one of 12 mega-
lithic cemeteries recorded in the modern village of
Menjez. It is located south-east of the present-day
village (Fig. 2). Thirteen structures in this sector,
located in the western part of this area, including
ST_004, have been identified as funerary monuments;
no settlements have been observed (Fig. 3). Several
basalt outcrop areas have also been identified as quar-
ries, which served as a source of raw material for the
monuments. These quarries are in close proximity to
the megalithic monuments. The Menjez region, par-
ticularly the Qana Maabour sector, also features
numerous boulders, detached from the outcrops,
many of which were used as raw material for the
megalithic constructions when their morphology
suited the builders.

Qana Maabour was first excavated in the 1960s by
M. Tallon (1964). In 2018, the megalithic monument
ST_049 was the first to undergo a 3D survey and a
building study (Steimer-Herbet *et al.* 2019). In 2022,
during the first campaign of the MEG-A project,
the other 12 identified monuments were digitized in
3D, along with the entire sector. During the second
campaign in 2023, excavations were conducted on
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 UAV photo of the Qana Maabour sector (MA1) and the surrounding hills (©DGA — 2024).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3 Orthophotography of Qana Maabour sector (MA1), located to the south-east of the modern village of Menjez, near the Syrian-Lebanese border in the Akkar region of northern Lebanon (© MEG-A project — NCN — 2022).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4** UAV photo of the megalithic monument ST_004 from the west (Qana Maabour sector — MA1) (©DGA — 2023).</figcaption></figure>

several of these megalithic monuments, further advancing study of the structures in this sector. Topographically Qana Maabour appears as a hill, with a steep summit to the east and a broad, lower slope forming a plateau sloping gently westward, towards the village of Menjez. Qana Maabour is located in a highly hilly area and faces three other necropoli: Hfayane (MA9), Rujm (MA7) and Boustan el-Beik (MA12). This slope is bordered by the Nahr el-Machta to the south and the Wadi Ain ech-Chabouq from the north-east to the south-west (Wygnańska et al. n.d.). Today, Qana Maabour is a pastureland, uncultivated, with numerous visible basalt outcrops on the surface and areas that were once terraces.

## The megalithic tomb ST_004

### Plan and volume

The megalithic tomb ST_004 is, overall, well preserved, despite visible signs of disturbance in its eastern part, likely the result of looting (Fig. 4). It is part of a group of circular tombs, represented by six examples in the Qana Maabour cemetery. It consists of a small rectangular chamber (Fig. 5), delimited by five orthostats (i.e., the standing stones that form the eastern and western walls of the chamber) that are 1.60 metres long and 0.65 metres wide (Fig. 6). The southern wall is not preserved and to the north the chamber is closed by four blocks. No corridor or entrance has been identified, an exception for this type of grave, making it difficult to determine the orientation of the chamber. The chamber floor

consists of two large paving blocks, which appear to rest on a stone bed (i.e., a layer of small stones used to level the ground and ensure stability within the chamber space).

The chamber is surrounded by four circular platforms, each composed of a dry-stone wall outer façade, associated with a filling of stones. Small sections of dry-stone wall connect the walls of the second and third platforms to the north and south of the structure. It is likely that these ‘walls’ were installed to consolidate the structure, particularly the filling of the third platform, which is approximately 1.50 metres in width (Fig. 7).

The outer space of this megalithic tomb is delineated by a ring of stones. A terrace has been identified in the western part of the structure, where the slope is steeper.

No chamber coverings have been identified, leading to several possible hypotheses. The coverings may have taken the form of a corbelled roof resting on the platform, as observed in other monuments at Menjez (Defours Rivoira et al. 2024; Steimer-Herbet et al. 2019). This type of cover could correspond with the corbelled positioning of the two upper blocks of the closing system at the northern end of the chamber. However, a flat covering consisting of slabs arranged horizontally on top of the orthostats is also possible, or, alternatively, a covering made of lightweight and perishable materials, of which no traces remain today.

## Building study of ST_004

### BUILDING TECHNIQUES

To conduct the building study of the structure, the megalithic tomb ST_004 has been divided into 11 building units (SB_004_1–SB_004_11; Table 1) whose building methods will be described in detail.

The chamber pavement (SB_004_2) consists of two large slabs resting on the stone bed (SB_004_1) (Fig. 6). These slabs have a depth of at least 14 cm. They serve as supports for the eastern and western walls of the chamber, as well as for the closure at the northern end (SB_004_5). The pavement block S09 covers almost the entire surface of the chamber and is in direct contact with orthostats S04 and S05 of the western wall. It is separated from the other orthostats (i.e., S01, S02 and S06) by small wedging stones, which help to hold them in place. There is evidence of shaping on pavement block S09 at the level of orthostats S04 and S05, allowing it to fit perfectly to their morphology. Block S10, which forms the southern part of the chamber pavement, is in direct contact with orthostat S04 and is separated from orthostat
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5 Architectural spaces of the megalithic tomb ST_004 (link to 3D model — Sketchfab: https://skfb.ly/oTBFT).</figcaption></figure>

S02 by a wedging stone. Again, evidence of shaping has been observed on its face along block S09, allowing S10 to adapt to the other block that forms the pavement.

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6 View on the rectangular chamber, from the south.</figcaption></figure>

S10 was also intended to serve as a support for the southern wall of the chamber as indicated by the presence of two wedging stones still in place.

The eastern chamber wall (SB_004_3), measuring 1.10 m in length, is composed of two orthostats (S01 and S02), as well as a standing stone<fnref n="4" /> (S03), present in the masonry to the south of S02 (Fig. 8). This standing stone rests on wedging stones and is positioned high, with its base above the pavement, unlike the orthostats. Its placement suggests that it was meant to accommodate an orthostat likely belonging to the southern wall of the chamber. Filling blocks are visible in the layout of this eastern wall, ensuring no voids are left. This wall rests against the pavement at

<footnote n="4">⁴An orthostat is a block standing vertically or on edge, and forms the internal space of megalithic chambers, and thus shapes their walls. A standing stone is a vertically positioned block which, unlike an orthostat, does not necessarily form the walls of the chamber.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7** View of the filling of the third platform, which is approximately 1.50 metres wide.</figcaption></figure>

the front and is supported at the back by blocks forming the filling of the first platform.

