Contextualizing the social and ritual landscape of the
megalith builders of Akkar in northern Lebanon

Zuzanna Wygnańska, Filip Waldoch, Meryl Defours Rivoira, Emilia

Jastrzębska, Bogdana Milić, Tara Steimer-Herbet

► To cite this version:

Zuzanna Wygnańska, Filip Waldoch, Meryl Defours Rivoira, Emilia Jastrzębska, Bogdana Milić, et al.. Contextualizing the social and ritual landscape of the megalith builders of Akkar in northern Lebanon. Levant: The Journal of the Council for British Research in the Levant, 2025, pp.1 - 21. 10.1080/00758914.2025.2508624. hal-05188703

HAL Id: hal-05188703

https://hal.science/hal-05188703v1

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>

# Contextualizing the social and ritual landscape of the megalith builders of Akkar in northern Lebanon

Zuzanna Wygnańska, Filip Wałdoch, Meryl Defours Rivoira, Emilia Jastrzębska, Bogdana Milić & Tara Steimer-Herbet

**To cite this article:** Zuzanna Wygnańska, Filip Wałdoch, Meryl Defours Rivoira, Emilia Jastrzębska, Bogdana Milić & Tara Steimer-Herbet (14 Jul 2025): Contextualizing the social and ritual landscape of the megalith builders of Akkar in northern Lebanon, Levant, DOI: 10.1080/00758914.2025.2508624

**To link to this article:** https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2025.2508624

<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>

# Contextualizing the social and ritual landscape of the megalith builders of Akkar in northern Lebanon

Zuzanna Wygnańska ID a, Filip Wałdoch ID a, Meryl Defours Rivoira ID b, Emilia Jastrzębska a, Bogdana Milić ID c and Tara Steimer-Herbet ID b

The megalithic necropolises of Akkar, Lebanon, are the subject of a four-year joint project between the Polish Academy of Sciences and Geneva University. The main objectives are the contextualization of the, so far, invisible people behind the megaliths, the study of their landscape and the understanding of their role at the beginning of the urbanization process, which has been rather poorly identified in Lebanon, unlike in the rest of the Levant. The Akkar necropolises are characterized by distinctive tomb types and construction techniques combining large slabs and dry-stone walls. Parallels can be found in the necropolises previously studied in the basalt areas on the Syrian side, indicating that the population which built megaliths for their dead occupied a much wider area. The precise chronological determination of these tombs presents a significant challenge. However, basalt-tempered pottery, analogous to that found in cairns west of Homs, Syria, and recovered from certain tombs, tentatively places the Akkar necropolises within the Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age. It must be emphasized that these findings are preliminary and require further verification. Despite the presence of individual houses in the immediate vicinity of the tombs, the link between them and the settlements has not yet been confirmed. Even if not connected to settlements, the tombs may have served, given the location of the small necropolises on the hills overlooking the watersheds, as landmarks to demonstrate some control over the area. The extent of this megalithic builder community, the coherent burial system and the presence of imports in the tombs suggest that the megalithic builders may have constituted a strong socio-political organization.

**Keywords** megalithic builders, northern Lebanon, Chalcolithic-EBA, social and ritual context

## The puzzle of the megalithic culture of Akkar

The megalithic tombs of Akkar in Lebanon became known in the mid-20th century thanks to the first works of two priests and scholars from the Jesuit

monastery in the village of Menjez: René Mouterde, and later Maurice Tallon. They drew attention to the numerous tombs (*chambres dolméniques*) found mainly in Menjez and some neighbouring villages. The results of their excavations were published as short interim reports (Mouterde 1940; Tallon 1958). Despite providing some descriptions and photographs, the reports are superficial, and little is actually known about the megaliths beyond their existence. Tara Steimer-Herbet, who, in the 1990s, accessed the field notes and artefacts from Tallon's excavations,

<footnote>ªInstitute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; ᵇDepartment F.-A. Forel for Environmental and Aquatic Sciences; Laboratory of Prehistoric Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Geneva, Switzerland; ᶜSpanish National Research Council (IMF-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain.</footnote>

<footnote>Zuzanna Wygnańska (corresponding author), Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Email: zwygnanska@iksio.pan.pl</footnote>
was the first to compile the information about the Menjez necropolis (2000).<fnref n="1" /> Tallon's interpretation of the structures as tombs was predicated upon the discovery of sparse human skeletal remains, primarily teeth (Steimer-Herbet 2000: 15–16; Tallon 1964). The field notebooks examined by Steimer-Herbet revealed the presence of artefacts such as personal adornments and vessels, corroborating the hypothesis that these constructions likely served as graves. The chamber dimensions, demonstrably inadequate for residential purposes, are also indicative of a funerary role. This interpretation is further reinforced by comparative evidence from other dolmenic sites in the southern Levant, which have been documented as mortuary structures (Dubis and Dąbrowski 2002; Polcaro et al. 2014). Steimer-Herbet's preliminary conclusions from the study of the tomb types, pottery and ornaments, allowed her to tentatively date the building of the tombs to mid-4th–mid-3rd millennium BCE (Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age II (EBA II), based mainly on the pottery overview (Steimer-Herbet 2000: 16–19) and their later reuse in the mid-2nd millennium BC (Late Bronze Age). It must be emphasized, however, that this dating was based on the comparative material available at the time and that the dating of megaliths requires further confirmation. The early reports and Steimer-Herbet's article have, previously, been the only sources of information on which to develop the dating and interpretation of the Akkar megalithic culture (Fraser 2018; Genz and Sader 2008). Nevertheless, the meaning of the Akkar megalithic tombs and the role of the communities who built them remain a puzzle. This is a particularly interesting issue, as the majority of the data on the early periods between the Chalcolithic and EBA in Lebanon comes from coastal sites, while very little is known about inland sites showing different burial patterns. Unlike in Akkar, the inhabitants of the coastal sites in Chalcolithic–EBA practiced underground, jar or pit burials (Artin 2024; Badreshany 2024; Genz and Sader 2008; Saidah 1979).

These questions are the objectives of ‘MEG-A. The First Megalith Builders of the Northern Levant’, a joint project launched in 2022 by the Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Laboratory of Prehistoric Archaeology and Anthropology of the University of Geneva, in collaboration with the Directorate General of Antiquities, Ministry of Culture of Lebanon. Its main aims are to

contextualize the, as yet, ‘invisible’ people behind the Akkar megalithic architecture, investigate their landscape, and understand their enigmatic role at the dawn of urbanization in the Levant through scientific methods. The project adopts methodologies used to study European megaliths to analyse the *chaîne opératoire* of the Akkar megalithic architecture and study carvings associated with some of the tombs. Radiometric dating, architectural studies, remote sensing, geospatial referencing of the material culture, environmental analyses and palaeo-land- scape assessment are combined to address questions about the meaning and dating of the Akkar mega- lithic builders. Two field missions, carried out in 2022 and 2023, included a systematic survey of Menjez and the surrounding villages of Freidis, Dibbabiyeh, Noura et-Tahta, Aamriyet, Kouachra and Janine, as well as trial trenches in four necropo- lises and three settlement areas in Menjez. As this is a work in progress, this article presents the results obtained thus far.

## The chronological framework

Chronological schemes throughout the Levant vary by region and period; there is no clear, broadly accepted, terminology for the northern Levant for the periods between the Neolithic and EBA 1. This deficiency stems from the paucity of absolute date series predating the 3rd millennium BC for this region. Consequently, this paper refers to the chrono- logical framework of various regions — the Lebanese coastal site of Byblos (Artin 2024; de Vreeze 2024; Yazbeck 2024) and the Beqaa Valley (Badreshany 2013: 187–90; Marfoe 1995; 1998); a chronological division of the early periods for the southern Levant (Greenberg 2019; Sharon 2014: 45–65) and a chronol- ogy proposed by ARCANE for the 3rd millennium BC (see Table 1). The Akkar finds are not yet synchro- nized with any of these chronologies, hence this paper refers to the two period names defined within loose intervals. Furthermore, as will be demonstrated sub- sequently, the upland Akkar region exhibits a distinct, local material culture, rendering the identification of parallels with Byblos and other coastal sites challenging.

