Houses of the dead and natural rocks: new evidence from western France
Abstract
Past and present inventories of megalithic monuments in the west of France note that some ancient graves were built into natural rock formations. This practice links the domain of the dead to that of the mineral world, and is evidence of how Neolithic populations related to their environment. These mixed graves blend into the immediate landscape, becoming part of it. No longer is there the obvious ostentation of earlier periods. The architecture seems to belong to the Later Neolithic. Some graves involve the manual placement of upright slabs against in-situ rock. Others are built directly on the granite or schist bedrock. It is as if the souls of the dead were entrusted to the stone in perfect symbiosis. A significant number of standing stones may also be found near these graves, or near to the natural rock formations. Whilst not spectacular, this practice is of undeniable cultural and symbolic interest, and merits detailed study and recording.
Keywords: Mortuary house, natural rocks, landscape, chaotic outcrop, Later Neolithic
Introduction
Studies over recent years have shown that some megalithic monuments are of mixed-architecture, combining artificial and natural elements. Observation of the landscape shows that natural rock formations are often associated with stone settings. Sometimes we can count in tens the number of blocks that have been artificially arranged within a chaotic outcrop of natural granite, or close to one. With the smaller blocks, erected without shaping, the packing around the base is sometimes visible yet these small monoliths have often gone unnoticed. Considering the scale of the discoveries, mapping and recording is now essential. In this paper, we will present a first account of these monuments of mixed architecture.
Modern geological knowledge enables us today to differentiate between human constructions and natural rock formations. This has not always been so, and despite the vast advances in modern science, megaliths and natural rock formations are still colonised by faiths, legends and superstitions which attribute to them particular powers of healing, love and fertility (Sebillot 1985). Here we will show how these mixed-architecture monuments were integrated into the landscape, drawing upon studies carried out by Cummings on the relationships between monuments and natural features, their visual aspects and their symbolism (Cummings 2002). We will consider whether these monuments were inspired by the natural rock formations, and at what period in prehistory (Bradley 1998). Information about standing stones will also be included. They seem inseparable from the mortuary houses, and we will consider whether the activities involved were all completed within the memory timespans of individuals or of social groups, the landscape thus being full of meaning and memories recalling the past (Tilley 2004).
De Cussé, in 1885, was the first to publish a report discussing a megalithic monument associated with natural rock formations. This was the exploration of the grave under the rock overhang of Men Guen Lanvaux in Saint Jean Brévelay, Morbihan (Cussé 1885). A few years later Le Rouzic also drew attention to the chambered tomb of Conguel at Quiberon, Morbihan, excavated in 1891 by the Comte de Lagrange and Gaillard (Gaillard 1892). In his study on the morphology and the chronology of the prehistoric graves of Morbihan, Le Rouzic classified this particular monument – a chambered tomb covered by a cairn with one side of the chamber formed by the in-situ bedrock – as belonging to a particular type (Le Rouzic 1933). L’Helgouach classified the structure as a dolmen with short passage (L’Helgouach 1962; 1965), commenting on the archaism or degeneration of the megalithic construction, and the opportunism or economising that it implied. On the eastern edge of the Armorican massif, in the Petit Vieux Sou dolmen at Brécé in Mayenne, the chamber has a lateral entrance approached by a covered passage. The end-wall and part of the floor of the burial chamber are formed by the natural rock (Bouillon 1989). Le Rouzic also suggested the presence of a natural rock support in Roc’h en Ezel at Crac’h, Morbihan in 1898 (Le Rouzic 1898). In 1927 the Péquarts investigated the dolmen of Brunec situated on island of Saint Nicolas in the Glénan archipelago off the coast of Finistère, but the results were unsatisfactory owing to lack of archaeological artefacts (Péquart and Péquart 1927). In 1987, the rescue excavation of a megalithic tomb in the commune of La Chapelle Neuve in Morbihan revealed that the floor of the cist was formed by a granite outcrop (Gouézin 1987).