The western wall of the chamber (SB_004_4), measuring 1.28 m in length, is composed of three orthostats (S04, S05 and S06) and a standing stone (S08), which plugs the notch of orthostat S06 and rests on small filling blocks (Fig. 9). As observed for the eastern wall, the western orthostats rest against the pavement, which supports them at the front (inside the chamber) and are maintained at the back by the blocks constituting the filling of the first platform.

To the north, four medium-sized blocks (S13, S14, S15 and S16) (SB_004_5) were arranged to close off the chamber (Fig. 6). This system was erected starting from the threshold slab of the chamber (S13), positioned horizontally against the paving. On this threshold slab, another horizontal block (S14) was placed. Then, for the upper level of this closure, blocks S15 and S16 were arranged in corbels on block S14. These last two blocks are of equal height; they both reach the same level, as well as the level of orthostat S01 of the eastern wall, against which they lean. Indeed, this system abuts the western and eastern walls of the

chamber. This closure does not lead to any corridor or entrance; thus, the blocks filling the first platform were arranged directly against it.

The chamber is included within a first platform (SB_004_6). This platform serves as a rear support for the chamber walls, thus conferring a technological role within this structure. In 2023, MEG-A opened a test pit in the eastern part of this megalithic tomb exposing the wall of this first platform, which was not visible from the surface (Fig. 10). Nevertheless, the clearing of the wall is too limited to determine the overall shape of this platform. It is partially preserved to the east on one to two courses and exhibits a uniform masonry composed of medium-sized blocks. This wall is built exclusively with boulders corresponding to basalt B0 and B1, and rests directly on the basalt substrate. It is associated with a filling of medium-sized blocks contained within the space separating it from the chamber's walls.

The second circular platform (SB_004_7) rests against and upon the first platform. It measures 5.40 m in diameter from east to west, 6.10 m from north to south, and its filling is 0.50 m thick. Its dry-stone wall is well preserved on three courses to the south (Fig. 11), almost equivalent to the height of the orthostats, indicating that the chamber was not intended to be visible from the outside. This is supported by the fact that the filling of the first platform rises up to the top of the chamber walls (to the east). The wall of the second platform is very well built, featuring a meticulously crafted and uniform masonry composed of a heterogeneous mix of medium- and large-sized blocks attributed to basalt B0 and B1. No voids are visible between the blocks; numerous filling and wedging stones have been placed between them. Moreover, visible shaping marks reveal that some blocks have been deliberately carved. The flat face of the wall blocks was favoured as the visible face, i.e., facing outward, giving the appearance of a smooth and uniform wall with a vertical profile. The filling of this second platform consists of blocks of varying sizes without any earth filling.

The third circular platform (SB_004_8) abuts the second platform. Its diameter is 10.70 m from east to west and 10.90 m from north to south, while the depth of the filling measures 2 m to the west, 1.50 m to the north and south, and 0.95 m to the east. Its wall is preserved on two courses to the south (Fig. 12) and consists of a heterogeneous masonry composed of medium and large blocks of basalt B0 and B1. The massive foundation blocks protrude, and the upper course is mainly composed of blocks arranged in a header, meaning that they

<table><caption>**Table 1** Stratigraphic building units of megalith monument ST_004 and associated monoliths</caption><thead><tr><td>N° SB</td><td>Description</td><td>N° Monoliths</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>SB_004_1</td><td>Stone bed</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>SB_004_2</td><td>Chamber pavement</td><td>S09-S10</td></tr><tr><td>SB_004_3</td><td>Eastern chamber wall</td><td>S01-S02-S03</td></tr><tr><td>SB_004_4</td><td>Western chamber wall</td><td>S04-S05-S06-S08</td></tr><tr><td>SB_004_5</td><td>Northern closing system of the chamber</td><td>S13-S14-S15-S16</td></tr><tr><td>SB_004_6</td><td>First circular platform</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>SB_004_7</td><td>Second circular platform</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>SB_004_8</td><td>Third circular platform</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>SB_004_9</td><td>Fourth semi-circular platform</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>SB_004_10</td><td>Western terrace</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>SB_004_11</td><td>Ring</td><td>—</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8 Orthostats S01, S02 and the standing stone S03 from the eastern wall of the chamber (SB_004_3).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9 Orthostats S04, S05, S06 and the standing stone S08 from the western wall of the chamber (SB_004_4).</figcaption></figure>

were placed perpendicular to the facing. It is a well-built wall with no gaps between the blocks; thus, many filling and wedging stones were observed in its masonry. The blocks used are mainly boulders showing little shaping, unlike the wall of the second platform. This indicates that the blocks

were carefully selected ensuring that they would fit together. As with the second platform, the flat face of the wall blocks were favoured as the visible face, i.e., facing outward.

In the southern half of ST_004, the filling of the fourth semi-circular platform (SB_004_9), measuring

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10 Wall of the first platform in the foreground (SB_004_6), excavated during campaign 2023 (test pit 41) and the filling of this first platform in the background, view from the east.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11 The southern section of the second platform wall (SB_004_7), view from the south.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>Figure 12 The third platform wall (SB_004_8), from the west.</figcaption></figure>

0.92 m to the south, rests against the third platform. To the east and west, the wall of this fourth platform (Fig. 13) overlaps with the wall of the third platform. The walls of these two platforms are quite similar, consisting of a heterogeneous masonry mainly composed of medium and large boulders corresponding to basalt B0 and B1. Nevertheless, more blocks show traces of shaping than for the wall of the third platform. Furthermore, no foundation course was laid, instead, wedging stones were placed at the base of the blocks. The upper course is partly made up of blocks arranged in a header, similar to the third platform. No gap was left between the blocks; they were skillfully selected to adapt to each other's morphology. Once again, the blocks of this wall were arranged so that their flat face corresponds to their visible face.

