Structural functions and architectural projects within the long monuments of Western France
Abstract
The natural or unworked appearance of the very large stones used in the construction of megalithic monuments has led many people to regard them as “primitive”. In Western Europe, these are the oldest monumental prehistoric structures built of stone. Even the most recent research still reflects some difficulty in abandoning such a perception of megalithic monuments. It is for that reason that, in western France, insufficient attention has been given to the function of each structural element. A detailed study of the eastern end of Péré Tumulus C at Prissé-la-Charrière (France) reveals the presence of terraces, ramps, relieving arches, internal buttresses, external supports, and even vertical bonding between walls, which may themselves function as ribs or angles. Such elements are more generally used in historical architecture, but here find appropriate application in dry stone structures. In this way, we are able to reconstruct the entire construction project. Regarding the large elongated trapezoidal monuments of the middle Neolithic in western France, we seek to examine the technical constraints to demonstrate that the development of the technical knowledge was driven by the concern to obtain a building whose external forms result from structural constraints more appropriate to timber architecture.
Résumé
L’aspect naturel ou brut d’extraction des très grosses pierres employées pour la construction de monuments mégalithiques concoure à leur donner comme un aspect « primitif » aux yeux de nos contemporains. En Europe occidentale, il s’agit des plus anciennes architectures monumentales d’époque préhistoriques qui furent construites en pierre. Les avancées les plus récentes de la recherche ont encore un peu de mal à se départir d’une telle perception du mégalithisme. De ce fait, dans l’ouest de la France, peu d’attention a été portée à la fonction architectonique de chaque élément. Une étude détaillée de l’extrémité orientale du tumulus C de Péré à Prissé-la-Charrière (France) révèle la présence de terrasses, de rampes, d’arcs de décharge, de contreforts internes ou de cerclage, voire de chaînages verticaux entre des parois qui peuvent elles-mêmes avoir une fonction de raidisseur ou de harpage, par exemple. Autant de termes utilisés pour les architectures maçonnées des périodes historiques qui trouvent ici leur juste application pour des constructions en pierre sèches. C’est tout le chantier de construction qui se déroule alors sous nos yeux. Pour les grands monuments allongés trapézoïdaux du Néolithique moyen dans l’ouest de la France, nous tenterons enfin de démonter que la mise en oeuvre de l’ensemble de ces savoir faire a été rendue nécessaire de par le soucis d’obtenir un édifice dont les volumes en élévation découlent en fait de contraintes architectoniques plutôt propres aux architectures en bois. Un peu comme s’ils reproduisaient en pierre, mais avec des contraintes architectoniques différentes, le souvenir du modèle de la maison de prestigieux ancêtres parmi les tous premiers agriculteurs de la région.
Keywords: long mound, construction ramp, structural cells, Prissé-la-Charrière, house plans, timber architecture
Particularly over the last few decades, the megalithic monuments of Western Europe have been extensively studied. Topics have included: the large stones used in their construction which sometimes bear symbolic markings; the diversity of the funerary practices that are often associated with such structures; and their role as monuments serving as places of memory for the living, as markers in the landscape, and as indicators of social complexity. More rarely, they have been considered as real architecture representing the first stone buildings in this part of the world.
Surrounded by dry stone walling – sometimes reaching several metres high – the megalithic monuments of western France, and others in the British Isles, lend themselves particularly well to this type of study. These monuments were formerly grouped together as belonging to the prehistoric “giant tumuli” of Europe: amongst them the long mound of Péré C is the subject of a programme of extensive excavations, unique in Europe. These began in 1995 under the joint direction of L. Laporte, C. Scarre and R. Joussaume. Studies (currently in progress) on the eastern end of this structure are used here as an example (Fig. 2.1).
Architecture
None of the most imposing Neolithic monuments of western France represents a “snap-shot” of a particular moment. They all result from the superimposition of distinct architectural projects implemented in the same place over time, and they all appear today in the form of ruins (Laporte 2010). This implies that none of these stone-built structures can really be regarded as an object of study in its own right in the form we observe in the present day.
Fig. 2.1: General view of Péré tumulus C at Prissé-la-Charrière, Deux-Sevres, France. In this photograph, taken in 2008, the western part of the monument has just been restored, whereas the eastern part of the tumulus is still in the course of excavation (Ballonet.com)
As such, these structures can be distinguished from, for example, many megalithic monuments in the Iberian peninsula, whose single burial chamber is concealed under a circular mound only seldom delimited by side walls in elevation. At least, those structures were not created with enduring stone walls. This also allows us to distinguish, although in a different way, monuments in western France from Irish court tombs (Eogan 2006), as well as from certain passage graves found in northern Europe (Bakker 1992; Hansen et al. 2000), and some (but not all) of the Cotswold-Severn type long barrows in England (Darvill 2004; Bayliss and Whittle 2007; Dixon et al. 2011). The megalithic monuments investigated in western France (Laporte and Le Roux 2004) are particularly favourable for exploring the concept of an architectural project, provided we develop the means to study structures resulting from the implementation of successive projects. However, before reaching this level of analysis, we need to separate out those aspects resulting from technical constraints related to the nature of the materials used, and to the course of operations on the site during construction. We should also consider the architectonic function of each element composing the mass of the tumulus.
In fact, the succession of various architectural projects in the same place is more than a simple phenomenon of accretion, as initially proposed by Giot (1987) from his study of the monuments of Barnenez, Carn, or Guénnoc in north Finistere. Giot drew on previous work carried out in England, for example at Wayland’s Smithy (Atkinson 1965), where an initial wooden burial chamber was covered by an even more impressive monument. A question has emerged more recently concerning the degree of autonomy of rotundas (in this case, built of stone), in view of some actually quite similar examples discovered under certain Cotswold-Severn type barrows (Corcoran 1972; Scarre 2005), or other structures recognised at the centre of tumuli such as Camster Long in Scotland (Masters 1997). In the Iberian peninsula, we could also mention the dolmens of Dombate (Cebrian del Moral et al. 2011). However, it would now appear that such observations represent only a particular case of a more general tendency that is extremely well illustrated elsewhere in Europe, seen in Irish examples such as Knowth (Eogan 1986), where the largest tumulus mound covers a true megalithic necropolis made up of distinct pre-existing monuments. Although elongate in form, the majority of large tumuli in the west of France actually seem to testify a rather similar sequence.
This is the case with Prissé-la-Charrière, located in Deux-Sevres (Laporte et al. 2010), where at least one of the two long mounds arranged side by side corresponds to a 100m long tumulus covering two distinct monuments. One monument is made up of a 23m long rectangle with a large cist – a burial space without a covered access structure. The other is a circular mound covering a passage grave (Fig. 2.2). The excavation of one of the two long mounds of Souc’h at Plouhinec in Finistere, although much more levelled off, also revealed the presence of eight or nine successive phases of construction (Goffic 2006). This recent data throws new light on the mode of operation of the large cairn of Barnenez at Plouézoc’h. These three monuments of western France belong to the second half of the 5th millennium cal BC (Joussaume and Laporte 2006). Therefore, they pre-date the majority of the other examples mentioned above.
Fig. 2.2: Implementation of the architectural project, and different phases in the construction of Péré tumulus C at Prissé-la-Charrière, Deux-Sevres, France. A pre-existing megalithic necropolis. B enlargement to the south, starting from a 23m long rectangular monument; enlargement towards the east, starting from the circular cairn III with passage grave; construction of a new burial chamber. C construction of the central section of the 100m long trapezoidal monument
The study of the long mound of Péré C at Prissé-la-Charrière (Scarre et al. 2003) enables us to clarify this concept of an architectural project. The construction of the 100m long trapezoidal tumulus affected the elevation of the eastern circular monument, and the alignment of the northern face of the 23m long western rectangular monument (Laporte 2010), providing good evidence of three distinct architectural projects at this site. The two earlier monuments were independently arranged and associated with their own architectural, ceremonial and funerary history: the earliest contained a cist and the second a passage grave. Construction of the 100m long monument thus began at each end: the central part was completed with the building of a new burial chamber. This final construction phase consisted initially of a widening of the monument towards the south starting from the pre-existing rectangular monument. At the same time, an elongated mound 50m in length was built up towards the east, abutting against the circular monument that belonged to the earlier megalithic necropolis. The plan of the 100m long tumulus was thus designed very precisely as a whole, even before its realisation on the ground by a single contiguous structure. This applies right down to the detailed arrangement of the basic units of construction, which were planned in a very precise manner over the entire eastern part of the monument (Fig. 2.3).
Consequently, the lateral dissymmetry noted in the trapezoidal plan of all the mounds of this type of monument, such as Prissé-la-Charrière, Barnenez, Souc’h, and even Mané-Pochat or Mané-Ty-Ec, have been studied in some detail. They cannot merely be the result of an approximate and awkward implementation of the construction project (Laporte et al. 2001): they clearly meet a conceptual standard undoubtedly specific to the architectural project, realised here in a far more rigorous manner than previously imagined. There is a close correspondence between this dissymmetry and the layout of some BVSG dwellings in Brittany (Laporte and Tinevez 2004), in particular where this feature is expressed by the Y-shaped arrangement of posts (Cassen et al. 1998) within the space elsewhere used as a passage.
Fig. 2.3: Progress of the construction project. A stratigraphic relations between each basic structural unit contributing to the building of a lateral bench. B these are initially realised by isolated cells distributed regularly around the perimeter of the monument, according to a conceptual plan carefully drawn up beforehand. C several basic structural units sometimes make up modules that, when joined with each other, form an integral part of the construction project, as seen here in the centre of the tumulus mound. D eastern facade of Péré tumulus C during excavation (L. Laporte)
The construction site
These architectural projects are realised by basic structural units that, according to their form and arrangement, have been designated as cells, terraces or even supporting walls. Each unit is delimited in elevation by one or more side walls, where the latter delimit a filling that is itself sometimes structured by transverse internal reinforcements.
Most of the wall facings of megalithic structures in western France are built of stone, but others were probably of timber (e.g. Chancerel and Desloges 1998). More rarely, the same basic structural unit comprises one stone wall and another in wood. In view of recent discoveries concerning middle Neolithic dwellings in this region (De Chazelles et al. 2012; Laporte et al. 2011), it would not be surprising in the future to find others that are built of adobe (Delibes and Zapatero 1996). The internal mass of the Cruchaud tumulus at Sainte-Lheurine, in Charente Maritime (Burnez et al. 2003), is structured using facings made from accumulated clumps of turf. The stone facings are made up of various courses, some of which can be characterised.
Foundation courses are used as a basic unit of construction. They rest either directly on the footing, or on a foundation slab. This latter thus corresponds to the lowermost horizon of the former ground surface, levelled off for the construction work. The presence of a cover, or stabilisation, course within a facing wall sometimes marks a momentary pause or definitive halt in construction. In other cases, an inserted course between larger block courses will allow the transfer of the pressure exerted by the upper part of the structure. In western French megalithic structures, the joints between the stones almost always correspond to an empty space partially filled by infiltrating soil. This feature very clearly distinguishes the corbelled vaults in the megalithic burial chambers of western France, which belong to the second half of the 5th millennium BC, from the vaults covering tholoi in the south of the Iberian peninsula, which are dated to the first half of the 3d millennium BC. For these latter structures, a very compact clay preparation was used for bonding the courses within the construction and the joints in the facade (Kunst and Arnold 2011; Laporte et al. 2014a). For each wall facing, three main roles can be recognised. Some elements stabilise certain parts of the structure to better transfer internal thrust, and can thus be considered as reinforcements. Others ensure bonding between the various parts of the internal filling, thus preventing break away: they serving as toothing. Finally, other elements maintain the walling in elevation. In a recent article we attempt to clarify this vocabulary, to some extent borrowed from the architecture and archaeology of built structures from historical periods (Laporte et al. 2014).
Fig. 2.4: Terraces serving as a base for the long cairn. A north-south cross-section at the base of the tumulus. B general view of terraces revealed within the tumulus to the west of chamber III. C ramps and passageways providing access to the upper parts of the construction site (L. Laporte and Ballonet.com; CAD L. Quesnel)
Fig. 2.5: Elevation of the cairn: tiering of relieving arches on the northern face at the eastern end of Péré tumulus C at Prissé-la-Charrière, Deux-Sevres, France (L. Laporte)
The arrangement of the basic structural units is quite different according to whether they contribute to the support of a vast elongated burial mound or the small circular structure enclosing the burial chamber space. The area covered by each unit, its layout on the ground, and its volume in elevation allow us to distinguish between the different components. However, among the megalithic monuments in western France, very few structural units can be described as walls, i.e. having two opposite facings and an internal rubble stone filling. The terraces can be delimited by two or three facings that are broadly perpendicular (Fig. 2.4). Joined together, they form a platform on which an elongated mound can then be placed in elevation.
In some cases, it is possible to recognise approach ramps at the higher level. The term cell is generally reserved for structural units of small surface area displaying a continuous facing wall tracing out the arc of a circle. This term was initially used by Joussaume (2006) to describe the internal structure of tumulus C of Champs-Châlon at Courçon in Charente Maritime. Once construction is completed, these cells behave as a network of truncated cones linked with each other (Fig. 2.5): each facing wall of the cells acts as a relieving arch. However, we cannot completely dissociate the filling of the structural units from their function. Cells that are exclusively filled by dry stones can sometimes reinforce a particular point of the construction, either in its mass or around the perimeter, where they act as buttresses. Other cells on the facade form a lining, doubling the internal wall. The majority of the structural units making up the Péré C long mound are filled mainly with stones mixed with earth, or with imported soil. A covering of red clay is sometimes inserted within the soil. These coverings of the filling are frequently associated with a stabilization course within the walls of the cell. The whole structure therefore indicates a temporary halt in the construction project, at least in the examined sector. A resumption of construction is sometimes marked by a slight shift in the layout of the walls of the same structural unit.
As a result, modular structural units can be defined that link, for example, one or more ramp with their respective tiered platform. In the eastern part of the Péré C tumulus, such terraces also allowed temporary access to the highest levels of the pre-existing circular monument. The elevation of this first circular monument was then modified to better integrate it into the new architectural project, and levelled. This operation corresponded to a halt in the construction work of the adjacent elongated mound. The network of relieving arches then made it possible to build up the tumulus mound without having to widen the base. In other words, while the architectural project can be understood by projecting the vertical walls onto a horizontal plane, the various phases of construction are revealed, on the other hand, by correlating more or less horizontal slices corresponding to distinct sections within each of the facing walls (Fig. 2.6). However, we found no evidence of a break in the progress of the work corresponding to the idea of seasonal construction carried out by early stockbreeders and farmers. On the contrary, the organisation of the construction site appears to have been very well coordinated by engineers who gave their instructions to a significant number of workmen at various points on the site. Conversely, the organisation of work carried out at these different points is extremely segmented.