Fig. 17.1: Location of the study area : (A) Conguel at Quiberon; (B) Men Guen Lanvaux at Plaudren; (C) Pont-Bertho at Plaudren; (D) Roh Coh Coët at Saint Jean Brévelay; (E) Roch En Ezel at Crac’h; (F) La Coudraie; (G) Roh-Du B at La Chapelle Neuve; (H) Guilliguy at Ploudalmézeau; (I) Petit Vieux Sou at Brécé; (J) La Tougeais at Pleudihen sur Rance; (K) Bois de Gouarec at Plélauff; (L) Enez Bihan at Pleumeur Bodou; (M) Brunec Île St. Nicolas, Les Glénans; (N) Toul Bras at Quiberon; (O) Bransquel at Pluneret
The map of these mixed monuments (Fig. 17.1) shows a widespread distribution throughout Brittany. One geographical sector stands out, however: the granite massif of Les Landes de Lanvaux. It contains a very large number of megalithic monuments of every type, with some concentrated in necropolises like Coëby at Trédion in Morbihan, or Saint-Just in llle-et-Vilaine.
Cists and megalithic tombs
Roh-Du (B) at La Chapelle Neuve (Morbihan)
In the centre of a forest, the Roh-Du group consists of three cists arranged in a “U” formation, each with three megalithic walls plus a drystone wall on the fourth side that probably corresponds to the entrance to the cist (Fig. 17.2, A). Roh-Du B, mapped in 1987 during rescue archaeology (Gouézin 1987; 1994), is bounded on the north and south by two longitudinal slabs. On the west, a low drystone wall is surmounted by a slab bringing the support up to the level of the other two uprights (1.80 ´ 0.80m). The capstone has not been found. An outcropping granite surface forms the floor of the cist. Despite its degraded state, one can observe that the sub-rectangular cairn had was defined by a stone facing and by a large block of granite. The artefacts found could be attributed to the Beaker culture.
Roc’h en Ezel at Crac’h (Morbihan)
Situated on a promontory along the river Crac’h, this slightly oval shaped chamber (2.80 ´ 3.20m) leans against the in situ rock (Fig. 17.2, B). This rock assumes the role of an orthostat. A gap to the south-south-east apparently corresponds to the entrance to the monument. It is presently covered by two capstones. There is no trace of any passage.
Bransquel at Pluneret (Morbihan)
This burial chamber was built on the top of a headland but blends perfectly into the landscape. Of modest size (2.56 ´ 1.95m) its south-west wall consists of an outcropping rock (Fig. 17.2, C). The north-west and north-east faces show four orthostats, one of which has fallen. The entrance seems to be at the southeast. A capstone is present, but tilted into the chamber.
Men Guen Lanvaux at Plaudren (Morbihan)
On the western slope of a small hill covered with outcrops, and in a cavity just south of an outcropping rock, this dolmen-under-rock was arranged with a covered passage (Fig. 17.2, D). The protruding natural granite which overhangs the site let the builders insert orthostats on the western, eastern and southern sides, and infill them with drystone walling. The north side is enclosed by the same natural rock, which also serves as the roof. The slab on the east side allows access to the chamber. The cairn material is still present on the east, west and south sides. Three small standing stones have been found close to this monument, in the middle of the natural rocks scattered all over the surface of the hill (Gouézin 1994).
Fig. 17.2: Cists and megalithic tombs: (A) coffre du Roh-Du B at La Chapelle Neuve (56); (B) coffre de Roch En Ezel at Crac’h (56); (C) cist of Bransquel at Pluneret (56); (D) tomb under rock of Men Guen Lanvaux at Plaudren (56). (From Gouézin 2012)
Fig. 17.3: Cists and megalithic tombs: (E) cist of La Tougeais at Pleudihen sur Rance (35) (from Gouézin 2012); (F) cist Toul Bras at Quiberon (from Gouézin 2013); (G) Conguel passage tomb at Quiberon (56). (From Le Rouzic 1926)
Bois de Tougeais at Pleudihen sur Rance (Ille-et-Vilaine)
Situated on the southwestern part of a dominant rocky outcrop, this chamber (3.00 ´ 1.00m) was created in a small natural cavity in granite outcrops and completely absorbed into the landscape (Fig. 17.3, E). Partly encircled by the natural rock on the north and west, the chamber is completed on the south by three overlapping orthostats. A gap on the east side gives access to the chamber, which is covered by a single capstone. Several other blocks visible to the east may be the kerb of an original covering mound.