The terrace (SB_004_10) installed to the west is located beneath the fourth platform. It is exclusively made up of medium and large boulders. Its role is to level the terrain and stabilize the structure to the west. This terrace is obscured to the north-west and south-west as it extends beneath the walls of the third and fourth platforms.

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>Figure 13 The fourth platform wall (SB_004_9), view from the south.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>Figure 14 The ring of stones (SB_004_11) delimiting the structure ST_004's space, from the south.</figcaption></figure>

As for the ring (SB_004_11), which delineates the space of the megalithic tomb ST_004 (Fig. 14), it is composed of small- and medium-sized boulders. Its diameter is 19.60 m from east to west, and 18.60 m from north to south. Its depth is 2.50 m to the west, 1.50 m to the north, 1.90 m to the south, and 0.90 m to the east. It is not a typical dry-stone construction; rather, it is an arrangement of stones forming a circle. It marks the boundary of the tomb at a distance of approximately 2.20 m from the wall of the third platform and 1.50 m from the wall of the fourth platform to the south.

### CHÂNES OPÉRATOIRES

The building sequence of this megalithic monument is divided into 10 stages (Fig. 15):

(1) It begins with the placement of the stone-bed foundation (SB_004_1), arranged, in the space of the future chamber, directly on the basalt substrate.

(2) The pavement (SB_004_2) is then installed just above the stone bed.

(3) Once the stone-bed foundation and the pavement are in place defining the chamber space, the orthostats forming the eastern and western walls (SB_004_3 and SB_004_4) are positioned along the pavement, leaning against it. The southern wall, which is no longer in place today, was probably installed during this same building stage. Since this wall has disappeared, it is not possible to determine the order in which the chamber walls were erected.

(4) The chamber is then closed to the north by four blocks (SB_004_5). These blocks rest directly on the northern orthostats of the eastern and western walls of the chamber, implying that this system of four blocks was put in place once the orthostats were in position.

(5) Once the chamber is fully erected, the first platform is put in place (SB_004_6). This serves as a
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>Figure 15 Building sequence of megalithic tomb ST_004.</figcaption></figure>

support and encompasses the entire chamber. It thus reinforces the back of the orthostats as well as the chamber's northern closing system.

(6) The ground is then prepared to the west with the installation of a terrace (SB_004_10), which serves to counteract the effects of the slope, which is steeper on this side. This stage occurs before the installation of the third and fourth platforms, as indicated by the terrace's lower position. It also likely occurs before the placement of the second platform, assuming that these three platforms were erected simultaneously. Indeed, the excavation in the eastern part of ST_004 revealed that the second and third platforms share the same ground wedging.

(7) Once the ground is levelled to the west, the second circular platform (SB_004_7) is installed, encompassing the first platform and the chamber.

(8) The third circular platform (SB_004_8) is then put in place and is positioned against the second platform.

(9) The fourth circular platform (SB_004_9) is installed against the third platform.

(10) In a final step, the all-encompassing stone ring (SB_004_11), which defines the boundaries of the structure, is erected.

Regarding the covering of the chamber, this likely occurred after the installation of the first platform so that the corbels, or slabs, covering the chamber could rest on the orthostats and filling of this platform.

### ARCHITECTURAL PHASING

The architectural analysis conducted on ST_004 allowed varying hypotheses for the architectural phasing to be proposed, thereby offering a relative chronology of the monument's construction. Three hypotheses can be suggested.

The first hypothesis suggests a single architectural phase corresponding to a single architectural project. This would mean that all the building units previously described were erected at the same time and are, therefore, contemporary (Fig. 16).
<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>Figure 16 First hypothesis for the architectural phasing of ST_004.</figcaption></figure>

The second hypothesis proposes two architectural phases corresponding to two distinct architectural projects. The first phase includes the chamber (stone bed, pavement, walls, northern closing system), its supporting platform (the first platform), and the chamber covering. The second phase corresponds to the addition of the terrace to the west, ensuring stable ground, and the installation of the second, third and fourth platforms. As observed, it appears that these three platforms and the terrace are part of the same ensemble and are contemporary. It can also be assumed that the stone ring is set up during this second phase (Fig. 17).

The third hypothesis suggests three architectural phases, corresponding to three distinct architectural projects. The megalithic tomb ST_004 would have been erected over several periods. Similar to the previous hypothesis, the first step would have been the implementation of the chamber, the first platform and the covering, followed by the three additional platforms and the terrace to the west. For this hypothesis, the stone ring is erected in a third phase. Indeed, it could be a later addition; nothing connects this ring

to the other building units; no contemporary link was established during the architectural analysis. It is therefore entirely conceivable that this ring corresponds to a later phase (Fig. 18).

### THE STUDY OF THE MONOLITHS

The next level of study focuses on describing the monoliths that make up the internal space of the monument, including the orthostats of the chamber walls, the pavement blocks and the cover blocks. Other blocks, such as the standing stones erected in the exterior spaces outside the chamber, are also considered.

Since no cover block was observed, the primary focus was on the orthostats and the pavement (Fig. 19). In this regard, some interesting findings emerge from the study of the monoliths. First is the dimensional symmetry between the two northern orthostats of the chamber (S01 and S06). These two monoliths stand out due to their height, which is greater than that of the other orthostats in the chamber. These two orthostats also share the same vertical positioning and inclination, thus appearing
<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>Figure 17 Second hypothesis for the architectural phasing of ST_004.</figcaption></figure>

to form an entrance pair, which is similar to obser-
vations from other megalithic monuments in Menjez
(Defours Rivoira *et al.* 2024). This element indicates
the potential orientation of the chamber towards the
north. However, no corridor has been identified for
the chamber of ST_004 since the filling of the first
platform directly abuts against the northern closing
system. At the same time, the presence of these two
northern orthostats suggests that, if not a physical
entrance, they could have served as a symbolic
entrance to the chamber. Furthermore, orthostat
S06 features a narrow and pointed top, which
reinforces the idea that this block is part of the
entrance pair, as observed elsewhere in Menjez
(Defours Rivoira *et al.* 2024).