Fig. 2.6: Complexity of the technical solutions: vertical sequence of modular construction units superimposed on either side of the long axis of the tumulus (L. Laporte)
The architectural project
It is still highly problematic to address the intentions of the Neolithic builders. Without an extremely detailed study of monuments that are particularly well preserved over their entire elevation, it is difficult to reconstruct successive architectural projects at the same site. At Prissé-la-Charrière, the structure of the monument and the vestiges of a pavement at its top suggest the presence of a of 2m wide stone platform, slightly inclined and running over its entire length from east to west (Laporte et al. 2002). The cross-section of the stone walls inside the monumental mass shows that the slope of the facing walls tend to be accentuated with increasing height, which could indicate the external angle of the sides of the monument. This feature was observed by Giot (1987) on the elevation of the outer walling of monuments like Carn Island or Barnenez in Finistere, and again by Lecornec (1994) over an even more impressive height on the external facade of cairn II of the Petit Mont at Arzon in Morbihan. The restored volume appears to be similar to that built by the navetas of the Balearic Islands (Guilaine 1994) one or two millennia later: these are much better preserved since they are constructed of cyclopean masonry (Fig. 2.7). However, they have an apsidal layout which is also observed locally in the contemporary houses. In western France, we find a trapezoidal rectangular plan bordered by side quarries – the same pattern displayed by megalithic monuments of very different length (Laporte 2013), as observed at Prissé-la-Charrière and Champ-Châlon.
In northern Europe, there has been a long-standing debate (Childe 1949) about whether it is possible to establish a link between megalithic monuments and LBK longhouses, which are both bordered by side quarries (Hodder 1984; Migdley 1985; Sherratt 1990; Thomas 2012). More generally, many comparisons have been proposed between such funerary spaces and domestic dwellings (Bradley 2003). These include the hypogea of the Marne valley (Leroi-Gourhan et al. 1963) and Sardinia (Caprara 1986), and other forms of Atlantic megalithic monuments (Kjaerum 1967; Joussaume 1985) found from the Orkneys to Brittany, which all belong to more recent periods of the Neolithic. In southern France, the sloping of internal walls within the Fontvieille hypogea can also be observed within the chamber of passage graves such as the dolmen of Pouget. Here, the arrangement is not merely intended to reduce the size of the covering slab, which is imposing in size (Châteauneuf et al. 2012), but also serves to reproduce the internal volumes of other types of construction built of perishable materials.
Fig. 2.7: What was the nature of the architectural project? The elevation proposed in restoration work for the long mounds of central western France (at the end of the 5th millennium BC) is broadly similar to those of the navetas of the Balearic Islands, which were built using cyclopean-type masonry a few millennia later: A Péré tumulus C at Prissé-la-Charrière, Deux-Sevres, France. (L. Laporte). B Es Tudons, Balearic Islands, Spain (Guilaine 1994). C Petit Mont II near Arzon, Morbihan, France (P. Gouézin). D ethnographic example: long houses of the Iroquois Indians (Indianspictures 2014).
Fig. 2.8: Dimensions of megalithic long mounds in central western France showing a standardised width. A monuments whose width and length are documented by excavations or the pattern of peripheral ditches. B topographic anomalies, whose dimensions are indirectly dependant on the underlying monument. (Data on diagrams taken from Boulestreau (2003). Topographic surveys: R. Bernard (INRAP))
While the length of the elongated monuments of the second half of the 5th millennium BC in western France is extremely variable, ranging from a few tens to more than 100m, their width is highly standardised, being only about 10–15m (Fig. 2.8). It is a technical challenge to maintain a constant width during the construction of terraces for these tumuli, while simultaneously increasing the height of the structure. Initially, such an objective seems absurd: it would appear more logical to widen the base to ensure its solidity. Yet we can see that a wealth of technical knowledge was mobilised to create a structure meeting this specific standard. We are dealing with a constraint of the conceptual model, which is independent and more important than all the other constraints related to the technical implementation of the construction project.
Consequently, we can wonder whether the standardised width of the conceptual model appropriate for the long tumuli of central western France could be a feature inherited from the architecture of large wooden buildings. Were the external volumes created by the need to obtain a covered empty space then transposed to be used as a standard in the construction of monumental masses made of stone and earth? Since the volumes of these structures are filled, their construction encounters the opposite technical constraints to timber houses. Indeed, the span of the wall plates, or of the tie beams, represents one of the major technical constraints for the construction of timber buildings intended to shelter an empty and covered space: increasing this span while maintaining the height of the building would require knowledge and skills in carpentry to be renewed with the passage of time. In western France, the span between each wall plate, or between the ridge timber and side walls, increases progressively throughout the Neolithic (Fig. 2.9). While this dimension is only a few metres in the LBK longhouse, it increases to about 5m in the Pezou house, attributed to the middle Neolithic, and ultimately attains 10m in the Antran-type houses attributed to the late Neolithic. Dating from this same period, the Pléchâtel house is composed of modules of constant width joined up alongside each other, forming a building 100m in length (Tinevez 2004).
