Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:41:20.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The archaeoastronomy of the megalithic monuments of Arles–Fontvieille: the equinox, the Pleiades and Orion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2011

Morgan Saletta
Morgan Saletta*
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The megalithic monuments of Arles–Fontvieille appear to have been deliberately constructed such that a ray of the setting sun on and around the equinox penetrates the subterranean chamber producing a spectacular light-and-shadow hierophany. Moreover, at one of the sites there is evidence in the form of rock art that observations were also being made of heliacal rising and settings, possibly of both the Pleiades and Orion. The equinox hierophany has been documented at three of the four intact monuments of the group. This phenomenon was probably exploited for sacred ritualistic purposes related to seasonal change and timekeeping by the agricultural people who built the monuments. This evidence has significant importance for understanding these monuments in the context of European megalithism and the wider European Neolithic as well as for understanding their cosmological role within the society that built them.

Keywords

megalithsarchaeoastronomycultural astronomyhypogéesPleiadesOrionNeolithic Francepassage gravesArles–Fontvieille
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 7 , Symposium S278: “Oxford IX” International Symposium on Archaeoastronomy , January 2011 , pp. 364 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2011

References

Aristotle 1936, Problems, Books I–XXI, transl. Hett, W. S., Heinemann, London.Google Scholar
Arnal, J. & Latour, J. 1953, Les hypogées et stations néolithique de la région d'Arles-en-Provence. Études Roussillonnaises 111, 27–69.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. J. 1989, Darkness and light in the design of megalithic tombs. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 8 (3), 251–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. J & Edmonds, M. 1993, Interpreting the Axe Trade, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Brennan, M. 1983, The Stars and the Stones, Thames & Hudson, London.Google Scholar
Cazalisde Fondouce, P. de Fondouce, P. 1873, Les Temps Préhistoriques dans le Sud-Est de la France, Allées Couvertes de la Provence, Delahaye, Paris.Google Scholar
Chevalier, Y. 1999, Orientations of 935 dolmens of southern France. Archaeoastronomy no. 24 (suppl. to Journal for the History of Astronomy 30), S47–S82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CSIRO 2006, Resolution and Sensitivity, http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/resolution_sensitivity.html (accessed Nov. 11, 2010).Google Scholar
Daniel, G. 1960, The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of France, Thames & Hudson, London.Google Scholar
da Silva, C. M. 2010, Neolithic cosmology: the equinox and the spring full moon. Journal of Cosmology 9, 2207–2216.Google Scholar
Eogan, G. 1986, Knowth and the Passage Tombs of Ireland, Thames & Hudson, London.Google Scholar
Gadré, K. 2010, Logiciel de Détermination des Dates de Coucher et de Lever Héliaques d'une Étoile 2010. Computer program, Culture Diff, Toulouse.Google Scholar
Gatton, M., Carreion, L., Cawein, M., Brock, W., & Scott, V. 2010, The camera obscura and the origin of art: the case for image projection in the Paleolithic. In Kumar, G. and Bednarik, R. (eds), Official Proceedings of the XV World Congress of the Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques (UISPP) 35, Global State of the Art–SO7, Archaeopress, Oxford.Google Scholar
Guilaine, J. 1998, Au Temps des Dolmens, Éditions Privat, Toulouse.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. H. 1981, The Camera Obscura. A Chronicle, Adam Hilger Ltd, Bristol.Google Scholar
Hoskin, M. A. 2001, Tombs, Temples and their Orientations, Ocarina Books, Bognor Regis.Google Scholar
L'Helgouac'h, J. 1983, Les idoles qu'on abat. Bulletin de la Société Polymatique du Morbihan 110, 57–68.Google Scholar
Le Roux, C-T. 1982, A propos fouilles de Gavrinis (Morbihan): Nouvelles données sur l'art megalithique armoricain. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 81, 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Roux, C-T. 1998, L'art de Gavrinis. Dossiers d'Archaeologie 229, 28–36.Google Scholar
Le Roux, C-T. 2011, Megalithes du Morbihan, Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication, http://www.culture.gouv.fr/fr/arcnat/megalithes/ (accessed 2 Jan. 2011).Google Scholar
MacKie, E. W. 1997, Maeshowe and the winter solstice: ceremonial aspects of the Orkney Grooved Ware culture. Antiquity 71, 338–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montjardin, R. 1974, Le dolmen du Méandre de Gen (Ardèche). Études Préhistoriques, 10–11, 1–15.Google Scholar
O'Kelly, M. 1982, Newgrange: Archaeology, Art, and Legend, Thames & Hudson, London.Google Scholar
Patrick, J. D. 1974, Midwinter sunrise at Newgrange. Nature 249, 517–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappenglück, M. 2008, The Pleiades and Hyades as celestial spatiotemporal markers in the astronomy of archaic and indigenous cultures. In Wolfschmidt, G. (ed.), Prähistorische Astronomie und Ethnoastronomie, Bücher von Frauen, Berlin.Google Scholar
Ruggles, C. L. N. 2005, Ancient Astronomy: an Encyclopedia of Cosmologies and Myth, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Sauzade, G. 1977. Le dolmen de Coutignardes, commune de Fontvieille (Bouche-du-Rhône). In Congrès Préhistorique de France, XXe session, Provence, 1974, Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, pp. 567–580.Google Scholar
Tilley, C. 1994, A Phenomenology of Landscape. Places, Paths and Monuments, Berg, Oxford.Google Scholar
Tringham, R. 1971, Hunters, Fishers, and Farmers of Eastern Europe: 6000–3000 BC, Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar