Construction period Néolithique (≈ 4100 av. J.-C.)
Presumed erection of the menhir, with no specific date.
XIXe siècle (vers 1850)
Drawing by Amédée Piette
Drawing by Amédée Piette XIXe siècle (vers 1850) (≈ 1865)
First known representation, idealized of menhir.
1889
Historical monument classification
Historical monument classification 1889 (≈ 1889)
Official protection of the remaining fragment.
Aujourd'hui
Aujourd'hui
Aujourd'hui Aujourd'hui (≈ 2025)
Position de référence.
Heritage classified
Menhir dit La Haute-Bonde (cad. C 1387): ranking by list of 1889
Key figures
Amédée Piette - Local historian and draftsman
Documented the menhir under the name "Haute-Borne".
Origin and history
The Menhir de la Haute-Bonde, located in La Bouteille in the department of Aisne (Hauts-de-France), is a vestige of the Neolithic period. Today, there is only one visible fragment on the edge of the 963 route. This rectangular monolith, about 2 meters long, was designed in the mid-19th century by local historian Amédée Piette (1808-1883). The latter had initially named "La Haute-Borne", a title subsequently corrected in "La Haute-Bonde". Like others of his representations, this drawing is probably idealized, reflecting a romantic or reconstructed vision rather than a faithful reproduction.
The menhir was classified as historic monuments in 1889, recognizing its heritage value. Its current location near RD 963 (57 Rue de Vervins) and fragmentary state point to the tenuous but persistent traces of megalithic cultures in this region. Menhirs, erected during the Neolithic period, often marked symbolic, funeral or territorial places, although their exact function for this specimen remains uncertain in the absence of detailed archaeological excavations mentioned in the sources.
Amédée Piette, local historian, played a key role in the documentation of this monument. His design, although idealized, remains one of the few ancient representations available. Piette has also worked on other regional sites, such as Foigny Abbey, whose graphic restitutions he has proposed. This work, although sometimes scientifically critical, offers a valuable insight into the perceptions of heritage in the 19th century, at a time when archaeology was still beginning as a rigorous discipline.