Toul Bras at Quiberon (Morbihan)
This chamber-under-rock is situated on the south-west point of the island. The natural rock overhang was used to accommodate a chamber of trapezoidal shape (Fig. 17.3, F). Small upright slabs close off the northern and southern sides. The entrance seems to have been on the eastern side, as the mass of rock that overhangs the chamber also blocks the entire western side. The monument is visible only from the east, where there is a small accessible beach. The height of the entrance is 1.10m. diminishing towards the back of the chamber which is 2.20m wide.
Dolmen of Conguel at Quiberon (Morbihan)
This sub-rectangular burial chamber has on its south-eastern side a natural rock wall jutting out at an angle from the granite bedrock and overhanging part of the floor surface (Fig. 17.3, G). The other walls are formed by megalithic slabs. The monument seems to have been covered by a mass of stones, but the details of the cairn are unknown. The artefacts found here have made this the type-site for one variety of Late Neolithic ceramic found.
Dolmen of Brunec, Saint Nicholas Island, Glénans archipelago (Finistère)
This monument, on the northeast of the island, was excavated in 1927 (Péquart and Péquart 1927). The architecture remains badly defined but shows that one orthostat, the tallest, seems to be a natural outcrop (Hamon et al. 2007). No passage is visible.
Megalithic tombs with covered passage, including those with lateral entrance
Bois de Gouarec at Plélauff (Côtes-d’Armor)
This dolmen with covered passage is in ruins. Built of schist slabs, it is aligned north–south (Fig. 17.4, J). The northern extremity is supported by an outcropping rock which serves as an end-stone. The monument was dug slightly into the ground, so that the northern end was the same height as the top of the outcrop. This outcrop extends on either side of the covered passage for several tens of metres. Perfectly blended into the hillside, its entrance, situated to the south, looks out over a very wide valley.
Fig. 17.4: Megalithic tombs with covered passages: (I) Roh Coh Coët at Saint Jean Brévelay (56); (J) Bois de Gouarec at Plélauff (22); (K) La Coudraie (56). (From Gouézin 2012)
La Coudraie at Augan (Morbihan)
Very degraded, this dolmen with covered passage uses a naturally outcropping stone at its northern end as support (Fig. 17.4, K). This impressive red schist rock, emerges about 1m from the ground, and presides over the 15m long burial chamber. The orientation is north–south with the entrance at the south. Close to this covered alley, immense natural rocks dominate the monument (Gouézin 1994).
Enez-Bihan in Pleumeur Bodou (Côtes-d’Armor)
Situated on the small island of Enez-Bihan, close to the mainland, but separated by the rise in sea level since the Neolithic, this dolmen has a covered passage and laterial entrance (Fig. 17.5, L). It is on a slope exposed to the south-west, and is built on outcropping granite (Daire and Le Page 1994). Part of the outcrop was used as the western wall of the tomb instead of orthostats. A narrowing is visible at the junction between the passage and the chamber. In the chamber four orthostats face a wall of natural rock. The capstones have disappeared. The external limits of the cairn appear to lie between the remains of a stone facing, and the natural rocks which protrude from the ground. One of these rocks has a series of cupules carved into a worked face.
Guilliguy at Ploudalmézeau (Finistère)
At the end of the inlet of Port Sall the rocky plateau of the same name rises to 29m. This plateau is adorned with a beautiful cross and a dolmen with covered passage and a lateral entrance to the south (Fig. 17.5, M). This monument was partially excavated in 1991/92 (Le Goffic and Peuziat 2001). The southern facade of the monument is represented by a kerb composed of several vertical stones alternating with drystone walling. The north-east face is bounded by a rock outcrop on which the monument leans. The north wall of the lateral cell is closed by this rock outcrop. A trial pit in the floor, in front of the end support, reached granite bedrock at a depth of 0.30m.