Another set of symmetry is noticeable between the
orthostats forming the middle part of the eastern and
western walls (S02 and S05). Indeed, these two ortho-
stats have a weathered convex face. Additionally,
both correspond to type 0 blocks according to the
*mental refitting* method. These two orthostats also
stand out due to the presence of vesicular inclusions

on their exposed face, even though they are not of the
same basalt type. Regarding the *mental refitting* cri-
terion, the different blocks used in the construction
of the chamber correspond to types 0, 1 and 2. This
means that these blocks originate from the upper
levels of the original outcrops. Thus, no blocks were
extracted from the deepest levels, indicating that
these blocks present at least two weathered faces. The
type of exposed face does not appear to follow a
specific logic; indeed, the orthostats of the chamber
exhibit both fresh and weathered faces. Only the
blocks of the chamber's pavement show consistency,
displaying weathered faces on the exposed side.

The only truly indicative criterion of a standard
applied to the arrangement of the chamber blocks
concerns the morphology of the exposed faces.
Indeed, and as seen with the symmetry observed
between S02 and S05, these two blocks have a
convex face whereas all the other blocks of the
chamber have a flat face. The only exception is S08,
which has an irregular shape, but this block is not
an orthostat.
<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>Figure 18 Third hypothesis for the architectural phasing of ST_004.</figcaption></figure>

Lastly, the blocks of the chamber’s eastern wall all
have a flat top, unlike the blocks of the western wall.

Discussion

The building study of the megalithic structure ST_004, using tools developed in buildings archaeology, combined with a geoarchaeological approach, provides robust insights into the structure's design. Indeed, we can determine which building techniques were employed, reconstruct the various actions of its builders, and propose an interpretation of the symbolic standards illustrated in the arrangement of the chamber blocks.

Initially, this megalithic monument appears to be a
tomb consisting of a rectangular chamber, without an
entrance, associated with several platforms and a ring.
From a typological perspective, this megalithic tomb
can be placed within the category of ring monuments,<fnref n="5" />

several examples of which are found in the Qana
Maabour area. This sub-type is associated with a
broader category, circular tombs, where the chamber
is integrated into a circular crown, or a circular plat-
form, and whose limits can be marked by an enclo-
sure, or, as here, a ring. Nevertheless, ST_004 stands
out from these other examples due to the dimensions
of its chamber relative to its imposing proportions.
Indeed, it is one of the largest megalithic tombs in
Menjez, yet its chamber dimensions are quite small.
This tomb also stands out due to its four successive
platforms, making it unique both within the MEG-
A corpus and among ring monuments, which, typi-
cally, do not feature more than two platforms.
Another distinctive feature of this megalithic tomb
lies in the presence of a closing system at the northern
end of the chamber, making it a hybrid monument
straddling several types. Indeed, in Qana Maabour,
small rectangular tombs exhibit this type of closure
on the northern side. In this area, we distinguish
two distinct burial spaces with ring monuments to
the north and rectangular chamber tombs to the

<footnote n="5">⁵Tombs with rings have been observed and described in Jaulan (Rujm el-Hiri; Freikman and Porat 2017; Mizrachi 1992), Harra (Steimer-Herbet 2011) and Arabia (Kennedy 2011: fig. 15, 3196; Thomas et al. 2021).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>Figure 19 Criteria applied to the study of monoliths of megalithic monument.</figcaption></figure>

south. ST_004 is situated at the intersection of these two major complexes and exhibits characteristics of both types. This leads us to question whether ST_004 serves as a transition between two types of monuments or if it is unique. Indeed, chronologically, ST_004 could mark the transition between the elongated and rectangular tombs of the Late Chalcolithic and the circular tombs of EBA I (Wygnańska et al. 2025). Moreover, this unique case within our corpus could also be explained by the idea that ST_004 was initially a rectangular tomb, before being reconfigured into a circular tomb with platforms and a ring. This hypothesis raises questions about the architectural phasing of the monument.

As for the second level of interpretation, we are able to highlight the actions of the builders by reconstructing the operational sequence and architectural phasing, particularly focusing on deciphering building techniques. The megalithic tomb ST_004 is the result of a complex building process involving expertise in architectural design. This process unfolded in 10 building stages, from site preparation, prior to the installation of the chamber, to the delineation of the space dedicated to the structure. The building analysis conducted on ST_004 allows us to propose various hypotheses regarding the identification of the architectural phasing, as well as establishing the relative chronology of the monument's construction.

It can be challenging to confidently determine the architectural phasing of ST_004 given the lack of dating elements. While it may not be possible to confirm several distinct phases, two major contemporary ensembles serving different purposes can be identified: the first served a utilitarian purpose (i.e., the technical construction of the chamber and its supporting platform), the completion of which allows the use of ST_004 as a funerary monument; while the second (i.e., the other platforms and the ring) had a non-structural function, the purpose of which is difficult to determine precisely.

Nevertheless, the building study allows other hypotheses regarding the architectural phasing of ST_004 to be proposed. Indeed, as observed above, the first platform rests directly on the substrate, unlike the three other platforms which are supported by a wedging level. Furthermore, the second and third platforms both rest on the same ground wedging. Two different building techniques are encountered — the first platform; and the second, third and fourth platforms — which may lean towards the hypothesis of two distinct phases. It is possible that there is a first phase, featuring a monument with a more modest appearance, which includes the chamber, the first platform and the covering. Then, in a second phase, there is a monumentalization of the funerary space, which incorporates the other
platforms, the terrace and the ring: this is supported by the fact that even though the elements of the first phase have not been modified they have been obscured by this monumental addition; the second platform reaches the same level as the chamber's orthostats. This development could arise from the community's need to maintain the memory of the ancestor, or ancestors, who occupied the funerary space. Thus, the megalithic tomb also becomes a place/site of memory, where ritual commemorations may have taken place. Assuming this idea, the all-encompassing stone ring would serve to delineate not only the funerary space but also the sacred space. As mentioned earlier, another hypothesis, also based on the existence of at least two architec-tural phases, suggests a first rectangular-type monu-ment. Indeed, ST_004 shares several characteristics with the rectangular tombs located nearby in the Qana Maabour area. In its first phase the monument would have consisted of a small rectangular chamber integrated into a platform, probably of a quadrangu-lar shape. Then, in a second phase, ST_004 would have been reused as a circular tomb, with the addition of three circular platforms and a ring, giving it its monumental appearance. This hypothesis could also result from a re-employment of the monument by another group, who added these new elements, shaped its monumental form, and appropriated it for their own use with their own aesthetics.