## The landscape of the uplands of Akkar

The Lebanese region of Akkar is divided into three parts: the plain, the uplands and the mountains. The uplands are situated in the basalt region stretching between the Nahr al-Kebir river to the north (running along the present-day border with Syria), the Ostuene river to the south, Wadi Oudine, part of

<footnote n="1">¹The finds are stored in the Museum of Lebanese Prehistory in Beirut.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 1 Chronological divisions between the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in different regions of the Levant</caption><thead><tr><th>Region</th><th>Period</th><th>Absolute dates</th><th>Source</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Late Pottery Neolithic (LPN) / Early Chalcolithic (EC)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>BYBLOS</td><td>Néolithique ancien</td><td>6900-5800 BCE</td><td>Dunand 1973; Yazbeck 2024; Badreshany 2024</td></tr><tr><td>BYBLOS</td><td>Néolithique récent</td><td>5400-5000 BCE</td><td>Dunand 1973; Yazbeck 2024; Badreshany 2024</td></tr><tr><td>BEQ'A</td><td>LPN/ Chalcolithic 1-2</td><td>5800-4500 BCE</td><td>Badreshany 2011: 195</td></tr><tr><td>S LEVANT</td><td>PNB/Late PN/EC</td><td>6000-5500 BC</td><td>Sharon 2014: 45-65</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Chalcolithic</strong></td></tr><tr><td>S LEVANT</td><td>Chalcolithic</td><td>5500-4500 BCE</td><td>Sharon 2014: 45-65</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Late Chalcolithic (LC)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>BYBLOS</td><td>Énéolithique ancien</td><td>4500-3700 BCE</td><td>Dunand 1973; Yazbeck 2024; Badreshany 2024</td></tr><tr><td>BYBLOS</td><td>Énéolithique récent</td><td>3700-3000 BCE</td><td>Dunand 1973; Yazbeck 2024; Badreshany 2024</td></tr><tr><td>BEQ'A</td><td>LCh/EBA I</td><td>4500-3100/3000 BCE</td><td>Badreshany 2011: 195</td></tr><tr><td>S LEVANT</td><td>LC</td><td>4500-3900/3700 BC</td><td>Sharon 2014: 45-65</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Early Bronze Age (EBA I)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>BYBLOS</td><td>Énéolithique récent?</td><td>3700-3100 BC</td><td>De Vreeze 2024</td></tr><tr><td>ARCANE</td><td>ENL 1</td><td>3100-2900 BC</td><td>ARCANE</td></tr><tr><td>S LEVANT</td><td>EBA I</td><td>3900/3700-3200/3000 BC</td><td>ARCANE</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Early Bronze Age II (EBA II)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>BYBLOS</td><td>EBA II</td><td>3100-2900</td><td>De Vreeze 2024</td></tr><tr><td>BEQ'A</td><td>EBA II-III</td><td>3000/3100-2500/2300 BC</td><td>Badreshany 2011: 195</td></tr><tr><td>ARCANE</td><td>ENL 2</td><td>2900-2600</td><td>ARCANE</td></tr><tr><td>ARCANE</td><td>ENL 3</td><td>2600-2450 BC</td><td>ARCANE</td></tr><tr><td>S LEVANT</td><td>EB II</td><td>3200/3000-2850/2600 BC</td><td>Sharon 2014: 45-65; Greenberg 2019</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Early Bronze Age III (EBA III)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>BYBLOS</td><td>EBA III</td><td>2900-2500</td><td>De Vreeze 2024</td></tr><tr><td>BEQ'A</td><td>EBA II-III</td><td>3000/3100-2500/2300 BC</td><td>Badreshany 2011: 195</td></tr><tr><td>S LEVANT</td><td>EBA III</td><td>2850/2600-2500/2300 BC</td><td>Sharon 2014: 45-65; Greenberg 2019</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Early Bronze Age IV (EBA IV)/ Middle Bronze Age I (MBA I)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>BYBLOS</td><td>EBA IV</td><td>2500-2000 BC</td><td>De Vreeze 2024</td></tr><tr><td>ARCANE</td><td>ENL 4</td><td>2450-2350 BC</td><td>ARCANE</td></tr><tr><td>ARCANE</td><td>ENL 5</td><td>2350-2200 BCE</td><td>ARCANE</td></tr><tr><td>ARCANE</td><td>ENL 6</td><td>2200-2000 BC</td><td>ARCANE</td></tr><tr><td>S LEVANT</td><td>IB/MBA I</td><td>2500/2300-2200/1900 BC</td><td>Sharon 2014: 45-65</td></tr></tbody></table>

the Yammounneh Fault to the east, and the Akkar Plain to the west (Abdel Rahman and Naser 2004; Dubertret 1955) (Fig. 1). This upland region which is known as *Al-mantika al-wousta*, or the Middle Area, extends between the plain to the west and the mountains to the east and south: it lies between 200 and 500 m above sea level and receives up to 1000 mm of rainfall per year, which places it in the sub-humid climatic zone (National Action Program to Combat Desertification, Ministry of Culture 2003). In terms of relief and landforms, there is a marked contrast with the Akkar Plain. The uplands are hilly and rough, with steep river valleys and discontinuous soil cover. Water is

abundant and available year-round (perennial rivers, several springs), but in many cases it is not easily accessible. Following the 2022 geological reconnaissance of the MEG-A project, a number of sites were selected for sedimentary profiles. Planned work in this area includes sediment coring, which can provide information on local and regional climate and palaeoenvironmental development. It should be noted that, to date, no cores from this region have been subjected to phytolith analysis. An earlier study, which focussed on a series of sedimentary columns along the north-central part of the Bouqaia Basin in Syria, neighbouring the Akkar uplands to the north, showed
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1** Location of the MEG-A Project area, the Spanish-Syrian-Lebanese Survey areas of Bouqaia and Qattina (after Ibáñez et al. 2010) and Northern Study Area of the Syrian-British Survey Project (after Philip and Bradbury 2010). White circles mark the sites with Chalcolithic and/or EBA I remains. Black circles are sites with the EB II settlements after the Late Neolithic strata (© MEG-A F. Waldoch).</figcaption></figure>

changes in stream flow and sedimentation rates during the Holocene, which may be related to gradual aridification and increased seasonality (Iriarte *et al.* 2011). It is likely that these observations are rather general in nature and may be further refined and better understood by studying the more sensitive lower reaches of stream deposition that occur in Lebanon.

Today, the Akkar uplands are densely terraced and intensively used for agriculture (mainly olive groves and orchards, as well as laurel, snobar and pistachio plantations) and pastures, and is covered in mixed woodlands: modern agriculture requires artificial pump irrigation and the backfilling of fields with soil brought in from elsewhere. Despite these limitations, this eco-region is definitely not barren: it is well-watered and green most of the year and might be classified as ‘sub-optimal’ — a term proposed by Graham Philip and Jennie Bradbury (2010: 137) for the Syrian Homs basaltic region.

## State of research in the Akkar uplands

In addition to the work of Mouterde and Tallon, who recorded 87 tombs in the village of Menjez alone, the

area has been visited several times by archaeological projects. These included a survey in search of prehistoric sites by Lorraine Copeland and Peter Wescombe, who mention, apart from a few Neolithic sites, the tombs of Menjez (1966). A one-off project carried out by a Japanese mission identified two new tombs at Dibbabiyeh Gharbiye, a village in the vicinity of Menjez (Matsumoto and Wada 2001). In 2017, Steimer-Herbet carried out a British Council-funded restoration project to study and valorize selected megalithic monuments of Menjez (Steimer-Herbet 2020). Steimer-Herbet then directed, in 2018 and 2019, a University of Geneva project to study and document 12 structures, leading to the discovery of a series of carvings on stones associated with the megaliths (Steimer-Herbet *et al.* 2019; 2020). These carvings became the focus of her next campaign in 2021, partly funded by the Gandur Foundation for Art. Meanwhile, in 2018, Zuzanna Wygnańska (Wygnańska and Rempel 2018) led a Warsaw University survey project in search of Early Bronze Age (EBA) remains in the Akkar uplands. Since 2022, the collaborative four-year MEG-A project has been focused on the study of megalithic culture in Akkar (Wygnańska *et al.* in press).
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 Distribution of megalithic structures in the uplands Akkar (© MEG-A F. Waldoch).</figcaption></figure>

## Characteristics of the Akkar tomb clusters

So far, only 45 megalithic tombs out of 87 known from Tallon's works have been identified in Menjez by the MEG-A project, the rest have probably been destroyed since Tallon's work in the field. Additionally, 34 new megaliths have been recorded in other municipalities on the hills extending along Nahr al-Kabir, over 20 km, making a total of 79 tombs studied by the project (Fig. 2).

