ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses the assumptions of megalithism on which such models are based. It argues that just as Daniel described dolmen as a catch-all term in Europe in 1958, so too have these early accounts used the term in its broadest sense to classify those dolmens that lie outside the T-zone of the southern Levant. By reviewing in turn each dolmen or dolmen field identified in Israel/Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, the Euphrates Basin and the Hatay, it is argued that there is no evidence to substantiate a regional dolmen phenomenon. It is hardly surprising that most dolmens in Israel/Palestine were found in and around Jerusalem, given the particular interest the city held for antiquarian study. While the identification of dolmens in Israel/Palestine rests on inferences drawn from vague, antiquarian accounts, depictions of dolmens in Syria and Lebanon are founded on sound archaeological reports.
