Orientations of Dolmens of West-Central France

Chevalier Yves , “Orientations of 935 dolmens of southern France”, Archaeoastronomy, no. 24 (1999), S47–82.

Gérard Sauzade , “Orientations of the Provençal dolmens”, Archaeoastronomy, no. 25 (2000), S1–10.

Richard Lund , “Orientations of dolmens north of the eastern Pyrenees”, Archaeoastronomy, no. 27 (2002), S21–28.

Michael Hoskin , Tombs, temples and their orientations: A new perspective on Mediterranean prehistory (Bognor Regis, 2001), chaps. 9 and 10.

Michael Hoskin , “Studies in Iberian archaeoastronomy: (9) An overview”, Archaeoastronomy, no. 27 (2002), S75–82.

Chevalier , op. cit. (ref. 1), S72–75.

Ibid., S70–72.

Roger Joussaume , “Le mégalithisme du Centre-Ouest de la France”, in Mégalithismes de l'Atlantique á l' Ethiopie, ed. by Jean Guilaine (Paris, 1999), 59–74.

Indre-Et-Loire ( Cordier G. , 1963); Maine-et-Loire ( Gruet M. , 1967); Loir-et-Cher ( Despriée J. Leymarios C. , 1974); and Deux-Sèvres ( Germond G. , 1980).

Pautreau J-P. Mataro y Pla de la Sela M. , Inventaire des mégalithes du département de la Vienne (Chauvigny, 1996).

Chevalier Yves , Les monuments mégalithiques d 'Eure-et-Loire and le contexte mégalithique regional (Paris, 1971). We are grateful to Guy Boistel of Nantes for obtaining sight of this rare work and examining it for us.

A further problem is that the tomb is unnamed and the commune in which it lies may not be evident.

La France des dolmens et des sépultures collectives, ed. by Philippe Soulier (Paris, 1998), 283.

Ibid., 257.

Hoskin , Tombs, temples and their orientations (ref. 4), chap. 10; Hoskin Palomo i Pérez T. , Studies in Iberian archaeoastronomy: (4) The orientations of megalithic tombs of eastern Catalunya”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxix (1998), 63–79.

Jacques Briard , Les mégalithes de l'Europe Atlantique (Paris, 1995), 64–65.

See ref. 7.

Claude Masset , Les dolmens, 2nd edn (Paris, 1997), 64.

Briard , op. cit. (ref. 16), 66.

Soulier (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 13), 265; Monnier J. L. , La préhistoire de Bretagne et d'Armorique (Paris, 1991), 100.

Cf. the numerous “Angevin tombs” in Burnez C. , Le néolithique et le chalcolithique dans le Centre-Ouest de la France (Paris, 1976).

There is a general tendency nowadays to restrict the use of the term ‘Angevin’ to monuments that are clearly of the type special to the region. Thus the writer in La France des dolmens (ref. 13) says: “Les premiéres interventions faites sur un monument du groupe de Montpalais (Taizé) ont montré toutes les réserves qui s'impose vis-à-vis de l'attribution systématique de nombreux monuments poitevins au type angevin” (p. 285).

Ibid., 259.

The great dolmen at Bagneux is in the grounds of a cafe and is today used for social events.

Soulier (ed.), La France des dolmens (ref. 13), 260.

Monnier (op. cit. (ref. 20), 100) puts them in the period 3000–2500.

Soulier (ed.), La France des dolmens (ref. 13), 72.

For a map showing the location of these outliers, see Fig. 95 of the Maine-et-Loire supplement to Gallia préhistoire (ref. 9).

Briard , op. cit. (ref. 16), 65; Barry Cunliffe , Facing the ocean (Oxford, 2001), 220.

Until the middle of the last century, archaeologists did not distinguish between allées couvertes and Angevin dolmens, although the resemblance is superficial: The typical allée has a relatively narrow and undivided chamber without porch, its backstone does not extend far beyond the sides, and it is less monumental in scale. In accepting two tombs, both in poor condition, as allées, we follow the opinion of archaeologists. Indeed Quincampoix at St-Avit-Les-Guespières in Eure-et-Loire is expressly seen as “perhaps the most easterly of the Breton allées couvertes” — Unless, the author adds, it is a debased Angevin ( Soulier (ed.), La France des dolmens (ref. 13), 70).

Thus the beautiful allée couverte of La Contrie, Ernée in Mayenne has azimuth 35°.