Both similarities and differences relating to the
building techniques used for the construction of the
second, third and fourth platforms have been ident-
ified. Among the common features, these walls all
exhibit a heterogeneous masonry composed of
medium- and large-sized blocks, corresponding to
basalt B0 and B1, with no gaps due to the presence
of filling stones, the shaping of certain blocks, or a
specific selection of stones. The flat face of the
blocks is favoured for the outer face of the walls,
giving them a regular appearance and a vertical
profile. The differences are notable in the presence
of blocks arranged in a header for the upper course
of the third and fourth platforms' walls, as well as
less filling in their masonry compared to the second
platform. There is also the presence of a massive foun-
dation for the wall of the third platform. Additionally,
more blocks bearing traces of shaping were observed
in the second and fourth platforms' walls than in
those of the third. Nevertheless, these three platforms
share a common aesthetic. This could be due to the
involvement of several builders' teams in the construc-
tion of these platforms, sharing the same goals but
each with their own distinctive style.

The third hypothesis suggests the addition of the
stone ring in a third phase, either as a single unit to
delineate the space, or through progressive additions
occurring during potential ceremonies around the
tomb, possibly with the purpose of commemorating
the memory of the ancestors.

For the third level of analysis, which involves
observing and describing the monoliths of ST_004,
attention focused on the blocks forming the
chamber, including the walls and pavement. For the
megalithic monuments of Menjez, the most signifi-
cant elements for reconstructing the symbolic stan-
dards result from geomorphological readings of the
monoliths within the chamber. ST_004 exhibits at
least two sets of symmetry and the arrangement of
these blocks does not appear random. Within our
dataset, certain recurrences in the arrangement of
the orthostats in the chamber were noticed.
Symmetry between the two orthostats forming the
entrance pair is nearly systematic, with both matching
in dimension and sharing common geomorphological
characteristics. Another recurring pattern, reminiscent of what was observed in the chamber of ST_004, involves a symmetry observed between the orthostats comprising the central sections of the east and west walls. These two orthostats tend to mirror each other and exhibit common characteristics.

Elsewhere, it was observed (Defours Rivoira et al.
2024) that the orthostat facing the chamber entrance
differs from the others in terms of dimensions or specific
geomorphological features. Unfortunately, the southern
wall of the ST_004 chamber is no longer in place.

The geological criterion, namely distinguishing
basalt used in the layout of blocks within the struc-
ture, based on the degree of vesicularity, does not
appear to be a discriminating factor. Indeed, the
blocks of basalt B0 and B1 are used for all the build-
ing units of ST_004. It seems more appropriate to
relate this data to the availability of the material at
Qana Maabour. As observed elsewhere in Menjez,
particularly in the Kroum Metowmeh sector
(Defours Rivoira et al. 2024; Steimer-Herbet et al.
2022), the supply of basalt is present in the immediate
vicinity of the megalithic structures. The builders then
opted for a calculated and opportunistic geological
choice — using the available basalt outcrops in the
immediate surroundings as quarries.

Conclusion

In this article, a detailed presentation of a unique
methodology used for the study of megalithic building
techniques has been presented. This method has, for
the first time, been adapted and applied to megalithic
monuments in the Levant, specifically to megalithic
tomb ST_004 from Qana Maabour (Menjez, Akkar).

Such a study provides new insights into Levantine megalithic architecture, as well as a fresh understanding of the societies associated with it. Indeed, by combining buildings archaeology with a geoarchaeological approach, we hope to enhance our understanding of the megalithic phenomenon in the Levant, which, although not constituting a uniform ensemble, proves to be the product of complex thought, both technologically and symbolically. With such a study, the objective is to illustrate a technical and cultural portrait of these societies by highlighting the various standards established by these megalith builders. To achieve this, the technique implemented above will be replicated across all the megalithic monuments of Menjez. This will enable us to determine whether these monuments are the result of common and defined technical, cultural and symbolic guidelines, or if any individual classifications can be identified. In addition to the application of these various methodological tools, the environment in which these megalithic societies evolved, starting with the geological landscape and their connection to it, must be considered: it is important to understand the supply of raw material and thereby highlight the knowledge of these megalithic builders regarding their environment.

The next step involves proposing a chrono-classifi-
cation for these monuments using the established typol-
ogy. This aim being to categorize the monuments
chronologically based on architectural features and the
dating of these structures. As our work advances, a
central question emerges: do the technical, cultural and
symbolic norms expressed within the megalithic architec-
ture of Menjez undergo chronological evolution, or are
these norms firmly entrenched and consistent across
different periods? This question will guide further
exploration into the evolving nature of megalithic build-
ing practices and their cultural implications within the
Menjez region.

Disclosure statement

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

ORCID

Méryl Defours Rivoira http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5865-4435

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

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

References

Armendáriz, Á., Teira, L., Al-Maqdissi, M., Haïdar-Boustani, M., Ibáñez, J. J., and González Urquijo, J. 2008. The Megalithic Necropolis in the Homs Gap (Syria). A preliminary approach. In, Córdoba, J., Molist, M., Pérez, C., Rubio, I. and Martínez, S. (eds), *Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (Madrid, 2006)*. Vol. I: 151-62. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.