Fig. 17.5: Megalithic tombs with covered passages including those with lateral entrance : (L) Enez Bihan at Pleumeur Bodou (22) (from Daire and Le Page 1994); (M) Guilliguy at Ploudalmézeau (29) (from Le Goffic 2001); (N) Pont-Bertho at Plaudren (56) (from Gouézin 2012); (O) Petit Vieux Sou at Brécé (53) (from Bouillon 1989)
Fig. 17.6: Roh-Coh-Coët tomb with covered passage (I) and Neolithic megalithic quarry. (Photo: Philippe Gouézin)
Pont-Bertho at Plaudren (Morbihan)
Discovered in the 1990s (Gouézin 1994), this dolmen and covered passageway with side entrance has as its north wall an enormous block of natural granite outcropping from the underlying bedrock (Fig. 17.5, N). This block has several erosion bowls in its top. The south wall is formed by a series of standing stones with a gap between them in the middle that is probably the entrance. Only one capstone remains in place; a second has fallen inside the chamber. This monument has a terminal cell beyond the final upright at the western end. The whole structure blends perfectly into the environment, and its entrance faces part of the Arz valley. Not too far away, and very visible, there is a large accumulation of natural rocks. Within tens of metres a standing stone has been raised upright just on the periphery of some natural rocks. One face of this stone looks as if it has been split from the host rock; the other face carries all the scars of normal surface weathering.
Le Petit Vieux-Sou at Brécé (Mayenne)
At its south-eastern extremity, this dolmen with covered passage and lateral entrance has a naturally outcropping rock as its end wall (Fig. 17.5, O). The monument rests against a granite outcrop: its first orthostats, situated at the southeast, sit in sockets that have been dug into the bedrock. Bouillon suggested that “the Neolithic builders complicated their task by digging these sockets into the bedrock to get all the supporting uprights at the same height” (unless these sockets indicate stone quarried from them). This architectural implementation also shows that the natural rock rises markedly inside the burial chamber, close to the end upright on the southeast. A platform (1.50 ´ 2.00m) at the foot of the end wall could have served as an altar for offerings (or another use at which we can only guess). Whatever its purpose, it was formed by the chipping away of bedrock (Kerdivel and Mens 2010).
A tomb with covered passage in a megalithic quarry
Kerherne-Bodunan/Roh-Coh-Coët at Saint Jean Brévelay (Morbihan)
This megalithic monument is of the passage tomb type and was built in part by using slabs detached from a natural outcrop 7m long (Fig. 17.4, I). The length of this outcrop corresponds to the length of the chamber. A transverse internal rock plus some dry-stone walling seems to have been used as a chamber divider. Several orthostats and capstones completed this east–west aligned monument. The width inside is 1.7m and the headroom is 1.20m. It is impossible to see this monument from the western side of the promontory.
Roh Coh Coët (I) is without doubt the most spectacular monument in our analysis. It was essentially developed from one single natural rock outcrop. From this several slabs were split off and rearranged into a dolmen. Today, it is completely integrated into the landscape, and easily mistaken for one of the natural tors and other granite outcrops on the hillside. It enjoys a beautiful view over the valley. It is a wonderful example of architectural ingenuity by the builders: they obviously did not choose this site at random but could visualise the possibilities and potential in this outcrop. On our many visits with Luc Laporte we have also noticed, nearby and parallel to the tomb, a quarry for Neolithic stelae, (both unfinished stelae and negative marks where stone stelae had been removed) (Fig. 17.6).
Our first observations are that construction of the monument proceeded as follows (Fig. 17.7). The starting point was a natural slab of rock, 1m thick, at the top of the outcrop, which was aligned with and parallel to the neighbouring blocks. The first task was the detachment of the block and its removal 1.60m to the north. Next, the western part of the initial block was split transversely, and the part that was split off was pivoted and tilted. After that, the rest of the dolmen was built by adding orthostats and capstones. The most impressive of these has a beautiful cup mark on top carved in its middle. Analysis shows, without doubt, that the first block that was split off came from the initial slab. The histogram obtained by 3-D photogrammetry shows that when the plotted envelopes of surface points are superimposed, the two faces match together exactly along the fracture (Fig. 17.8).
Fig. 17.7: Building phases of Roh-Coh-Coët passage tomb (I)
Architectural balance
Of the 15 monuments discussed, three are passage tombs, four are lateral entrance graves, five are chambered tombs, two are tombs under rock overhangs, and one is unclassified.