As the typology of megalithic tombs in Akkar is currently being developed by Méryl Defours Rivoira (cf. Defours Rivoira et al. 2025), only a schematic typology will be presented in this contribution. According to some scholars, megalithic tombs can be divided into dolmens and tower tombs (cf. Cousseau and Steimer-Herbet 2025). The chambers in Akkar display architectural features of both types: while the use of orthostats and pavements in the chambers is reminiscent of the dolmen type, their circular plans and vaulting used to support the roof are characteristic of tower tombs. To avoid confusion, we propose using the more general term ‘megalithic tombs’ for the Akkar structures. So far, all the clusters studied in Akkar represent a consistent typology with three types of megalithic tomb: a circular tomb with a corridor; an elongated tomb with multiple rectangular

chambers; and a tomb with a single rectangular chamber. The first and dominant type, the circular tomb, is represented by variants with either quadrangular or circular chambers of different sizes, surrounded by a circular crown or a circular/quadrangular platform and, in a few cases, a quadrangular enclosure and circular ring (Fig. 3).

In circular tombs, chamber walls are built of orthostats — vertical slabs tapering towards the top, reinforced from the outside by either, a dry-stone wall called a crown, or by a platform (when the space between the orthostats and the outer wall is filled with pebbles). These two distinct architectural components surround the chamber. In some cases, an enclosure of boulders, as seen in tomb ST_48, in Fig. 3, delimits the external space of the structure. A corridor leading to the chamber, always from the south, is formed by horizontally positioned slabs. Regarding the cover of the chamber, the tombs have partially preserved corbel vaulting suspended on the top of the orthostats, the crown or the platform, and the corridor slabs.

Another type, much rarer, is a large, elongated (over 25 m long), rectangular multi-chamber tomb (Fig. 4).

Such tombs usually consist of a row of three small rectangular chambers separated from each other,
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3** Example of a circular tomb (ST_48 from Menjez) with a round crown and rectangular enclosure (© MEG-A T. Steimer-Herbet).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4** Orthophotograph of elongated tomb ST_98 from MA12/ Boustan el Beik in Menjez (© MEG-A H. Kahwagi-Janho, O. Bagi).</figcaption></figure>

and one or more surrounding sub-rectangular platforms. Although their shape is distinctive, the building method is very similar to that of circular tombs: the chambers are built of orthostats, and they are

surrounded by platforms and delimited by enclosures. From the studies to date it seems that this type of megalithic monument reflects several architectural phases rather than a single event. Unlike in circular
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5** Orthophotograph and drawing of two small rectangular tombs with overlapping rectangular platforms (© MEG-A F. Waldoch, M. Defours Rivoira).</figcaption></figure>

tombs, there are no corridors, indicating that bodies were deposited in the chamber from the top. This type of tomb was apparently meant to accommodate sequential burials which were sealed, probably by stone slabs, after each burial.

The third type, thus far very rare, is a small rectangular chamber surrounded by a quadrangular platform (Fig. 5). As with the other types, the chamber is built of orthostats and the platform consists of a dry-stone wall, with stones filling the space between it and the chamber. Such tombs appear to be miniaturized versions of elongated tombs.

All the tomb types were constructed using similar techniques. Nevertheless, it is important to pinpoint differences between them: circular tombs have a single chamber, whereas elongated tombs were designed for two or three consecutive burials placed in separate chambers. In elongated and small rectangular tombs, the body was deposited from above and the chamber was then closed from the top; in circular tombs, the body was introduced via a corridor to a presumably already-roofed grave. The presence of corridors indicates that circular tombs were meant to be reopened for successive, possibly family, burials. The absence of skeletal remains in these disturbed and looted graves precludes any assessment as to whether they contained primary, secondary, single, or multiple burials.<fnref n="2" /> Nevertheless, diverse

architectural traditions, which appear to stem from variations in burial practices, are discernible. This indicates, either, chronological differences or different ritualistic aspects associated with funerary rites, or both.

## Dating the megaliths

Dating megaliths reused and looted over thousands of years is always challenging. The MEG-A project is trying to solve this issue by combining analysis of stratigraphy (trial trenching) with a study of the internal chronology of the tomb clusters, studies of the material culture from the tombs and their surroundings, and radiometric dating. Unfortunately, the tombs lack the organic materials required for successful radiocarbon dating. We are, therefore, using Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL), which is also challenging in basalt areas due to a paucity of datable quartz in this rock type (Athanassas et al. 2017; Khasawaneh et al. 2019; Reed et al. 2023).

Pending conclusive results from future OSL analyses, the project is reliant on relative dating methods using stratigraphic observations and finds from the tombs, mostly pottery. Regarding datable

<footnote n="2">²During our work, we came across isolated, highly fragmented human bone pieces, likely the only remnants of Tallon's research.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6** Aerial picture of an elongated tomb neighbouring two circular tombs at MA12 in Menjez. Note the overlapping of one of the circular tombs on the earlier elongated tomb (© MEG-A and DGA).</figcaption></figure>

material, two of the elongated multi-chamber tombs, studied so far, are associated with the presence of dark-red, basalt-tempered pottery. This characteristic pottery, provisionally labelled ‘Menjez ware’ after its discovery at site MA12 in Menjez, is hand-made coarse ware, in various shades of orange and brown, with characteristic frequent inclusions of basalt, and seemingly part of the local potting tradition (Fig. 7). The represented shapes are mostly hole-mouth jars, craters, and cooking pots with flat bases. Precise dating of the ‘Menjez ware’ is still a matter of debate. For now, the closest parallel is the basalt-tempered ceramics of Fabric Type 1 and Fabric Type 2 identified during a survey in the basalt region west of the city of Homs in Syria and associated with the fields of cairns (megalithic tombs included) and grouped enclosures in this region (the so called,

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7** Drawings of typical shapes and fabric type of the ‘Menjez ware’ vessels collected at site MA12 in Menjez. Macroscopic close-up of ‘Menjez ware’ fabric (© MEG-A E. Jastrzębska).</figcaption></figure>
Northern Study Area (NSA) surveyed by the British-
Syrian team: Philip and Bradbury 2010: Figs 19–20).
This basalt-tempered pottery from the Homs region
is dated within a broad range of the 4th and 3rd mil-
lennia BC, based on the occurrence of hole-mouth
vessels with everted rims found also at Tell Afis, in
Amuq Plain in Phase F, and in the southern Levant,
and dated to this period (Philip and Bradbury 2010:
153–56). Due to the similarity of fabric and forms,
the ‘Menjez ware’ from the Akkar uplands has also
been provisionally assigned to the LC–EBA I
horizon. It should, however, be kept in mind that
this dating is based on a comparison with the material
from a survey and not from a stratified context and
therefore requires further verification.

The aforementioned site, MA12, presents as an
occupation site, characterized by a dense surface
scatter of over a thousand sherds, predominantly
‘Menjez ware’, interspersed with lithic artefacts. The
chipped stone assemblage found at MA12 is more het-
erogeneous than the pottery and appears to reflect
multiple phases of activity. Alongside the main parts
of the assemblage, consistent with a broader span
from the Neolithic to Early Bronze Age, it also
includes flint cores, some of which, such as uni-
directional, turned and small blade-flake cores,
could, potentially, relate to the Epipaleolithic
period. The assemblage features a range of modified
blanks and tool types, encompassing laterally and
end-retouched flakes and blades, denticulated pieces
and drills. A minor obsidian component is also
present, comprising flake and blade tools. Although
obsidian exchange in the Levant peaked during the
Neolithic, the procurement of this raw material is
also documented in the region between the mid-6th
to mid-5th millennium BC, as at Tell Arqa
(Thalmann 2006). At MA12, the techno-typological
characteristics of the obsidian artefacts, as well as
the broader lithic assemblage, most likely indicate
Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic and Late
Chalcolithic activity, though the presence of Early
Bronze Age elements cannot be excluded given the
diversity of artefacts collected at the site, along with
the potentially earlier Epipaleolithic artefacts men-
tioned above (Fig. 8, bottom). The pottery and lithic
scatters of MA12 are situated approximately 50
metres from the elongated multi-chamber tomb
ST_98, which yielded a substantial quantity of
‘Menjez ware’ sherds. Notably, aside from the proxi-
mate tomb, no associated architectural features have
been identified at this site. It can be cautiously
inferred that ‘Menjez ware’, as evidenced by its abun-
dance at MA12, was contemporaneous with an early

construction phase of this megalithic tomb.
Furthermore, several sherds of ‘Menjez ware’ were
found in the vicinity of another elongated multi-
chamber tomb, ST_49, at site MA1 which suggests a
relationship between this type of tomb and the
pottery tradition.