Armendáriz, Á., Teira, L., Tapia, J., Haïdar-Boustani, M., González Urquijo, J., and Ibáñez, J. J. 2012. Las necropolis megalíticas de la región de Homs (Siria). In, Muñiz Alavrez, J. R. (co-ord.), *Ad Orientem. Del final del Paleolítico en el norte de España a las primeras civilizaciones del Oriente Próximo. Estudios en homenaje al Profesor Juan Antonio Fernandez-Tresguerres Velasco: 479-99*. Universidad de Oviedo. Ménsula Ediciones, Pola de Siero (Asturias).

Artin, G. 2014–2015. Ensemble et pratiques funéraires au Liban au IVe millénaire. *Archaeology & History in Lebanon* 40–41: 18–35.

Aveni, A. and Mizrachi, Y. 1998. The geometry and astronomy of Rujm el-Hiri, a megalithic site in the southern Levant. *Journal of Field Archaeology* 25(4): 475–96.

Avner, U. 2002. Studies in the Material and Spiritual Culture of the Negev and Sinai Populations, During the 6th–3rd Millennium BC. PhD. Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Bahat, D. 1972. The date of the dolmens near Kibbutz Shamir. *Israel Exploration Journal* 22(1): 44–46.

Badreshany, K. 2024. Byblos during the Chalcolithic period. In, *Byblos. A Legacy Unearthed*: 53–58. National Museum of Antiquities (The Netherlands) and Ministry of Culture/Directorate General of Antiquities (Lebanon). Leiden: Sidestone Press.

Bradbury, J. and Philip, G. 2011. The world beyond Tells: pre-classical activity in the basalt landscape of the Homs region, Syria. In, T. Steimer-Herbet (ed.), *Pierres levées, stèles anthropomorphes et dolmens, Actes du colloque international à l'Université de Amman en juin 2007: 169-80*. BAR International Series 2317. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Braemer, F., Echallier, J.-C. and Taraqji A. 2004. *Khirbet al Umbashi: villages et campements de pasteurs dans le « désert noir » (Syrie) à l'âge du Bronze: travaux de la mission conjointe franco-syrienne 1991-1996*. BAH 171. Beyrouth: Institut français du Proche-Orient.

Braemer, F., Criaud, H., Davtian, G., Fiaccavento, C., Flambeaux, A., Ghanem, G., Herveux, L., Ibáñez, J. J., Liétar, C., Nicolle, C., Shaarani, W. and Vila, E. 2011. Qarassa, un site du Bronze Ancien et Moyen en Syrie du Sud. *Travaux 2007-2010*. Syria 88: 225–50.

Cousseau, F. 2015. Megalithic constructional techniques in north-west France: cairn III at Prissé-la-Charrière. In, Laporte, L. and Scarre, C. (eds), The Megalithic Architectures of Europe, *Actes de la IVe rencontre de l'European Megalithic Studies Group (Rennes, 10-12 mai 2012): 39-48*. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

— 2020. Megalithic architectures: a methodological experience to study their elevation. In, Cousseau, F. and Laporte, L. (eds), *Pre and Protohistoric Stone Architectures, from the European Atlantic Façade, and Beyond. Social and Technical Contexts for their Building: 36-50*. *Actes du colloque UISPP de Paris, session XXXII-3*, juin 2018. 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 grand cairn de Barnenez: Chef d'œuvre du néolithique*: 48. Collection Itinéraire. Paris: Éditions du patrimoine.

Cummings, V. 2002. Experiencing texture and transformation in the British Neolithic. *Oxford Journal of Archaeology* 21(3): 249–61.

Defours Rivoira, M., Cousseau, F. and Steimer-Herbet, T. 2024. The Levantine megalithic 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

Epstein, C. 1985. Dolmens excavated in the Golan. 'Atiqot 17: 20-58.

Fernandez-Tresguerres Velasco, J. 2011. Pierres dressées dans la région de Mutawwaq (Jordanie). In, T. Steimer-Herbet (ed.), *Pierres levées, stèles anthropomorphes et dolmens, Actes du colloque international à l'Université de Amman en juin 2007: 113-22*. BAR International Series 2317. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Fernandez-Tresguerres Velasco, J. and Junceda Quintana, F. 1991. Jebel Mutawwaq (Jordania), campanas 1989–1991. *Estudios Biblicos* XLIX: 523–42.

Fraser, J. A. 2018. *Dolmens in the Levant*. PEF Annual XIV. London: Routledge.

——— 2022. Untangling megalith typologies and chronologies in the Levant. In, Laporte, L., Large, J.-M., Nespoulous, L., Scarre, C. and Steimer-Herbet, T. (eds), *Megaliths of the World*: 887–904. Vol. II. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Fraser, J. A., Anderson, B. G., Beavis, A.-M. and Beccar, L. 2009. The Megalithic landscape at Tall Ar-Ras in Wadi Ar-Rayyan: the 2007 season of the North Jordan Tomb Project. *Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan* 53: 45–61.

Freikman, M. and Porat, N. 2017. *Rujm el-Hiri: the monument in the landscape*. *Tel Aviv* 44: 14–39.

Genz, H. 2014. The northern Levant (Lebanon) during the Early Bronze Age. In, Steiner, M. L. and Killebrew, A. E. (eds), *The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant*, c. 8000–332 BCE: 292–306. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

——— 2024. Tell Fadous-Kfarabida: a regional perspective on Byblos. In, *Byblos: A Legacy Unearthed*: 81–87. National Museum of Antiquities (The Netherlands) and Ministry of Culture/Directorate General of Antiquities (Lebanon). Leiden: Sidestone Press.

Gouézin, P. 2022. *Les mégalithes du département du Morbihan. Structures funéraires et pierres dressées. Analyses architecturales et spatiales*. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Ibáñez, J. J., Haïdar-Boustani, M., Al-Maqdissi, M., Armendáriz, Á., González Urquijo, J. and Teira, L. 2010. Découverte de nécropoles mégalithiques à l'ouest de Homs. 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 (Actes du Colloque de Damas 2007)*. Vol. I: 359–66. BAH 191. Beyrout: Institut français du Proche-Orient.

Jean, M. 2019. Mémoires de terres. L'urbanisation du Levant nord au IIe millénaire par la pétrographie céramique. PhD. Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris.