These monuments have been dated by their architecture, by the various archaeological artefacts found, or by details discovered in recent excavations. They all belong essentially to the Later Neolithic (Kérugou, Conguel, Croh Collé), and the Final Neolithic (Beaker). The sample shows the diversity of tomb types built in the Armorican massif during the Later and Final Neolithic, a phenomenon widespread in this territory. Outcrops were used either as the longitudinal wall of the burial chamber, (G, I, N, D, E, L, F); for the terminal cell of Guilliguy (M); for the end wall (K, O, J); as part of the end wall of the tomb (O, A); or as a “natural” orthostat (B, C). Most of the natural rocks used as part of these structures were roofed by capstones except for La Coudraie (K), which had an end-stone much higher than the rest of the chamber, and the cist on the Island Saint Nicolas where the height of the natural outcrop exceeds the other supports by a large margin. The natural rock of Men Guen Lanvaux (D) acts as a capstone like that at Toul Bras (F). In the cist of Roch En Ezel (B), the presence of the natural outcrop in front of the entrance to the chamber calls to mind the in-situ rock used as the end-stone in certain passage graves and lateral entrance graves. All these monuments are integrated into very visible outcrops of granite or schist. It is possible that their cairns blended into the general aspect of the neighbouring terrain, but too little remains to be dogmatic on this. The Roh-Coh-Coët covered passage tomb (I) suggests the reoccupation of an older stelae quarry, or even the continued use of a site important to cult. If the re-use was not accidental, it may be evidence of the ongoing sacred character of certain locations, perhaps a sustained ancestral memory regarding places. The tomb under rock of Men Guen Lanvaux (D) reinforces this symbiosis between the natural and the anthropogenic.
Fig. 17.8: Roh-Coh-Coët passage tomb (I): histogram from 3D scan demonstrating the bonding of two fractured faces. The software evaluates the correspondence between the two faces by matching their pointcloud. (Sofware: CloudCompare. Prepared by Conservatoire Numérique du Patrimoine Archéologique de l’Ouest: Jean-Baptiste Barreau Ingénieur d’Etude, Yann Bernard Infographiste and Florian Cousseau doctoral student, UMR 6566 Université de Rennes 1)
Discussion
The association of the domain of the dead and the mineral world emphasises the attachment Neolithic populations had with their environment. But what made them choose these particular places and rocky outcrops? Why did they hide these mortuary houses amongst these rocks with such calculated discretion, and at the same time position them to have, from the inside, such magnificent views? The answers may be found through visual observation of the landscape, and the topography around these monuments, together with an approach centred on the ways humans think (or may have thought), fine-tuned, of course, by phenomenology.
This goes beyond the classical observations of archaeological sites: as Tilley (2004) observes, it is important to try to understand the relations between populations and the characteristics of the area they inhabit. How did they perceive the environment in which they lived? What social memories did they associate with each site? Defaix cites examples from ethnographic as well as anthropological reports which “[register] the object studied and its relationship to the landscape, like a natural element in land management” (Defaix 2006, 185). He makes the distinction between a natural rock and a cultural stone. An impression is gained that the soul of the dead is entrusted to the stone in perfect symbiosis.
Bradley (1998) suggests that some monuments have been inspired by natural rock formations considered as the ruins of ancient ancestral graves. Incorporated in new monuments, the characteristics of monuments should be that they resembled natural landscape features. The monuments considered here, integrated amongst natural rocks, with their discretion – and in some cases their invisibility – does not fall in this category. Cummings (2002) mentions that, in south-west Wales, some monuments of the later Neolithic were carefully positioned in the landscape. It seems that many monuments of the later and final Neolithic adopt this kind of placement. Note, however, a special case – the site of Roh-Coh-Coët (I). This was a natural outcrop at the site that had already received extensive human attention during previous periods of the Neolithic.
Fig. 17.9: Monument length and orientation. The length of the lines corresponds to the internal length of the monument and its passage
These small hills, artificial and natural, are as one, without distinction. They impart a certain notion of disappearance. One finds this also with other graves of the Late Neolithic in the Paris basin or Champagne regions. The ostentatious setting so obvious in monuments of the previous periods is no longer appropriate. There is no longer co-visibility nor intervisibility. The entrances of these tombs often look out over open panoramas (valley or ocean) some of would not leave one unmoved. It is worth considering this aspect in relation to other monuments of the Late and Final Neolithic. We note also that the orientation and the positioning of the natural rock is a major factor in setting the axis of construction; and furthermore the orientations of these tombs (Fig. 17.9), chambers and passages, does not indicate any preferred orientation (sunrise or sunset, moonrise or moonset, a fine view over the landscape).