Furthermore, ‘Menjez ware’ has also been found
with the remains of individual walls and paths of
possibly domestic and/or agricultural character that
represent early occupation, mostly in the area of
Menjez (other locations are still under study to
confirm the presence of ‘Menjez ware’). It was
noted that such structures may predate circular
tombs — excavations of circular tomb ST_39 at the
MA5 site in Menjez showed that the tomb was built
on the remains of a path bordered by walls associated
with ‘Menjez ware’ pottery. Also, circular tomb
ST_47, at a site called MA6 in Menjez, partly overlaps
a terrace wall belonging to house ST_134 (Fig. 9).

‘Menjez ware’ is, so far, extremely rare in the circu-
lar tombs. On the other hand, among the distinctive
pottery found in some of the tombs of this type are
bell-shaped bowls, linked by Braun (2022: fig. 2.1–8)
to the LC/EBA I transition period in the southern
Levant, but also found in the LC layers at Tell Afis
(Giannessi 2022: fig. I.28.11 and pl. I.2.4), thus indi-
cating the *terminus post quem* for the introduction of
this type of tomb in Akkar.

While we can, initially, point out a difference in the
introduction of various types of tombs (currently
being studied by one of the authors of this article),
it should be emphasized that there is no evidence to
suggest that elongated tombs were abandoned upon
the emergence of circular ones. Rather, it appears
that both tomb types were in concurrent use.
Further complexity arises from instances where
tombs were superseded, with new tombs constructed
in close proximity, or even superimposed upon
earlier structures. This is exemplified by the tomb
cluster at site MA1 in Menjez. At this location, a cir-
cular tomb superimposes a platform of an elongated
tomb (Fig. 6). Additionally, within the same site,
two circular tombs reveal that one must have been
in a state of decay during the construction of the
other, which overlaps its enclosure. However, given
that the period in question, spanning the Late
Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age I, is at least
1000 years, determining the precise temporal separ-
ation between these events remains difficult.

At this point, the presence of other imported
objects should be mentioned: carnelian and soft
stone (possibly steatite or chlorite) beads, found in
elongated and circular tombs (Fig. 8, top and
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8 Top: soft stone disc bead from a circular tomb; Middle: carnelian barrel-shaped bead from an elongated tomb; Bottom: selection of chipped stone artefacts from site MA12 in Menjez, including flint cores, and flint and obsidian blade and flake tools (© MEG-A Z. Wygnańska, B. Milić).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9 Circular tomb ST_47 overlapping earlier walls of ST_134 at MA6 (© MEG-A T. Steimer-Herbet).</figcaption></figure>

middle). In terms of typology and technology, the beads fit the periods between the Neolithic and the EBA. Although their provenance is still under investigation and it is impossible to pinpoint exactly where they are from, it is probable that they came from the direction of Anatolia.

Many of the megalithic tombs were reused. This supposition is supported by the presence of grave goods typical of later periods. For example, at least 560 pottery sherds, jewellery (beads, bracelets, pendants, gold earrings), along with a cylinder seal with antithetic lions, a goat and two human figures were discovered by Tallon in tomb ST_39, the same tomb in which LC-EBA pottery was found (Steimer-Herbet 2000). While the pottery is still being studied, the beads and seal can be tentatively dated to the Late Bronze Age, confirming a much later reuse of the tomb (Fig. 10). There is further evidence of Late Bronze Age pottery from the tombs excavated by Tallon, although the exact provenance is not always certain.

In summary, the geospatial information obtained to date on the occurrence of ‘Menjez ware’ allowed the differentiation of a potential LC-EBA I horizon occupation in this region, associated with the first, single rectangular tombs and with some evidence of settlement (terracing walls, paved paths, perhaps some houses). It is further hypothesized that small rectangular tombs, likely originating in the Late Chalcolithic, were the precursors to elongated multi-chamber structures. These were followed by the adoption of circular tomb construction during the Late Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age I. The co-occurrence

of the three tomb types at individual sites suggests an uninterrupted use of burial sites between the Chalcolithic and EBA. However, the temporal interval between the emergence of specific tombs at particular locations remains a subject of ongoing debate.

## Settled or not settled: spatial relations between tombs and houses

Several house-like structures and single walls, the latter likely remains of enclosures, terracing walls and walled paths have been found very close to megalithic tombs at four sites in the Akkar uplands, raising questions of the connections between the tombs and the settlement (see Fig. 2). The foundations of these walls were built on the bedrock and are still visible on the surface, which means that in most cases not much of the original strata has survived. The area has also been intensively farmed for centuries, which has contaminated many of the contexts around and within the megalithic architecture. The houses are represented by single broad rooms of various types: apsidal, rectilinear or sub-rectangular, quadrangular (sometimes with courtyards or adjoining terraces), which in regional typologies fall between the Neolithic and EBA I (Banning [2010] for Sidon-Dakerman; de Contenson [1982] for Byblos; Dunand [1973] and Garfinkel [2004]) (Figs 9, 11 and 12). Notably, similar construction techniques were employed in both houses and megalithic tombs. Despite differing forms, builders of both structures shared technical expertise, including dry stone wall construction, slab extraction, and the utilization of bedrock fissures for installation.
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 10** Top: cylinder seal and a selection of beads from ST_39 (Museum of Lebanese Prehistory — USJ collection) from the reuse of the tomb in later periods. Bottom: stamp seal made of unidentified stone from house ST_120 at MA2 (Museum of Lebanese Prehistory — USJ collection; Pictures © UNIGE).</figcaption></figure>

Some houses were rebuilt many times and were apparently in use over long periods. This is the case with house ST_120, discovered in Menjez in sector MA2/Kroum Metowmeh: a funerary cluster of eight circular tombs on a steep slope overlooking a wadi to the east (Steimer-Herbet *et al.* 2019). House ST_120, situated just a few metres to the west of large tomb ST_117, had at least three construction phases (Figs 11 and 12).<fnref n="3" /> The house was documented as a complex arrangement of walls and silos. In the first phase, there was a room to the south surrounded by robust straight walls (A and B) and a silo (H). The walled path to the east (C and E) and the terraces to the north along the slope (D) probably also belong

to the first phase. The dating of this complex is uncertain, but it predates the sub-rectangular structure from the third phase (F) that partly destroyed it (the second phase is only represented by single unconnected walls). The dating of the house remains unclear, as does its chronological relationship to the circular tombs.

Some datable finds discovered by Tallon, like a stone stamp seal with a checkered pattern (Fig. 10, bottom), suggest that the earliest phase may go back as far as the Late Neolithic or Chalcolithic (Eirikh-Rose 2004). Unfortunately, it is not possible to deduce from which phase of house ST_120 the seal originated, nor how long the house was in use.

Unlike at other Levantine sites, the houses recorded in Akkar do not form real agglomerations. They are represented either by a single building or a

<footnote n="3">³Regrettably, house ST_120 was excavated by Tallon without stratigraphic documentation, precluding reliable reconstruction.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11 Aerial photo of house ST_120 and circular tomb ST_117 at the MA2 site in Menjez (© MEG-A and DGA).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>Figure 12 Plan of house ST_120 with three construction phases (© MEG-A T. Steimer-Herbet and M. Defours Rivoira).</figcaption></figure>

maximum of two buildings. This may be a matter of preservation, as the sites in the Akkar uplands are heavily transformed by agriculture, or randomness of

discovery, but currently the picture is that of isolated house-like structures located in the vicinity of the tombs. Notably, the houses and tombs in Akkar are
very close, a few metres from each other, while other Levantine cemeteries are typically located away from settlements, such as at Sharaya (Nicolle and al-Maqdissi 2006; Steimer-Herbet 2006), Qarassa (Steimer-Herbet and Besse 2017: 96, fig. 4), and Khirbet Umbashi (Braemer et al. 2004). These cemeteries, located within a certain distance from the villages most probably served their occupants. In Sharaya, tombs built in the immediate vicinity of dwellings appeared in instances where the dwelling was already abandoned, such that a certain distance was always maintained between the area occupied by the living and the dead (Steimer-Herbet 2006). Within the aforementioned basalt area west of Homs, cairns, many of which were likely graves, were found both at some distance, specifically within a radius of 100 metres around structures interpreted as enclosures or temporary dwellings, and in their immediate vicinity. In some instances, they were even built inside these areas (Philip and Bradbury 2010: 144–46). This latter situation would correspond to the pattern observed at Akkar. There is, therefore, no direct evidence for or against the simultaneity of habitation and funerary structures.