Fig. 2.9: Technical constraints inherited from the construction of wooden houses influenced the reproduction in stone according to one conceptual model. A: structural constraints for wooden architecture are the opposite of those for stone-built constructions. B: span of the beams is the main structural constraint for domestic wooden architecture covering an empty space: in western France during the Neolithic period, the internal span limiting the width of houses increased from 2.5m to reach 10m in some exceptional cases
Fig. 2.10: The architecture of some megalithic monuments can also inform us about the building of timber structures, which may themselves have been taken as a starting point for the design of long mounds. While the first examples of double-pitched roofs only appear in continental Europe with the Lengyel group, represented by small adobe houses, all experimental reconstructions of LBK longhouses (often supported by posts of almost equal diameter) are based on the assumption that mortise and tenon joints were not exmployed. This is now known to be incorrect since these elements are found in the framework of LBK wells in Germany. (After Scarre 2005b; Chaudisis 2009; 2010; Tegel et al. 2012)
Fig. 2.11: Megalithic necropolises linking two elongated tumuli located side by side, with the two successive phases of the BVSG village at Poses at the same scale. (After Joussaume and Laporte 2006; Bostyn et al. 2003)
Finally, we can consider the same hypothesis from another point of view: could the architecture of certain megalithic monuments provide insight into the construction of wooden buildings, which might have been inspired by the former. Long mounds and barrows are sometimes preserved to their original height, while the latter are generally reconstructed by archaeologists from observations of post-holes (Fig. 2.10). Such considerations apply equally well to circular monuments. To the north of the Gironde estuary, as well as south of the Pyrenees, early Neolithic settlements on the Atlantic seaboard evidence the layout of small circular dwellings of very similar diameter to the Bougon F0 megalithic monument and the primary cairn of Île Carn (Mohen and Scarre 2002; Laporte and Marchand 2004; Laporte et al. 2012). At the beginning of the middle Neolithic, in the western and southern Paris basin, other circular structures of much more imposing size are instead attributed to the Cerny group (Verjux 1999; Cassen 2000; Billard et al. 2014b).
The proponents of a unilinear typology refuse to accept that two distinct architectural forms might exist simultaneously in the same area (Boujot Cassen 1992; Cassen 2009; cf. Laporte 2011). However, it appears that the multiple and progressive integration of different forms of burial space within elongated mounds can be particular well explained by the hypothesis presented here (Laporte et al. 2002; 2011). We should not forget that this part of the Atlantic seaboard was one of the rare parts of Europe where the spheres of continental and southern neolithisation (Nicolas et al. 2013) came together (Joussaume 1981; Laporte and Picq 2002; Marchand and Manem 2006; Scarre 2011). Both traditions were confronted with various groups of hunter-gatherers who occupied this region, particularly on the coastal plains (Marchand 1999). A phase of integration followed that is reflected not only in the material culture (Laporte 2005), but also perhaps at the biological level through the matrilineal transmission of certain genetic features (Deguilloux et al. 2011): however, current data is still too sparse to be entirely representative. Such a phase of integration would not be lacking in expressions of specific cultural identities, which become all the more exacerbated while they are in the process of dissolution (Fig. 2.11). Rectangular and circular monuments are thus buried under the imposing mass of trapezoidal long mounds bordered by side quarries, displaying volumes not unlike the houses built by early LBK farmers.
Conclusions
Such an approach to studying megalithic monuments in western Europe allows us to distinguish the architectural project from the implementation of the construction. In this way, we can identify features related to the history of techniques, while also addressing questions about the intentions of Neolithic builders who created stone structures that could have been built elsewhere using different materials. Beyond local availability, even the choice of building with stones (large or small ones) reflects the builders’ intentions. It makes the monument a durable structure surviving into the future. At first sight, such architecture may appear somewhat rudimentary, both in terms of the tools used by the builders and their concern, often explicitly expressed, in the use of very large stones preserving many characteristics of their natural appearance. This does not mean to say that the architectural project was simplistic: very high levels of skill were mobilised. Such an approach is compatible with the possibility, often stressed by many authors, that the course of actions leading to the construction could also have a symbolic and ceremonial dimension, in a context where such monuments are almost always associated with funerary practices. By attempting to ascertain, wherever possible, the nature of each architectural project and its place within the successive processes of monumentalisation, we are taking a first step to placing these architectures in the more general framework of the worldview of Neolithic builders. While dedicated, at least in part, to burial of the dead or to the memory of ancestors, megalithic monuments are evidently not simply a transposition of the world of the living, no more so than their design can ever be regarded as being totally dissociated from it. In western France, indeed, many of such monuments seems to have reproduced in stone, but with different structural constraints, the memory of the houses of prestigious ancestors who were among the very first farmers of the region.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to M. Carpenter for the English translation of this paper.
References
Atkinson, R. J. 1965. Excavations at Wayland’s Smithy long barrow; Berkshire. Antiquity 39, pp. 126–133.
Bakker. J. A. 1992. The Dutch Hunebedden: Megalithic Tombs of the Funnel Beaker Culture. International Monographs in Prehistory: Ann Arbor, MI.
Bayliss, A. L. and Whittle, A. 2007. Histories of the dead: building chronologies for five southern British long barrows. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(S1).
Billard, C., Charraud, F., Ghesquière, E., Hulin, G., Marcigny, C. and Marcoux, N. 2014. Goulet (Orne) “Le Mont”: approche préliminaire des structures internes de l’enceinte du Néolithique moyen 2. In: Joussaume, R. and Large, J. M. (eds.), Enceintes néolithiques de l’Ouest de la France de la Seine à la Gironde. Association des Publications Chauvinoises: Chauvigny, pp. 51–62.
