Orientation studies have recently received considerable attention in the archaeological domain as a source of information that may shed light on a number of anthropological issues, such as belief systems or landscape and territory understanding by past cultures. This is especially important in those cultural contexts, such as the megalithic phenomena, where there are no written sources. Megalithic monument orientations can in many instances be explained only within an astronomical context, as has been shown by extensive archaeoastronomical fieldwork surveys and by statistical approaches to the problem.'Most of the surveys so far have been concentrated on the western Mediterranean and the European Atlantic facade. However, in present day Jordan, on the plateau to the east of the Jordan River valley are some of the largest and most attractive groups of dolmens in the Levant.2 These stand comparison with the best exemplars of the West (see Figure 1). There have been a couple of preliminary attempts to analyse the orientation of these groups, but nothing systematic or conclusive has been produced so far.3This is especially troubling because specialists are now faced with the rapid destruction of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan's megalithic heritage, due to the building expansion which has converted several of the zones where the necropolises are located - and even the themselves - into gigantic quarries, so as to obtain stone for construction and urban development. Figure 2 illustrates the situation. Being partially aware of this,4 the authors planned a rescue campaign in the field in December 2011 to document the precise orientation of as many dolmens as the circumstances would permit, in a number of conspicuous and well documented necropolises.Since the nineteenth century, the British Palestine Exploration Fund has carried out archaeological surveys and expeditions on the eastern bank of the Jordan River, around the main ruins of Rabbat Ammon, the modern Amman, and in the area situated just south of Hauran, along the present Syrian border. The expeditions led by C. Irby and J. Mangles along the Jordan River,5 by C. R. Conder near Amman and in the Madaba areas,6 and by G. Schumacher in the north,7 along the Wadi Yarmuk down to Ajlun, recognized and depicted hundreds of archaeological sites with many dolmen fields between them. These monuments, called by the first English surveyors rude-stones monuments were immediately associated with the western European dolmens and inserted in a general prehistoric period. Irby and Mangles, for example, compare the Dahmiyeh dolmens with those seen in Kent, calling the megalithic structures Kitt's Cotty House.8 Conder, when he described the dolmen fields of Amman, Wadi Hesban, Al Mureighat, Mount Nebo, Wadi Jedid and other megalithic necropolises now vanished along the Dead Sea, sketched all the structures and took precise measurements of the stone slabs. Schumacher, during his travels in the Hauran and Golan regions, to the east of the Galilee Sea and along the Yarmuk river, described hundreds of dolmens in the sites of Ain Dakkar and Tsil, collecting data on the dimensions of the stone slabs and speaking with the Bedouins about the megalithic structures, called by them kubur beni IsraiV? the tombs of the Israeli children. Schumacher mentioned a lot of small fragmentary bones inside the dolmens of the Hauran region, interpreted by the Bedouins as the bones of these people, but he believed they were animal rather than human remains.In none of these early expeditions was pottery collected or attempts made to excavate the monuments, so the question of their dating remained unresolved for many years. The first systematic excavations of a dolmen field were made in the twentieth century. Because of the expansion of the modern city of Amman, the dolmen field in this area was rapidly excavated.10 The second dolmen field excavated was the necropolis of Adamiyeh, to the northwest of Madaba, located close to the important Late Chalcolithic site of Tuleilat al Ghassul. …