The stratigraphic and material studies undertaken to date suggest a sequential development pattern in Akkar, with agricultural infrastructure and dwelling units preceding the construction of circular tombs, but probably contemporary with small rectangular and multi-chamber elongated tombs. Some construction solutions are shared by the tombs and the houses, suggesting a continuous building tradition. This immediacy may also point to some kind of tradition of the place and a relationship between the house occupants and megalithic tomb builders. Despite the presence of the houses, it seems there is no evident connection between the tombs and the settlements.

## Tomb distribution matters: people versus landscape interaction

The megaliths of Akkar are grouped in small clusters from two to a maximum of 13 tombs (Fig. 13, Table 2).

Although the low number of tombs in some of the clusters is probably only a reflection of their poor state of preservation, these clusters are not the extensive ‘dolmen fields’ observed elsewhere in the Levant. Rather they seem to represent smaller necropolises occupying individual hills. To better understand the choices regarding tomb location, we used UAV prospection, surface survey and historic aerial photos. Satellite imagery (in this case Google Earth images) was of little help in the detection of tombs: almost

none of those already known were visible in the images, let alone any potential new ones.

Unlike the satellite imagery, historic Lebanese Army aerial photos, from 1956 (scale 1:10000) and 1969 (scale 1:5000), shed new light on previously unidentified megaliths. The aerial photos analysed so far cover the municipalities of Menjez, Freidis and Kouachra. The information obtained from the aerial photographs was then ground-proofed — 79 tombs were identified from the area extending between the village of Menjez, in the east, and Janine (see Fig. 2). Some of the tombs at Menjez identified on the archival photos still existed during Tallon’s time; however, many of them no longer remain today.

Five traits relating to site preferences were analysed to evaluate the megalith builders’ choices: elevation, slope exposure, slope inclination, distance to water and intervisibility. With regard to the preferred height above sea level, the majority of tombs are located between 200 and 400 m asl: however, given that areas higher than 400 m asl have barely been surveyed, this information should be treated with some caution. Regarding slope exposure, no significant differences in tomb location is apparent, though the northern exposure is slightly more prevalent (28 tombs). When it comes to the angle of the slope, the number of graves clearly decreases for slopes steeper than 15 degrees, due to the unsuitability of the site for construction. Flat terrain, however, was not a criterion: some of the clusters were built along a sharply sloping hillside or on a cliff edge. The most obvious selection criterion is distance from water. Areas of the watershed were definitely favoured for burials. A clear pattern shows a preferred distance of under 100 m from water — understood as any running water from small wadis to the Nahr El-Kabir, the main perennial river in this area. Most of the tomb clusters are located on hills wedged between the catchments of two river valleys. Notably, the initial geological overview conducted in 2022 shows that these river valleys were active throughout the Holocene. It should also be pointed out that the proximity of a water source in these conditions did not mean that it was easily accessible. The wadis cut sharply into the hills, the slopes of which are almost vertical in some places, and the banks of the wadis are inaccessible. The tombs typically overlook watercourses from the top of a high slope. It has been noted, however, that the sound of the stream is often clearly audible, as if this effect also held significance. The burial sites are, therefore, not located at the water intakes but rather overlooking them. Typically, the tombs are not located in areas suitable for cultivation, but rather
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 13** The location of archaeological sites (MA) registered during 2022–2023 seasons of the MEG-A project in the basalt uplands of Akkar (© MEG-A F. Waldoch).</figcaption></figure>

on their margins. However, exceptions exist; at two sites in Menjez (MA1 and MA5), tomb clusters were built within arable land. It seems that tomb clusters might, primarily, have marked the boundaries of land used by a particular group.

Furthermore, the viewshed analysis suggests that intervisibility played some role in the spatial organization of tombs. For this, a determination of line-of-sight between the sites has been analysed based on

<table><caption>**Table 2** Number of tombs per site as recorded by the MEG-A based on survey and historic aerial photos (© MEG-A F. Waldoch)</caption><thead><tr><td>Site Name</td><td>Number of tombs</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>MA1</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>MA2</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>MA3</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>MA4</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>MA5</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>MA6</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>MA7</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>MA8</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>MA9</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>MA12</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>MA14</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>MA16</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>MA17</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>MA20</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>MA36</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>MA38</td><td>3</td></tr></tbody></table>

viewshed analysis (Gillings and Wheatley 2020: 313–32). Two groups of sites are characterized by high intervisibility, with at least three sites mutually visible in each group. The first group (marked in purple on Fig. 13) comprises seven intervisible sites, among which MA20 stands out as being visible from all the surrounding hills with tombs. The site of MA12/Boustan el-Beik, described as the ‘hub’ (green in Fig. 13) is visible from eight out of the 14 sites analysed. To the south of these are three sites (yellow in Fig. 13), each with just two visual connections to other sites. They have been labelled ‘connectors’ because two of them (MA2 and MA16) have a connection with a site in the first group and the MA12/Boustan el-Beik site, while the third (MA14) has a connection with MA2 and MA12.

To the east of MA12 is the second group of visually interconnected sites (red in Fig. 13), comprising four sites. Within this group, site MA1 appears to fulfil a particularly significant role in terms of interconnectiveness, as it is easily visible from tombs situated on the surrounding hills. In addition, there seems to be a visual connection between elongated structure ST_49 from MA1 and another one (ST_98) at MA12 — the ‘hub’ site. Although these structures are not visible from every point in the area, they could be seen from each other. So, hypothetically,
<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>Figure 14 Graph showing clusters of sites visually connected (© MEG-A F. Waldoch).</figcaption></figure>

some of the funerary sites with a high number of connections, as with, for example, MA20, MA12 and MA1, may have served as ritual points in the landscape for a wider range of local communities. We are not yet able to confirm that all these sites were used simultaneously and that the proposed connections between them functioned. An argument in favour of such an interpretation is the already confirmed long-standing tradition of using elongated tombs, as well as the fact that they continue to stand out in the terrain.

## The megalith builders of Akkar on the timeline of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age

The archaeological work carried out to date in the central Levant does not provide a clear socio-political background to the megalithic phenomenon found in the Akkar uplands. Prior to this project, there was little evidence of any occupation in Akkar between the Late Neolithic and EB II, the provisional period during which the first megalithic tombs were built in the area. Surveys and excavations carried out in the Lebanese and Syrian parts of the Akkar Plain (Bartl 1998–1999; Bartl and Chaaya 2002; Maqdissi and Thalmann and 1989) have found several tells with occupations beginning no earlier than EBA II (Fig. 1). Such a pattern has also been observed at Tell

Arqa in the Akkar Plain (Jean 2020; Thalmann 2006) and in the Koura Plain to the south of it, where the earliest recognizable EBA pottery published so far is dated to EB II (Iamoni et al. 2019). Furthermore, aside from the coastal settlements of Sidon-Dakerman (Saidah 1979), Khalde II (Saidah 1969), Byblos (Dunand 1973), Tell Kfarabida-Fadaous (Badreshany et al. 2005: 28–29; Genz et al. 2021), Kafr Garra, in the Sidon hinterland (Guigues 1937: 56–61), Kamid del-Loz in the Bekaa Valley (Marfoe 1995: fig. 44.5) and Qalat Aisha in the Lebanon mountains (Chaaya et al. 2017: 369–76), where Chalcolithic and/or EBA I periods have been documented in various ways, very little is known about the situation inland before EBA II (Artin 2014; 2018).

