The Arles-Fontvieille Megalithic Monuments: Astronomy and Cosmology in the European Neolithic Morgan Sterling Saletta Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy July 2014 The School of Historical and Philosophical Studies History and Philosophy of Science The University of Melbourne i Abstract This thesis is an archaeoastronomical study of a group of megalithic sites in the south of France, the Arles/Fontvieille monuments, as well as a historiographical and epistemological study of the context of these sites within megalithic studies more generally. The Arles-Fontvieille monuments were deliberately aligned to the setting sun so as to be illuminated at important times of the year for cosmological and seasonal, ritual purposes. I have documented this seasonal illumination at three of the 4 intact sites and used 3D modelling to demonstrate the illumination in the fourth monument, the Grotte de Cordes. My archaeoastronomical research and interpretation of these monuments intervenes in debates concerning Neolithic and late prehistoric astronomy, cosmology and the origin, diffusion and evolution of megalithic monuments in Europe. Firstly, the similarity between the illumination at the Arles-Fontvieille monuments and the well-known illumination of monuments such as Maeshowe in Scotland and Newgrange in Ireland converges with a growing body of archaeological evidence suggesting that cosmological principles and practices, including those related to megalithic architecture such as passage graves, diffused in Western Europe by way of long distance contact and exchange networks, during the late 4th and early 3rd millennia BC, a period which saw the florescence of major monumental centers in Atlantic Europe as well as at Arles-Fontvieille. Secondly, there is a growing amount of archaeological evidence suggesting that megalithic monuments were conceived of as ‘houses of the dead’ and were symbolically and cosmologically related to the houses of the living, a connection that is also strongly supported by ethnographic analogy. Building on this, I argue that the solar orientation of megalithic monuments in late prehistoric Europe- which is strongly suggested by statistical surveys- had its origin in the functional orientation practices, cosmological symbolism and lived experience of domestic architecture. Thirdly, the discovery of previously unknown seasonal illumination events in a major group of monuments suggests that illumination may have been a predominant factor in the orientation of many more, perhaps even the majority, of chambered megalithic monuments. I argue that archaeoastronomers need to think more like architects and anthropologists in their interpretation of the relationship between monumental orientation, astronomy and cosmology. For many megalithic monuments, seasonal illumination for cosmologically symbolic and ceremonial purposes offers a much stronger interpretive framework than the paradigmatic assumption that chambered megalithic monuments are targeting the position of a celestial body on or near the horizon. Solar illumination, and/or the creation of zones of light and shadow within monuments, was cosmologically symbolic and exploited for cyclical ceremonial practices linked to the social dynamics, temporal rhythms and beliefs about life, death and ancestry of the people that built and used them. ii Declaration This is to certify that i) the thesis comprises only my original work towards the degree of Doctor of Philosophy except where indicated in the Preface, ii) due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used, iii) the thesis is fewer than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies and appendices. Signed: iii Acknowledgements Firstly I would like to acknowledge and express my deep gratitude to Jacques Chalom Des Cordes and his family for the warm cooperation and spirit of friendship they have extended to me over the years. Without their cooperation I would long ago have given the project up and I am especially grateful for the moments Jacques has spent sharing his time and philosophy with me. Those are moments that will be remembered a lifetime. I would also like to thank my partner Katherine for her patience, good nature and unconditional support throughout a long process during which she also gave birth to our two children. My parents, extended family and friends have also been the source of much needed support and encouragement throughout the process. Special thanks goes to my supervisor Gerhard Wiesenfeldt; had it not been for our chance encounter at the library I would never have begun this project and his steadfast, quiet encouragement have been invaluable. Monica Minnegal and Keith Hutchison have also provided much needed and very welcome feedback as well as encouragement. Jeff Lawson’s practical expertise and assistance with all things electronic was invaluable in the construction of the time-lapse photography rig I used in my field research. I would also like to thank Xavier Margarit for his invitation to participate in the projet collectif de recherche regarding the Arles-Fontvieille megalithic monuments and for sharing his invaluable research into the monuments with me. Lastly, I would like to dedicate this work to my two children: Aurelien and Arya. iv Table of Contents Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... i Declaration ................................................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. iii 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Issues of Terminology ................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Structure of the Thesis................................................................................................. 4 Part I: The Arles-Fontvieille Megalithic Monuments 2 The Architecture, Orientation and Illumination of the Arles-Fontvieille Monuments ...... 7 2.1 Archaeoastronomy and the Arles-Fontvieille Monuments ....................................... 13 2.2 Concluding Remarks 24 Part II: The Arles-Fontvieille Monuments in Historiographical and Epistemological Context 3 Archaeoastronomy: an introduction ................................................................................. 27 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 27 3.2 The Birth of Modern Cultural and Archaeoastronomy ............................................. 27 3.3 Proto-Archaeoastronomy in the 19th and 20th century ............................................ 29 3.4 The Modern Discipline of Archaeoastronomy .......................................................... 36 3.5 The Interdisciplinary Context of Archaeoastronomy ................................................ 43 3.5.1 Contributions from the History of Science ........................................................ 44 v 3.5.2 The Contributions of Anthropology and Ethnology to Archaeoastronomy....... 46 3.6 Archaeoastronomy and Archaeology-toward a modern consensus .......................... 50 3.7 World Heritage and Archaeoastronomy .................................................................... 52 3.8 Concluding Remarks ................................................................................................. 54 4 Megaliths and the Grotte de Cordes in folklore, mythology, religion and the antiquarian imagination .............................................................................................................................. 57 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 57 4.2 Folklore, Mythology and Christianity ....................................................................... 58 4.3 Folklore, Temporality and Astronomy ...................................................................... 65 4.4 Antiquarians and Megaliths ...................................................................................... 72 4.5 'Celtomania' and the Druidic Connection .................................................................. 73 4.5.1 ‘Celtomania’ in France ...................................................................................... 76 4.6 Antiquarians and astronomy...................................................................................... 80 4.7 Mérimée and the Grotte de Cordes: Early Antiquarian and Archaeological Reflections on the Grotte de Cordes and surrounding monuments ..................................... 84 4.8 Concluding Remarks ................................................................................................. 90 5 Megalithic Studies and the Arles-Fontvieille monuments: mid-19th century to early 20th century...................................................................................................................................... 92 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 92 5.2 The Birth of Prehistory and Archaeology ................................................................