Significant stone settings, whether or not they are near these mixed graves, may have been places for visitation and perhaps for particular rites. Scarre sees standing stones as markers of ordained places, having a particular connection with material things and natural reliefs. He considers that some of them have human forms “Not completely freed from their matrix and endowed with human features” (Scarre 2010, 9; 2011). It is true that a significant number of standing stones are raw blocks that have a sheared face as well as an eroded face, suggesting (for some) themes of fertility and growth, and even anthropomorphic forms (Tilley 2004). In the Iberian Peninsula, Calado refers to large, prehistoric sanctuaries at rock outcrops. The very suggestive but natural element of the outcrops of Barreira (Sintra, Portugal) makes one think of actual standing stones (Calado 2006). Did the people of the Neolithic associate the powers and the spirits of outcrops with the strange forms that developed due to weathering?
Conclusion
These tombs, integrated into the rock, become part of the mineral world while preserving a visual discretion, a discretion which applies equally to a large number of megalithic tombs with covered passages. In spite of modern techniques, it remains difficult to penetrate the mysteries of religious thought and forms of worship of the period. Prehistoric peoples transformed rocky outcrops into highly symbolic places, for the greater part bound up with funerary practices appropriate to their times and their environment. Their practice of implanting tombs in these landscapes and appropriating these outcrops of strange shape represents their way of seeing things. It strongly suggests that the mineral world and the geology around them influenced their religious behaviour and worship. This connection to the outcrops seems to date to the Late and Final Neolithic. It distances itself from older ostentatious concepts of burial monument. Standing stones, however, embody a different dynamic. Some seem to follow earlier norms, as they are small and discreet, while others, through their imposing size and engravings similar to those in Middle Neolithic tombs, could be earlier than these mixed monuments. The discovery of an important assemblage of ceramic material in a natural cavity in a granite outcrop at Castellic in Carnac is also a remarkable phenomenon to be noted (Gaillard 1893). A larger-scale study of a greater number of monuments from this period will be necessary to advance our knowledge further.
References
Bouillon, R. 1989. La sépulture mégalithique à entrée latérale du Petit Vieux-Son à Brécé (Mayenne). Revue archéologique de l’ouest 6, pp. 51–70.
Briard, J., Langouet, L. and Onnée, Y. 2004. Les mégalithes de département d’Ille et Vilaine. Collection Patrimoine Archéologique de Bretagne, Institut Culturel de Bretagne, Institut Culturel de Bretagne: Rennes.
Calado, M. 2002. Standing stones and natural outcrop. The role of ritual monuments in the Néolithic transition of the Central Alentejo. In: Scarre, C. (ed.) Monuments and Landscapes in Atlantic Europe: perception and society during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Routledge: London, pp. 17–35.
Calado, M. 2006. Les menhirs de la Péninsule Ibérique. In: Joussaume, R., Laporte, L. and Scarre, C. (eds) Origine et développement du mégalithisme de l’ouest de la France (Bougon, 26/30 octobre 2001). Musée des tumulus de Bougon: Bougon, pp. 613–635.
Cummings, V. 2002. All cultural things: actual and conceptual monuments in the Neolithic of western Britain. In Scarre, C. (ed.), Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe: perception and society during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, Routledge: London, pp. 107–121.
De Cussé, F. 1885. Une sépulture sous roche. Bulletin de la Société Polymathique du Morbihan 1885, pp. 57–58.
Daire, M. Y. and Le Page, G. 1994. Un monument mégalithique sur Enez-Vihan en Pleumeur-Bodou (22). Bulletin de l’Association Manche-Atlantique pour la Recherche Archéologique dans les Îles 17, pp. 49–56.
Defaix, J. 2006. Mégalithes et espace : pour une approche anthropologique, In: Duhamel, P., (ed.) Impacts interculturels au Néolithique moyen. Du terroir au territoire: sociétés et espaces, Actes du 25e colloque interrégional sur le Néolithique, Dijon, 20–21 Oct. 2001. Revue Archéologique de l’Est: Dijon, pp. 185–190.