There are neighbouring inland areas, however, where an intensification of the settlement pattern was observed in the 4th and 3rd millennia BC. It has been indicated for the Beqaa Valley (Badreshany 2013; Marfoe 1995: 119–24) and Amuq, which saw a significant expansion of settlement in the Late Chalcolithic and later 4th millennium (Casana 2007; Gerritsen et al. 2008). The marl zone east of the Orontes (‘Southern Study Area’ — surveyed by British-Syrian project) witnessed a noticeable increase in the scale of settlements followed by a degree of
settlement agglomeration during the earlier 3rd mil-
lennium BC (Philip and Bradbury 2010: 161).
Extensive cairn fields, some of them tentatively
dated to the Chalcolithic–EBA were identified in the
basalt region to the west of the Orontes (NSA),
accompanied by clustered enclosures: habitations of
possibly seasonal character (Philip and Bradbury
2010). Marginal and sub-optimal areas were actively
exploited in this period: EBA I settlements of irregu-
larly arranged house clusters are known from Jawa
in the Black Desert south of Damascus (Betts 1991)
and in the basaltic Leja district of south-west Syria,
here in connection with megalithic cemeteries
(Braemer et al. 2009; Nicolle and Braemer 2012;
Steimer-Herbet and Criaud 2008). Connected with
water management systems, these settlements might
have been seasonally used by pastoral communities.
One may, therefore, speculate that Akkar was also
settled in the period under consideration.
Settlements, possibly seasonal, may have developed
outside the coastal tells, in the basalt region.

The megaliths of Lebanese Akkar do not seem to
be an isolated phenomenon. They may form part of
a larger megalithic group extending to the west of
Homs on the Syrian side of the basalt region (see
Fig. 1). The basaltic area between Homs and the
Lebanese Akkar uplands was surveyed by a
Spanish-Syrian-Lebanese team (Ibáñez et al. 2008).
Extensive megalithic necropolises were documented
in the Bouqaia Basin along the Homs Gap and on
the northern shore of the nearby artificial Lake
Qatina (extending along the western bank of the
River Orontes). They become less frequent towards
the north-east (and are absent east of the Orontes
due to a lack of building materials). The Lake
Qatina necropolis is much larger than that of
Akkar, covering approximately 50 square km, with
an estimated average of 400 cairns per square km.

Of this number, however, only 171 structures with
chambers were recognized as tombs, while the remain-
ing ones are difficult to identify rockpiles (Ibáñez
et al. 2008). Interestingly, there are small rectangular
tombs surrounded by rectangular enclosures/plat-
forms, very reminiscent of the rarest type of tomb
known from Menjez (Ibáñez et al. 2010: figs 5–6).

The other necropolis is in the Bouqaia Basin, to the
west of Qatina. One hundred and thirty-one tombs
were identified in this area, a figure much closer to
the number of tombs in the Lebanese Akkar clusters.
The Bouqaia necropolis has much in common with
Akkar. The chambers of various shapes, surrounded
by orthostats, are built on platforms (rectangular or
quadrangular, more rarely circular and oval), and

the orientation of the chambers is almost always
north-south with corridors leading from the south
in some cases. Additionally, several monumental
tombs, 15-20 m in length, with two or three
chambers built in a row and erected on rectangular
platforms, were found in Bouqaia (Ibáñez et al.
2008: 64). These seem very similar to the elongated
multi-chamber tombs from Akkar, which were pre-
viously thought to be unique to Akkar. It has been
noted that Bronze Age tells are located on the
margins of the Bouqaia depression. The tells are sur-
rounded by fluvisols favourable for agro-pastoral
activity (Iriarte et al. 2011: 45). As indicated by the
survey, the tells may represent settlements of the com-
munities buried in the megalithic necropolis of
Bouqaia. The pottery from these tells comes,
however, from later periods between EB IV and
LBA (Haïdar-Boustani et al. 2003-2004), so this
hypothesis should be investigated further. Several
such small tells were also noted on the Lebanese
side of the Bouqaia Basin during a brief geological
survey by the MEG-A project in 2023.

Already mentioned in connection with the
Chalcolithic–EBA I red-coloured, basalt-tempered
pottery, an extensive cairn field was also documented
to the north of these two necropolises in the basaltic
Northern Study Area (NSA on Fig. 1) (Philip and
Bradbury 2010). Over 30,000 cairns have been ident-
ified in the NSA via image data, some of them
included chambers suggesting a funerary function.
According to the authors of this survey, the funerary
structures are associated with enclosures which could
have been used by herders as livestock enclosures and/
or animal pens and/or domestic structures.

The first assessment of the MEG-A Project

James Fraser has argued that in the southern Levant
dolmens are invariably found near EBA I settlement
sites and that their distribution should be understood
in the context of the settlement landscape and local
geological conditions (Fraser 2018: 6). Although this
hypothesis has been convincingly proved for that
region, from the research to date, there is no such
evident connection in Akkar. Some clusters are
accompanied by isolated house-like buildings, but
the relationship between them and the tombs
remains an open question. It cannot, however, be
ruled out that the tombs, at least the earliest ones,
were accompanied by some form of settlement,
perhaps on a seasonal basis: such a settlement site
with possibly Chalcolithic–EBA pottery (‘Menjez
ware’), but without architecture, was indeed found
next to one of the large, elongated tombs in Menjez.
So far, no typical EB II–III pottery that would corre-
spond to pottery from neighbouring settlements in the
Akkar Plain (Bartl 1998–1999; Bartl and Chaaya
2002; Maqdissi and Thalmann1989) has been found
in the megalithic tombs. Significantly, basalt-tem-
pered pottery similar to ‘Menjez ware’ has been ident-
ified in the cairns in the basalt zone west of the
Orontes and tentatively associated with agro-pastoral
populations (Philip and Bradbury 2010: 156),
suggesting a connection or even a common identity
between the megalithic populations of the Orontes
and Akkar regions. It should be emphasized,
however, that this is, at the moment, a very tentative
hypothesis that requires further research.

The megalithic trend probably appeared in the basalt region of the Akkar uplands between the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age (absolute dates are still pending the OSL results), signalling the introduction of new ritual behaviour where the dead started to be buried in large, above-ground tombs. So far there is no evidence of what the earlier funerary practices were like in this region, but apparently the burial habits were different. The upland Akkar region differs in its funerary practices from the coastal sites. While megalithic tombs were being erected in Akkar, the inhabitants of Byblos, Sidon, Dakkerman and Khalde II practiced inhumations in pithoi or pits within inhabited areas, sometimes beneath houses, similar to types also attested in Akkar (Badreshany 2024). However, burial practices outside this region are generally still poorly understood.

Although Fraser, in his seminal study of the southern Levantine megalithic tombs, suggested that the phenomenon of above-ground construction might have resulted from the peculiar geological setting, which was not suitable for cave-carving (2018: 6), it does not appear to be a sufficient explanation for the phenomenon in Akkar. Initial analysis of the spatial arrangement and intervisibility of tomb clusters suggests they may have served as land markers: the tombs are clustered in cemeteries occupying individual hills, possibly marking family burial grounds. They allowed their builders to mark their presence in this region in the absence of visible settlements and demonstrate adherence to, or control over, certain land, probably pastureland and water resources. A similar observation has also been made in the NSA area of the Homs region which supports our interpretation (Philip and Bradbury 2010: 160–61). Thus, practical reasons were not the only explanation for architectural choices. Constructing these time- and labour-intensive funerary monuments

to commemorate the ancestors seem to have been a
focal point of social organization, bringing people
together on special occasions. They were clearly
meant to be visible and long lasting, not only as terri-
tory markers for the living but also as an expression of
a connection between the world of the living and the
deceased. The tombs' standardized architecture is a
reflection of common identity and indicates ritual
concepts comprehended and shared by these commu-
nities. The consequent choice of a southern direction
for the tomb entrances remains a riddle but was
obvious to the megalith builders and seems to be
related to their idea of the afterlife.