Bostyn, F., Beurion, C., Billard, C., Guillon, M., Hachem, L., Hamon, C., Lanchon, Y., Praud I., Reckinger F., Ropars, A. and Munaut A.-V. 2003. Néolithique ancien en Haute-Normandie: le village Villeneuve-Saint-Germain de Poses “Sur la Mare” et les sites de la boucle du Vaudreuil. Travaux – Société Préhistorique Française 4: Paris.
Boulestreau, E. 2003. Les monuments funéraires allongés du Néolithique dans le Centre-Ouest de la France. Mémoire de maîtrise, Université de Paris I, dactylo: Paris.
Boujot, C. and Cassen S. 1992. Le développement des premières architectures funéraires monumentales en France occidentale. In: Le Roux C.-T. 1992 (ed.): Paysans et bâtisseurs: l’émergence du Néolithique atlantique et les origines du mégalithisme; XVII colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, Vannes, octobre 1990, Rennes. Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest, supplément 5, pp.195–211.
Bradley, R. 2003. A life less ordinary: the ritualization of the domestic sphere in Later Prehistoric Europe. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13(1), pp. 5–23.
Burnez, C., Louboutin, C. and Kinnes, I. 2003. Le tumulus du Cruchaud à Sainte-Lheurine (Charente-Maritime) – Etude archéologique. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 100(2), pp. 293–314.
Caprara, R. 1986. La necropoli de San Andrea Priu. Delfino: Sassari.
Cassen, S. (ed.) 2000. Eléments d’architecture, exploration d’un tertre funéraire à Lannec-er-Gadouer (Erdeven, Morbihan). Mémoire XIX, Ass. Editions Chauvinoises
Cassen, S. (ed.) 2009. Autour de la table: explorations archéologiques et discours savants sur des architectures néolithiques à Locmariaquer, Morbihan (Table des Marchands et Grand Menhir). Laboratoire de recherches archéologiques LARA du CNRS/Université de Nantes: Nantes.
Cassen, S., Audren, C., Hinguant, S., Lannuzel, G. and Marchand, G. 1998. L’habitat Villeneuve-Saint-Germain du Haut-Mée (Saint-Etienne-en-Coglais, Ille-et-Vilaine). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 95(1), pp. 41–76.
Cebrián del Moral, F., Yañez RodrÍguez, J., Lestón Gomez, M., Vidal Pérez, F. and Carrera RamÍrez, F. 2011. El dolmen de Dombate, arqueología, arquitectura y conservación. Diputación de Coruña: A Coruña.
Chancerel, A. and Desloges, J. 1998. Les sépultures pré-mégalithiques de Basse-Normandie, In: Guilaine, J. (ed.) Sépultures d’occident et genèses des mégalithismes (9000–3500 avant notre ère). Errance: Paris, pp. 89–106.
Châteauneuf, F., Ambert, P., Platscheck, C., Rocca, J.-M. and Requirand, C. 2012. Le dolmen du Pouget (Viols-le-Fort – Argelliers, Hérault). Architecture et mobilier. Constribution à l’étude des dolmens à dalles latérales inclinées du Languedoc. Bulletin de la Société d’Anthropologie Préhistorique de Monaco 52, pp. 81–103.
Childe, V. G. 1949. The origin of Neolithic culture in northern Europe, Antiquity 23(91), pp. 129–135.
Corcoran, J. 1972. Multi-period construction and the origin of the chambered long cairn in western Britain and Ireland. In: Lynch, F. and Burgess, C. (eds) Prehistoric Man in Wales and the West. Adams and Dart: Bath, pp. 31–63.
Darvill, T. 2004. Long Barrows of the Cotswolds and Surrounding Areas. Tempus: Stroud.
Deguilloux, M.-F., Soler, L., Pemonge, M.-H., Scarre, C., Joussaume, R. and Laporte, L. 2011. News from the west: ancient DNA from a French megalithic burial chamber. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 144, pp. 108–118.
Dehn, T., Hansen, S. and Flemming, K. 2000. Klekkendehoj og Jordehoj. Restaureringer og undersogelser 1985–90. Stenaldergrave i Danmark bind 2. Nationalmuseet: Copenhagen.
Delibes, G. and Zapatero, P. 1996. De lugar de habitacion a sepulcro monumental: una reflexion sobre la trayectoria del yacimiento neolitico de La Velilla, Osorno (Palencia). Rubricatum 1, pp. 337–348.
Chazelles, C.-A. de, Pons, F. and Gandelin, M. 2012. L’enceinte incendiée de Château-Percin. Midi-Pyrénées patrimoine 29, pp. 40–43.
Dixon, P., Bayliss, A., Healy, F., Whittle, A. and Darvill, T. 2011. The Cotswolds. In: Whittle, A., Healy, F. and Bayliss, A. Gathering Time: Dating the Early Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland. Oxbow Monograph: Oxford, pp. 434–475.
Eogan, G. 1986. Knowth and the Passage Tombs of Ireland. Thames and Hudson: London.