Gaillard, F. 1892. Le dolmen de la Pointe de Conguel à Quiberon. Bulletin de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 1892, IV Série, pp. 37–48.
Gaillard, F., 1893. Gisement néolithique du Castellic-en-Carnac. Bulletin de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris 1893, IV° Série, pp. 225-231.
Gouézin, P. 1987. Fouille de sauvetage d’une sépulture mégalithique, le Roh-Du (B), commune de La Chapelle Neuve (Morbihan). Rapport Scientifique, Service Régional de l’Archéologie: Rennes.
Gouézin, P. 1994. Les mégalithes du Morbihan intérieur, des Landes de Lanvaux au nord du département. Collection Patrimoine Archéologique de Bretagne, Institut Culturel de Bretagne, Laboratoire d’Anthropologie Préhistoire (UPR 403 CNRS.), Université de Rennes 1: Rennes.
Gouézin, P. 2007. Les mégalithes du Morbihan littoral. Collection Patrimoine Archéologique de Bretagne, Institut Culturel de Bretagne, Institut Culturel de Bretagne: Rennes.
Hamon, G., Lemoulan, Q., Mens, E. and Vissac, C. 2007. L’Île St. Nicolas, fouille programmée du 9 au 21 septembre 2007. Service Régional de l’Archéologie: Rennes.
Kerdivel, G. and Mens, E. 2010. Sites d’acquisition et de transformation de la dolérite en Mayenne. Rapport de prospection thématique 2010. Service Régional de l’Archéologie: Nantes.
Langouet, L. 2004. Les mégalithes de l’arrondissement de Dinan. Collection Patrimoine Archéologique de Bretagne, Institut Culturel de Bretagne, Institut Culturel de Bretagne: Rennes.
Langouet, L. 2005. Les mégalithes de l’arrondissement de Saint-Brieuc. Collection Patrimoine Archéologique de Bretagne, Institut Culturel de Bretagne: Rennes.
Langouet, L. 2006. Les mégalithes de l’arrondissement de Guingamp. Collection Patrimoine Archéologique de Bretagne, Institut Culturel de Bretagne: Rennes.
Le Goffic, M. and Peuziat, J. 2001. Le site de Guilliguy en Ploudalmézeau (Finistère), du mésolithique à l’Age du Bronze. Revue Archéologique de l’Ouest, supplément 9: Rennes, pp. 43–62.
Le Rouzic, Z. 1898. Carnac, fouilles faites dans la région en 1897 et janvier 1898. Dolmen de Mané Rohenezel commune de Crac’h. Bulletin de la Société Polymathique du Morbihan 1898, pp. 67–68.
Le Rouzic, Z. 1933. Morphologie et chronologie des sépultures préhistoriques du Morbihan. L’Anthropologie 43 pp. 225–265.
Marchat, A. and Le Brozec M. 1991. Les mégalithes de l’arrondissement de Lannion. Collection Patrimoine Archéologique de Bretagne, Institut Culturel de Bretagne: Rennes.
Péquart, M. and Péquart, St J. 1927. Dolmen de Brunec (Îles Glénans). Bulletin de la Société Archéologique du Finistère LIV, pp. 73–83.
Scarre, C. 2010. Stone people: monuments and identities in the Channel Islands. In: Furholt, M., Luth, F. and Müller, J. (eds), Megaliths and Identities, Early Monuments and Neolithic Societes from the Atlantic to the Baltic. 3rd European Megaltihic Studies Group Meeting, 15 May 2010 at Kiel Universitiy. Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung 1: Habelt: Bonn, 95-104.
Scarre, C. 2011. Landscapes of Neolithic Brittany. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Sebillot, P. 1985. Le folklore de France, Les monuments. (1st edn 1904–1906). Imago: Paris.
Sparfel, Y. and Pailler, Y. 2009. Les mégalithes de l’arrondissement de Brest. Collection Patrimoine Archéologique de Bretagne, Institut Culturel de Bretagne: Rennes.
Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape, Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford: Berg.
Tilley, C. 2004. The Materiality of Stone, Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology. Berg: Oxford & New York.