Based on the data obtained so far, it can be concluded that the Akkar megalithic communities, even if not permanently settled, or agrarian, were capable of complex planning, logistics and labour to construct the megaliths. Furthermore, imports found in some of the tombs, such as stone beads and obsidian tools, show that megalith builders must have had wider economic ties. It is our working hypothesis that with access to pasturelands and commodities such as wood, these communities might have played the role of an exchange intermediary between the coast and inland areas, as well as being a provider of their own products, thus meeting the growing needs of the coastal sites. The distinctive, coherent funerary behaviour and capacity to organize collective building events and trade, indicate a distinctive identity as well as a certain level of co-operation and political organization. It seems, therefore, that these communities should not be understood as a temporary link or a transitory form on the way to urbanization. Rather they represent an alternative, competitive model of socio-political organization, taking advantage of the upland environment. Here one can refer to the concept proposed for sites in the southern Levant located in the so-called ‘sub-optimal zones’: instead of treating them as ‘proto-urban’, the authors suggest that such areas constituted an ‘alternative basin of human and environmental resources, where communities experimented with economic strategies and adaptations, complementary to those of the verdant lowlands’ (Bradbury et al. 2014: 207). Due to the lack (or lack of preservation?) of Akkar settlements similar to those in Syrian Leja or Jordanian Jebel Mutawwaq, it is not yet possible to test the hypothesis that the megalith builders represented ‘multi-sited settlement clusters’ (Nicolle and Braemer 2012). It seems that even if there were originally more settled sites than are visible today, the difference in settlement density between Akkar and those regions is very pronounced. The presence
of burial clusters may, however, suggest that we are indeed dealing with funerary ‘multi-sited’ groups of a non-hierarchical, mobile population, benefiting from the resources of the occupied area for their own use. This model appears to be effective enough to have functioned successfully for many hundreds of years. It remains to be investigated whether and how these groups interacted with the first urban centres in central Levant.

## Funding details

This work was supported by the National Science Centre in Poland under Grant 2020/39/I/HS3/02993 and Swiss National Science Foundation under Grant 202350 conducted as bilateral project in Opus LAP Call directed by Zuzanna Wygnańska (IMOC PAS) and Tara Steimer-Herbet (University of Geneva).

## Disclosure statement

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

## ORCID

Zuzanna Wygnańska http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6117-4141

Filip Waldoch http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4132-8304

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

Bogdana Milić http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1163-7125

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

## References

Abdel Rahman, A. and Nasser, Ph. 2004. Cenozoic volcanism in the Middle East: petrogenesis of alkali basalts from northern Lebanon. *Geological Magazine* 141(5): 545–63.

Artin, G. 2014. The northern Levant during the Chalcolithic period: the Lebanese–Syrian coast. In, Steiner, M. L. and Killebrew A. E. (eds), *The Oxford Handbook of Archaeology of the Levant c. 8000–332 BCE*: 212–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

— 2018. The Chalcolithic period on the Lebanese coast. *Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien*. Serie A 120: 471–84.

— 2024. The Chalcolithic jar burials from Byblos. In, *Byblos. A Legacy Unearthed*: 59–66. National Museum of Antiquities (The Netherlands) and Ministry of Culture/Directorate General of Antiquities (Lebanon): Sidestone Press.

Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East (ARCANE). Available at: https://www.arcane.uni-tuebingen.de/groups.html.

Athanassas, C. D., García Sanjuán, L., Stamoulis, K., Lineros Romero, R., Carinou, E. and Anglada Curado, R. 2017. Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating of an enigmatic, megalithic-like, subterranean structure in Carmona (Seville, Spain). *Journal of Archaeological Science: Report* 16: 240–47.

Badreshany, K. 2013. Urbanization in the Levant: An Archaeometric Approach to Understanding the Social and Economic Impact of

Settlement Nucleation in the Biqā' Valley. PhD. University of Chicago. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/3619977/Urbanization_in_the_Levant_an_Archaeometric_Approach_to_Understanding_the_Social_and_Economic_Impact_of_Settlement_Nucleation_in_the_Biq%C4%81a_Valley_Lebanon.

— 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): Sidestone Press.

Badreshany, K., Genz, H and Sader, H. 2005. An Early Bronze Age site on the Lebanese coast: Tell Fadous-Kfarabida 2004–2005. Final report. *Bulletin d'Archéologie et d'Architecture Libanaises* 9: 5–115.

Banning, E. B. 2010. Houses, households, and changing society in the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the southern Levant. *Paléorient* 36(1): 49–87.

Bartl, K. 1998–1999. Akkar Survey 1997. Archaeological surface investigations in the Plain of Akkar/Northern Lebanon. Preliminary results. *Bulletin d'Archéologie et d'Architecture Libanaises* 3: 169–17.

Bartl, K. and Chaaya, A. 2002. Ancient settlements in the Plain of Akkar/Northern Lebanon. First results of archaeological survey work in 1997 and 1999. *Occident and Orient* 7(1): 2–4.

Betts, A. V. G. 1991. *Excavations at Java 1972–1986: Stratigraphy, Pottery and Other Finds: Excavations and Explorations in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan*. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Bradbury, J., Braemer, F. and Sala, M. 2014. Fitting upland, steppe, and desert into a ‘big picture’ perspective: a case study from northern Jordan, *Levant* 46(2): 206–29.

Braemer, F., Échallier, J. C., Vila, E., Vallerin, M., Kalos, M., Nicolle, C., Taraqii, A., Buchet, L. and Bocherens, H. 2004. Villages et nécropoles: architecture et organisation de l'habitat permanent du IVe au IIe millénaire. In, Braemer, F., Échallier, J. C. and Taraqii, A. (eds), *Khirbet al Umbashi: Villages et Campements de Pasteurs dans le 'Désert Noir' (Syrie) à l'Àge du Bronze*: 27–122. Beirut: IFPO.

Braemer, F., Genequand, D., Dumond Maridat, C., Blanc, P.-M., Dentzer, J.-M., Gazagne, D. and Wech, P. 2009. Long-term management of water in the central Levant: the Hawran case (Syria). *World Archaeology* 41: 36–57.

Braun, E. 2022. They seek here, they seek there, 'that damned elusive Late-Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I transition of the southern Levant', In, Adams, M. J. and Roux, V. (eds), *Transitions During the Early Bronze Age in the Levant. Methodological Problems and Interpretative Perspectives*: 7–35. Münster: Zaphon.

Casana, J. 2007. Structural transformations in settlement systems of the northern Levant. *American Journal of Archaeology* 111(2): 195–221.

Chaaya A., Haddad, Z., Akhrass, Ch., Fares, A. and Baldy, J. S. 2017. Qal'at 'Aicha le plus haut site fortifié du Proche-Orient. *Bulletin d'Archéologie et d'Architecture Libanaises* 17: 353–80.

De Contenson, H. 1982. À propos du niveau Chalcolithique de Dakerman. In, *Archéologie au Levant. Recueil à la mémoire de R. Saidah*: 79–85. Lyon: Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux.

Copeland, L. and Wescombe, P. J. 1966. *Inventory of Stone-Age Sites in Lebanon*. Mélanges de l'Université Saint-Joseph T. 4 (2); T. 42 (1). Beyrouth: Impr. Catholique.

Cousseau, F. and Steimer-Herbert, T. 2025. Megalithic architecture in the Levant: broader perspectives for defining what we are talking about. *Levant*. doi:

Dubertret, L. 1955. *Geological Map of Lebanon at 1.50.000*. Republic of Lebanon. Beirut, Lebanon: Minister of Public Affairs.

Dubis, E. and Dąbrowski, B. 2002. Field K: The dolmen and other features on the south slopes of Tall al-'Umayri. In, Herr, L. G., Clarke, D. R., Geraty, L. T., Younker, R. W. and LaBianca, O. S. (eds), *Madaba Plains Project 5: The 1994 Season at Tall al-'Umayri and Subsequent Studies*: 171–77. Biblical Archaeology 7. Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press in co-operation with the Institute of Archaeology.

Dunand, M. 1973. *Fouilles de Byblos V. L'architecture, ses tombes, le matériel domestique, des origines à l'avènement urbain*. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve.

Eirikh-Rose, A. 2004. Geometric patterns on pebbles: early identity symbols? In, Peltenburg, E. and Wasse, A. *Neolithic Revolution*:
*New Perspectives on Southwest Asia in Light of Recent Discoveries on Cyprus*: 133–44. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

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

Garfinkel, Y. 2004. ‘Néolithique’ et ‘Enéolithique’ Byblos in southern Levantine context. In, Peltenburg, E. and Wasse, A. (eds), *Neolithic Revolution: New Perspectives on Southwest Asia in Light of Recent Discoveries on Cyprus*: 175–88. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Genz, H. and Sader, H. 2008. Bronze Age funerary practices in Lebanon. *Archaeology and History in Lebanon* 26–27: 258–83.