Eogan, G. 2006. The Irish megalithic tombs in their social setting. In: Joussaume, R., Laporte, L. and Scarre, C. (eds.) 2006. Origin and Development of the Megalithic Monuments of Western Europe. Musée des Tumulus de Bougon: Bougon, pp. 135–158
Giot, P.-R. 1987. Barnenez, Carn, Guennoc, 2 volumes. Travaux du laboratoire d’Anthropologie, Préhistoire, Protohistoire et Quaternaire Armoricains: Rennes.
Guilaine, J. 1994. La mer partagée, Hachette: Paris.
Hodder, I. 1984. Burials, houses, women and men in the European Neolithic. In: Miller, D. and Tilley, C. (ed.) Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 51–68.
Indianspictures 2014, available at http://indianspictures.blogspot.fr/p/iroquois-indian-pictures-and-images_16.html, (accessed July 2014)
Joussaume, R. 1981. Le Néolithique de l’Aunis et du Poitou occidental dans son cadre atlantique. Travaux du Laboratoire d’Anthropologie, Préhistoire, Protohistoire et Quaternaire Armoricains (ER 27 du CNRS): Rennes.
Joussaume, R. 1985. Des dolmens pour les morts. Hachette: Paris.
Joussaume, R. 2006. Les tumulus de Champ-Chalon à Benon (Charente-Maritime). Groupe Vendéen d’Etudes Préhistoriques 42.
Joussaume, R. and Laporte, L. 2006. Neolithic funerary monuments of Western France. In: Joussaume, R., Laporte, L. and Scarre, C. (eds.) 2006. Origin and Development of the Megalithic Monuments of Western Europe. Musée des Tumulus de Bougon: Bougon, pp. 319–344.
Kjaerum, P. 1967. Mortuary houses and funeral rites in Danemark. Antiquity 41, pp. 190–196.
Kunst, M. and Arnold, F. 2011. Sobre a reconstrucao de estruturas defensivas do Calcolitico na penisula Iberica com base na Torre B de Zambujal (Torres Vedras, Lisboa). O Arqueólogo Português, Series V (1), pp. 429–488.
Laporte, L, 2005. Néolithisation de la façade atlantique du Centre-Ouest de la France; actes des journées SPF de Nantes. In: Marchand, G. and Tresset, A. 2005. Unité et diversité des processus de néolithisation, Actes du colloque de Nantes, Mémoire XXXVI de la Société Préhistorique Française: Paris, pp. 99–125.
Laporte, L. 2010. Restauration, reconstruction, appropriation; évolution des architectures mégalithiques dans l’Ouest de la France, entre passé et présent. Munibe, supplement 20, Actes du colloque international de Beasain (Espagne), pp. 15–46.
Laporte, L. 2011. Innate and/or expressed identities: their conceptualization through monumentality, funerary practices and grave goods? Some examples from the megalithic tradition of Western France. In: Furholt, M., Lüth, F. and Muller, J. (eds) Megaliths and Identities, Fruhe Monumentalität und soziale differenzierung 1: Kiel, pp. 199–224.
Laporte, L. 2012. Dépôts de mobilier, architectures et pratiques funéraires dans l’ouest de la France, au cours du Néolithique récent et final. In: Sohn, M. and Vaquer, J. (eds) Sépultures collectives et mobiliers funéraires de la fin du Néolithique en Europe occidentale, Actes de la Table-ronde de Carcassonne, 2008, ed. Archives d’Ecologie Préhistorique: Toulouse, pp. 113–145.
Laporte, L. 2013. Les carrières fournissant le petit appareil employé dans la construction des masses tumulaires. Mégalithismes de l’ouest de la France, projets architecturaux, stratégies d’approvisionnement et techniques mises en œuvre pour l’extraction. In: Guyodo, J.-N. and Mens, E., (eds) Technologie des premières architectures en pierre en Europe occidentale du Ve au IIe mill. av. J.-C. Actes du colloque de Nantes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes: Rennes, pp. 00–00.
Laporte, L. and Marchand, G. 2004. Une structure d’habitat circulaire dans le Néolithique ancien du Centre-Ouest de la France, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 101, pp. 55–73.
Laporte, L. and Le Roux, C.-T. 2004. Bâtisseurs du Néolithique, Mégalithisme de la France de l’Ouest. Coll. Terres mégalithiques, Maison des Roches: [Online]. Available at: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/view_by_stamp.
Laporte, L. and Tinevez, J.-Y. 2004. Neolithic houses and chambered tombs of western France. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14 pp. 217–234.
Laporte, L. and Picq, C. (eds.) 2002. Les occupations néolithiques du vallon des Ouchettes (Plassay-Charente-Maritime). Gallia Préhistoire 44, pp. 1 – 120.
Laporte, L., Joussaume, R. and Scarre, C. 2001. Megalithic monuments of west-central France in their relationship to the landscape. In: Scarre, C. (ed.), Monumentality and Landscape in Atlantic Europe. Routledge: London, pp. 73–83.
Laporte, L., Joussaume, R. and Scarre, C. 2002. Le tumulus C de Péré à Prissé-la-Charrière (79), état des recherches après 6 années d’intervention. Gallia Préhistoire 44, pp. 167–214.