Ji, C.-H. C. 1997. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze cemeteries near ‘Iraq al-Amir and the preliminary report on salvage excavations. *Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan* 41: 49–69.

Joussaume, R. 1985. *Des dolmens pour les morts: les mégalithismes à travers le monde*; 398. Paris: Hachette.

Kennedy, D. 2011. The ‘Works of the Old Men’ in Arabia: remote sensing in interior Arabia. *Journal of Archaeological Science* 38: 3185–203.

Kerner, S. 2019. New research into the Early and Middle Bronze Age in central Jordan: Murayghat. *Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies* 7(2): 165–86.

Khoury, L., Abu-Azizeh, W. and Steimer-Herbet, T. 2006. West Irbid Survey (WIS) 2005, preliminary report. *Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan* 50: 121–38.

Laporte, L. 2016. Structural functions and architectural projects within the elongated megalithic monuments of Western France. In, Laporte, L. and Scarre, C. (eds), *Megalithic Architectures. Actes du colloque international de Rennes. IVth Meeting of the European Megalithic Studies Group, Mai* 2012: 17–30. Oxford: Oxbow.

——— 2022. From the architectural project to megalithic ruins: a dynamic vision of ‘petrified’ remains. In, Laporte, L., Large, J.-M., Nespoulous, L., Scarre, C. and Steimer-Herbet, T. (eds), *Megaliths of the World*: 27–48. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Laporte, L. and Parron-Kontis, I. 2010. Archéologie du bâti et mégalithisme: une expérience. *Archéo-Thema* 10: 13.

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, I. and Thirault, E. (eds), *Méthodologie des recherches de terrain sur la préhistoire récente en France. Nouveaux acquis, nouveaux outils, 1987-2012. Actes des premières rencontres de Préhistoire récente, RMPR/Internéo, Marseille, Mai* 2012: 175-90. Archives d'Écologie préhistorique: Toulouse.

Laporte, L., Cousseau, F., Bueno-Ramirez, P., De Balbin Behrmann, R. and Gouézin, P. 2017. Le douzième dolmen de Barnenez: destruc- tions et reconstructions au sein d'une nécropole mégalithique. *Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française* 114(1): 93–114. doi: org/10.3406bspf.2017.14752

Laporte, L., Cousseau, F., Scarre, C. and Soler, L. 2021. Vingt ans de fouilles sur le tumulus C de Péré à Prissé-la-Charrière : bilan, état des recherches et perspectives. In, V. Ard, V., Mens, E. and Gandelin, M. (eds), *Mégalithismes et monumentalismes funéraires. Actes du colloque international de Carcassonne (France), novembre 2016: 29–48*. Leiden: Sidestone Press.

L'Helgouach, J. 1995. Les manifestations artistiques. In, Masset, C. and Soulier, P. (eds), *Allées couvertes et autres monuments funéraires du Néolithique dans la France du Nord-Ouest : allées sans retour: 83-95*. Paris: Errance.

Linares-Catela, J. A. 2017. El megalitismo en el sur de la Península Ibérica. Arquitectura, construcción y usos de los monumentos del área de Huelva, Andalucia occidental. PhD. Université de Rennes 1, Universidad de Huelva, Rennes.

Linares-Catela, J. A., Donaire-Romero, T., Mora-Molina, C. and Cáceres Puro, L. 2023. Choosing the site, getting the stones, building the dolmens: local sourcing of andesites at the El Pozuelo megalithic complex (Huelva, Spain). *Archaeological and Anthropological Science* 15: 101. doi.org/10.1007s12520-023-01799-0.

Matsumoto, K. and Wada, H. 2001. Report on the archaeological survey in the hilly area of Akkar region in north Lebanon. *Al-Rafidan* 12: 93–108.

Mens, E. 2008. Refitting megaliths in western France. *Antiquity* 82(315): 25–36. doi.org/10.1017S0003598X00096411.

Mens, E. and Large, J.-M. 2009. Megalithic technology: a new approach to the earliest stone architecture of the west of France. Issues, methodology and results. In, O'Connor, B., Cooney, G. and Chapman, J. (eds), *Materialitas: Working Stone, Carving Identity: 42-53*. Prehistoric Society Research Papers. Oxbow Books 3. doi.org/10.2307j.ctt1cfr97n.

Mens, E., Poncet, D. and Marticorena, P. 2022. Apports de la géologie et de la géomorphologie à l'étude du mégalithisme : identifier, interpréter, dater. *L'Anthropologie* 126(5): 1-14. doi.org/10.1016j. anthro.2022.103074.

Mizrachi, Y. 1992. *Rujm el-Hiri: Toward an Understanding of a Bronze Age Megalithic Monument in the Levant*. PhD. Harvard University.

Mouterde, R. 1940. Monuments mégalithiques de l'Apamène et du Akkâr. *Mélanges de l'Université Saint Joseph XXIII(3):* 111-19.

Polcaro, A. and Muniz, J. R. 2018. Preliminary report on the seventh season (2018) of Spanish-Italian excavations at Jabal al-Mutawwaq, Wadi az-Zarqa', Jordan. *Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan* 60: 301-09.

Polcaro, A., Muniz, J. R., Alvarez, V. and Mogliazza, S. 2014. Dolmen 317 and its hidden burial: an Early Bronze Age I Megalithic Tomb from Jebel al-Mutawwaq (Jordan). *Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research* 372: 1-17.

Polcaro, A., Muniz, J. R. and Caselli, A. (eds). 2024. *Jebel al-Mutawwaq. A Fourth Millennium BCE Village and Dolmen Field. Six Years of Spanish-Italian Excavations (2012-2018)*. LEMA 3. Turnhout: Brepols.

Reveyron, N. 2002. L'apport de l'archéologie du bâti dans la monogra- phie d'architecture. *In Situ* 2. doi.org/10.4000insitu.1200.