Genz, H., Damick, A., Wygnańska, Z., Makinson, M., Woodworth, M., Mardini, M., Raad, N., Rutter, A., Alameh, J., Wanessian, B., Rempel, S., Baldi, J. S., D'Andrea, M., Peršin, M., Kopetzky, K., El Morr, Z., Çakirlar, C., Slim, F., van den Hurk, Y., Koolstra, F., Price, M., Makarewicz, Ch., Vanhecke, M., Winter, R., de Kock, W., Stantis, Ch., Maaranen, N., Peterkin, J., Nowell, G. M., Macpherson, C. and Schutkowski, H. 2021. Excavations at Tell Fadous-Kfarabida: preliminary report on the 2016 season of excavations. *Bulletin d'Archéologie et d'Architecture Libanaises* 21: 9–93.

Gerritsen, F., De Giorgi, A., Eger, A., Özbal, R. and Vorderstrasse, T. 2008. Settlement and landscape transformations in the Amuq Valley, Hatay. A long-term perspective. *Anatolica* 34: 241–314.

Giannessi, D. 2022. *The Late Chalcolithic Period in Western Syria*. Tell Afis and Hama. Studi di Archeologia Siriana. Florence: Le Lettere.

Greenberg, R. 2019. *The Archaeology of the Bronze Age Levant: From Urban Origins to the Demise of City-States, 3700–1000 BCE*. Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Guigues, P. É. 1937. Lébéka, Kafer Garra, Qrayé: nécropoles de la région sidonienne. *Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth* 1: 35–76.

Gillings, M. and Wheatley, D. 2020. GIS-based visibility analysis. In, Gillings, M., Haciguzeller, P. and Lock, G. (eds), *Archaeological Spatial Analysis*: 313–32. New York: Routledge.

Haïdar-Boustani, M., Ibáñez, J., Al-Maqdissi, M., Armendáriz, A., Urquijo, J. and Teira, L. 2003–2004. Prospections archéologiques à l'ouest de la ville de Homs: rapport préliminaire campagne 2004. *Tempora, Annales d'Histoire et d'Archéologie*: 59–90. Beyrouth: Université Saint-Joseph.

Iamoni, M., Haider, M., Turri, L. and Simi, F. 2019. The Northern Lebanon Project: Archaeological Survey of the Plain of Koura and the Province of Tripoli. First season report. *Bulletin d'Archéologie et d'Architecture Libanaises* 19: 147–72.

Ibáñez, J., Haïdar-Boustani, M., Al Maqdissi, M., Gonzaléz-Urquijo, J., Armanderiz, Á., Balbo, A. L., Boix, J., Himi, M., Iriarte, E., Laguera, M., Lazuén, T., Rodríguez, A., Sabrine, E., Santana, J., Tapia, J., Teira, L., Terradas, X. and Zapata, L. 2008. Mission Conjointe Syro-Libano-Espagnole de Prospections Archéologiques à l'Ouest de la Ville de Homs. Campagne 2008. Report scientifique. Syrian Arab Republic. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/32778555/Rapport_de_terrain_2008_Mission_syro_libano_espagnole_%C3%0_louest_de_Homs?sm=b.

Ibáñez, J., Haïdar-Boustani, M., Al Maqdissi, M., Armendáriz, A., 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: 359–67. Beyrouth: IFPO.

Iriarte, E., Balbo, A., Sanchez, M., Urquijo, J., Ibáñez, J. 2011. Late Pleistocene and Holocene sedimentary record of the Bouqaia Basin (Central Levant, Syria): a geoarchaeological approach of the Late Pleistocene and Holocene in the Bouqaia Basin (Levant, Syria): a first geoarchaeological perspective. *Comptes Rendus Palevol* 10(1): 35–47.

Jean, M. 2020. Pottery production at Tell Arqa (Lebanon) during the 3rd millennium BC: preliminary results of petrographic analysis. *Levant* 52(1-2):136-59.

Khasawneh, S. al, Murray, A. and Abudanah, F. 2019. A first radio-
metric chronology for the Khatt Shebib megalithic structure in
Jordan using the luminescence dating of rock surfaces.
*Quaternary Geochronology* 49(February): 205–10.

Maqdissi, M. and Thalmann, J.-P. 1989. Prospection de la trouée de Homs, les sites de la plaine d'Akkar syrien. *Contribution française à l'archéologie syrienne*: 98-101. Beyrouth-Damas-Amman: IFAPO.

Matsumoto, K. and Wada, H. 2001. Report on the archaeological
survey in the hilly area of Akkar Region in North Lebanon. *Al-
Rafیدan* 22: 93–111.

Marfoe, L. 1995. *Kamid el-Loz 13. The Prehistoric and Early Historic Context of the Site*. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.

——— 1998. *Kamid el-Loz 14. Settlement History of the Biqa up to the Iron Age*. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.

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

Ministry of Culture 2003. National Action Program to Combat Desertification. Available at: https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/naps/lebanon-eng2003.pdf.

Nicolle, C. and Braemer, F. 2012. Settlement networks in the southern Levant in the mid 4th millennium BC: sites with double-apsed houses in the Leja area of southern Syria during the EBA IA. *Levant* 44: 1–16.

Nicolle, C. and Al Maqdissi, M. 2006. Sharaya: un village du Bronze ancien la en Syrie du Sud. *Paléorient* 32: 125–36.

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

Polcaro, A., Muñiz, J., Alvarez, V. and Mogliazia, S. 2014. Dolmen 317 and its hidden burial: an Early Bronze Age I megalithic tomb from Jebel al Mutawwaq (Jordan). *Bulletin of American Society for Oriental Research* 372: 1–17.

Reed, K. S., Berger, U., Sharon, G. and Porat, N. 2023. Radiometric dating of southern Levant dolmens — applying OSL to resolve an old debate. *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports* 49: 104019. doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2023.104019.

Saidah, R. 1969. Archaeology in Lebanon, 1968-1969. *Berytus* 18: 119-43.

——— 1979. Dakerman — l'agglomération chalcolithique. *Berytus* 27: 29-55.

Sharon, I. 2014. Levantine chronology. In, Killebrew, A. E. and Steiner, M. (eds), *The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: c. 8000–332 BCE*: 45–65. Oxford: Oxford Academic.

Steimer-Herbet, T. 2000. Étude des monuments mégalithiques de Mengez (Liban) d'après Les Carnets de fouilles du R. P. Tallon (1959-1969). *Syria* 77: 11-21.

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

——— 2020. The dolmen tour and house of heritage in Menjez (Akkar — North Lebanon)'. *Ancient Near East Today* VIII(4). Available at: https://www.academia.edu/42970502/The_Dolmen_Tour_and_House_of_Heritage_in_Menjez_Akkar_North_Lebanon.

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. and Criaud, H. 2008. Funerary monuments of agro-pastoral populations of the Leja (southern Syria). In, Cordoba, J., Molist, M., Perez, C., Rubio, I. and Martinez, S. (eds), *Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid April 3-8 2006*. Vol. III: 221-34. Madrid: UAM.

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.

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

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

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

Thalmann, J.-P. 2006. *Tell Arqa — I, Les Niveaux de l'Âge du Bronze*. Beirut: IFPO.

De Vreeze, M. 2024. Byblos during the Early Bronze Age. In, *Byblos. A Legacy Unearthed*: 67–74. National Museum of Antiquities (The Netherlands) and Ministry of Culture/Directorate General of Antiquites (Lebanon): Sidestone Press.
Wygnańska, Z. and Rempel, S. 2018. Akkar Survey Project Interim Report for the General Department of Antiquities in Lebanon. Unpublished.

Wygnańska, Z., Steimer-Herbet, T. Defours, M., Wałdoch, F., Bagi, O., Cousseau, F., Damick, A., Jastrzębska, E., Milić, B., Moskal-del Hoyo, M. and Woronko, B. In press. 'MEG-A — the First Megaliths Builders of the Northern Levant' project

report on the 2022 archaeological soundings and survey
in Menjez (Akkar). *Bulletin d'Archéologie et d'Architecture
Libanaises*.

Yazbeck, C. 2024. The Neolithic of Byblos. In, *Byblos. A legacy Unearthed*: 49–52. National Museum of Antiquities (The Netherlands) and Ministry of Culture/Directorate General of Antiquities (Lebanon): Sidestone Press.