Laporte, L., Scarre, C., Joussaume, R. and Soler, L. 2010. Nouvelles données sur le mégalithisme de l’Ouest de la France: Recherches en cours autour du tumulus C de Péré à Prissé-la-Charrière (Deux-Sèvres). Archéo-Théma, sept. 2010.
Laporte, L., Bizien-Jaglin, C. and Guyodo, J.-N. 2011. Occupations du Néolithique moyen autour de la butte de Lillemer (Ille-et-Vilaine). Dossiers du Centre Régional Archéologique d’Alet 39, pp. 83–91.
Laporte, L., Jallot, L. and Sohn, M. 2011. Mégalithismes en France. Nouveaux acquis et nouvelles perspectives de recherche. Gallia Préhistoire 53, pp. 289–338.
Laporte, L., Bizien-Jaglin, C. and Guyodo, J.-N. 2014a. Enceintes néolithiques de l’ouest de la France: une archéologie des fossés? In: Joussaume, R. and Large, J.-M. (eds.), Enceintes néolithiques de l’Ouest de la France de la Seine à la Gironde. Association des Publications Chauvinoises: Chauvigny, pp. 455–487.
Laporte, L., Parron, I. and Cousseau F. 2014b. Nouvelle approche du mégalithisme à l’épreuve de l’archéologie du bâti. In: Sénépart, I., Billard, C., Bostyn, F., Praud, I., & Thirault, É. (eds.) Méthodologie des recherches de terrain sur la Préhistoire récente en France, Nouveaux acquis, nouveaux outils, 1987–2012, Actes des premières Rencontres Nord/Sud de Préhistoire récente, Marseille 23–25 mai 2012. Éditions Archives d’Écologie Préhistorique: Toulouse, pp. 169–186.
Lecornec, J. 1994. Le Petit Mont, Arzon, Morbihan. Documents Archéologiques de l’Ouest: Rennes.
Le Goffic, M. 2006: La nécropole mégalithique du Souc’h en Plouhinec. Journée «civilisations atlantiques et archéosciences», pp. 24–25.
Leroi-Gourhan, A., Bailloud, G. and Brézillon, M. 1963. L’hypogée II des Mournouards (Mesnil-sur-Oger, Marne). Gallia Préhistoire 5, pp. 23–134.
Marchand, G. 1999. La néolithisation de l’ouest de la France. Caractérisation des industries lithiques. British Archaeological Reports: Oxford.
Marchand, G. and Manen, C., 2006. Le rôle du Néolithique ancien méditerranéen dans la néolithisation de l’ouest de l’Europe atlantique. In Fouéré, P., Courtaud P., Ferullo, O. and Leroyer, C. (ed.) Paysages et peuplement. Aspects culturels et chronologiques en France méridionale. Actes des 6e Rencontres Méridionales de Préhistoire Récente, Périgueux, 2004, ADRAHP/Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest, pp. 213–231.
Masters, L.J. 1997. The excavation and restoration of Camster long chambered cairn, Caithness, 1967–80. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 127, pp. 123–183.
Midgley, M. 1985. The Origin and Function of the Earthen Long Barrows of Northern Europe. British Archaeological Reports International Series 259. British Archaeological Reports: Oxford.
Mohen, J.-P. and Scarre C. 2002. Les tumulus de Bougon, complexe mégalithique du Ve au IIIe millénaire. Errance: Paris.
Nicolas, E., Marchand, G., Henaff, X., Juhel, L., Pailler, Y., Darboux, J.-R. and Errera M. 2013. Le Néolithique ancien à l’ouest de la Bretagne: nouvelles découvertes à Pen Hoat Salaun (Pleuven, Finistère). L’Anthropologie 30, pp. 1–43.
Scarre, C. 2005a. Monuments mégalithiques de Grande Bretagne et d’Irlande. Errance: Paris.
Scarre, C. 2005b. The Human Past. World prehistory and the development of human societies. Thames and Hudson: London.
Scarre, C. 2011. Landscapes of Neolithic Brittany. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Scarre, C., Laporte, L. and Joussaume, R. 2003. Long mounds and megalithic origins in Western France: recent excavations at Prissé-La-Charrière. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 69, pp. 235–251.
Sherratt, A. 1990. The genesis of megaliths: monumentality, ethnicity and social complexity in Neolithic north-west Europe. World Archaeology 22, pp. 147–167.
Tegel, W., Elburg, R., Hakelberg, D., Stäuble, H. and Büntgen, U., 2012. Early Neolithic water wells reveal the world’s oldest wood architecture. PLoS ONE 7(12): e51374.
Thomas, J., 2012. Los monumentos megaliticos de Europa. In: Rojo Guerra, M., Garrido Pena, R. and Martinez de Lagran, I. (ed.), El Neolitico en la peninsula Iberica y su contexto europeo. Catedra: Madrid, pp. 55–69.
Tinevez, J.-Y. (ed.) 2004. Le site de la Hersonnais à Pléchâtel (Ille-et-Vilaine): un ensemble de bâtiments collectifs du Néolithique final. Société Préhistorique Française: Paris.
Verjux, C. 1999. Des bâtiments circulaires du Néolithique moyen à Auneau (Eure-et-Loire) et Orval (Cher), note préliminaire. Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France 37, pp.179–190.