Scarre, C. 2004. Choosing stones, remembering places: geology and intention in the megalithic monuments of western Europe. In, Boivin, N. and Owoc, M.-A. (eds), *Soils, Stones and Symbols: Cultural Perceptions of the Mineral World: 187-202*. London: UCL Press.

Sellier, D. 1991. Analyse morphologique des marques de la météorisation des granités à partie de mégalithes morbihannais. *L'exemple de l'alignement de Kerlescan à Carnac. Revue Archéologique de l'Ouest* 8: 83-97.

——— 2013. L'analyse géomorphologique des mégalithes granitiques: principes méthodologiques et applications. In, Mens, E. and Guyodo, J.-N. (eds), *Les premières architectures en pierre en Europe occidentale: 13-37*. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.

——— 2023. *Les champs de menhirs du pays de Carnac, Patrimoine archéologique et géomorphologique* : 324. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.

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

Steiner-Herbet, T. 2004. Classification des sépultures à superstructure lithique dans le Levant et l'Arabie occidentale (IVe et IIIe
millénaires avant J.-C.). BAR International Series 1246. Oxford: Archaeopress.

— 2004–2005. Les dolmens en Syrie : Bilan des découvertes et perspectives de recherches. *Les Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes — Revue d’Archéologie et d’Histoire XLVII–XLVIII :* 35–44.

— 2006. Chraya : une nécropole de dolmens dans le Léja (Syrie du Sud) *Orient Express* 2 : 53–56.

— 2011. Les tombes-tours du Harra syrien : étude préliminaire d'un paysage désertique à l'aide des scènes satellitaires à haute définition. *Syria* 88: 111–21.

— 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*. Vol. II. Oxford: Archaeopress. doi: 10.32028/9781803273204

Steimer-Herbet, T. and Criaud, H. 2008. Funerary monuments of agro-pastoral population of the Leja. In, Córdoba, J., Molist, M., Pérez, C., Rubio, I. and Martínez, S. (eds), *Proceeding of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April 3–8 2006: 221–34*. Vol. III. Madrid: Universidad Autonoma de Madrid.

Steimer-Herbet, T. and Zuobee, A. 2014. Megalithic tombs in 'Ain Dakar (East Jaulan): survey report. *Akkadica* 135: 197–212.

Steimer-Herbet, T. and Besse, M. 2017. Qarassa, vestiges d'une société à mégalithes dans le Léja en Syrie du Sud, entre 3600 et 3000 avant J.-C. *Paléorient* 43(2): 91–113.

Steimer-Herbet, T., Cousseau, F., Porra-Kuteni, V., Haïdar-Boustani, M., Caminada, A. and Besse, M. 2018. Ancêtres et serpents dans les dolmens de Menjez (Akkar, Liban). Étude préliminaire d'une cohabitation singulière, vers 3500 avant notre ère. *Bulletin d'Archéologie et d'Architecture Libanaises* 18: 389–96.

Steimer-Herbet, T., Cousseau, F., Porra-Kuteni, V., Haïdar-Boustani, M. 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.

Steimer-Herbet, T., Besse, M., Cousseau, F. and Porra-Kuteni, V. 2020. Megalithic art in the Levantine Rift Valley: the case of the Menjez megalithic monuments in the Akkar (Northern Lebanon). *Akkadica* 141: 1–24.

Steimer-Herbet, T., Cousseau, F., Defours, M., Niewisiewicz, J. M., Bensaïd, M. N. I., Blaise, T., Babour, T., Choumar, Y., Daldalian, T., Germanos S. and Piguet, M. 2022. Les ensembles

mégalithiques de Menjez (Sondages, relevés 3D et études du bâti). Preliminary report. Unpublished.

Stekelis, M. 1961. *Las necrópolis megalítica de Ala-Safat, Transjordania. Monografias. Instituto de Prehistoria y Arqueología, Barcelona*.

Tallon, M. 1958. Monuments mégalithiques de Syrie et du Liban. *Mélanges de l'Université Saint-Joseph* 35: 214–34.

— 1959. Tumulus et mégalithes de Hermel et de la Beqâ Nord. *Mélanges de l'Université Saint-Joseph* 36: 93–100.

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

Thomas, H., Kennedy, M., McMahon, J., Strolin, L., Franklin, D., Flavel, A., Noble, J. and Swift, L. 2021. Monumentality, social memory, and territoriality in Neolithic-Chalcolithic northwestern Arabia. *Journal of Field Archaeology* 46(4): 239–59.

Thuesen, I. 2004. Messages in stone. The Megaliths of the Nebo Region in Jordan. In, von Folsach, K., Thrane, H. and Thuesen, I. (eds), *From Handaxe to Khan. Essays Presented to Peder Mortensen on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday: 105–17*. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

Van der Reijden, A. J. 2020. Reaching into the underworld: Maeshowe side-chamber apertures as doorways into an inverted land of the dead. *Archaeological Review from Cambridge* 51(3): 27–43. doi. org/10.17863CAM.65459

Vinitzky, L. 1992. The date of the dolmens in the Golan and the Galilee — a reassessment. *Tel Aviv* 19(1): 100–12.

Wygnańska, Z. n.d. Akkar Survey Project 2018. Preliminary report for the directorate general of antiquities from the first season of archaeological prospection. Unpublished.

Wygnańska, Z., Waldoch, F., Woronko, B., Damick, A., Moskal-del Hoyo, M., Jastrzębska, E., Abdel-Rahman, A. M., Milić, B., Makowski, P., Bagi, O., Warminski, A., Ahemd, H. and Pawlik, K. n.d. Preliminary report from archaeological works conducted by the polish team between 14th June–15 July 2022 in Akkar under the ‘MEG-A’ NCN-funded project. Preliminary report. Unpublished.

Wygnańska, Z., Waldoch, F., Defours Rivoira, M., Jastrzębska, E., Milić, B. and Steimer-Herbet, T. 2025. Contextualising the social and ritual landscape of the megalith builders of Akkar in Northern Lebanon. *Levant*. doi: 10.1080/00758914.2025.2508624

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. Monographs in World Archaeology 10. Madison: Prehistory Press.