Bringing social process into lithic studies. Implementing the chaîne opératoire concept into the analysis of Neolithic stone material
Kata Szilágyi
Institute of Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, (CAU), Kiel, D-24098 Germany; E-mail: kata.szilagyi@ufg.uni-kiel.de, ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3944-9951
Cite as: Szilágyi, K. (2023). Bringing social process into lithic studies. Implementing the chaîne opératoire concept into the analysis of Neolithic stone material. In A. Király (Ed.), From tea leaves to leaf-shaped tools. Studies in honour of Zsolt Mester on his sixtieth birthday (pp. 313–334). Lithic Research Roundtable & Institute of Archaeological Sciences, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary. https://doi.org/10.23898/litikumsi02a15
Abstract: Lithic technological analysis, experimental studies, and ethnoarchaeology, together with cultural and social anthropological approaches all provide excellent tools for the interpretation of knapped stone artefacts – not only from the Palaeolithic era but the Neolithic as well. The fundamental concept of chaîne opératoire was developed by French scholars studying Palaeolithic materials, providing a consistent framework for the recognition of the technological system of a community. This approach can take into account not only the technological knowledge, skills and abilities of the individual but also the traditions of the community and the surrounding environment that influence the qualities of the community (potential knappable raw materials, characteristic toolkits, etc.). By contrast, the conventional archaeological approach to lithics too often narrowly focuses on the spatial distribution of raw materials, and the occurrence of specialised tools, to reconstruct, for example, the communication networks between communities. However, the technological approach can explore a broader range of activities in more detail – stone tool production, usage and deposition. Observed technological traits of lithic implements enable us to recognise these activities at different levels on spatial and social scales. Thus, we can identify technical choices and gestures, as well as recurring activities, i.e. practices, even with a ritual character, inside and outside the settlements, within the scopes of individuals, households or an entire community. This paper presents a Late Neolithic case study on how the technological approach facilitates the study of stone tool production on different levels, scales, their use and their deposition, and integrates them into the Neolithic narrative.
Keywords: Technological approach, Stone tool production, The tradition of “the French technological school”, Neolithic, Scale
Neither this article nor the doctoral dissertation would have been possible without Zsolt Mester. Dear Zsolt, thank you for the many discussions, which have given me countless new perspectives. Most of all, it has been the collaborative thinking, the unbroken trust and the endless patience you have an undying supply. My thanks to the editors of this volume for the kind invitation and the opportunity to publish, and for the organisation of the idea of a joint “technology roundtable”, which is both a salute and a celebration of Zsolt. I am indebted to Prof. Pál Raczky and Dr. Gabriella Vörös for their valuable comments and thoughts that helped me polish the original Hungarian text to the final form.
Data availability statement: The data that support the findings of this study are open access, and available in the ELTE EDIT repository at http://hdl.handle.net/10831/46276
Disclosure statement: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Funding statement: The author received no financial support for the publication of this article. The writing of the original Hungarian article was supported by the National Talent Programme “Social traces of cultural globalisation in the Neolithic period of the Carpathian Basin (7th–5th millennium BC)”, funded by the Ministry of Human Resources.
Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike International Public License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). You are free to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and transform the material, under the following terms: You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
Literature cited
Allison, P. (Ed.). (1999). The Archaeology of Household Activities. Routledge.
Ames, K. A. (2006). Thinking about Household Archaeology on the Northwest Coast. In E. A. Sobel, D. A. Trieu Gahr, & K. A. Ames (Eds.), Household Archaeology on the Northwest Coast (pp. 16–36). Berghahn Books. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv8bt3gt.6
Anschuetz, K. F., Wilshusen, R. H., & Scheick, C. L. (2001). An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions. Journal of Archaeological Research, 9, 157–211. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016621326415
Audouze, F., & Karlin, C. (2017). La chaîne opératoire a 70 ans : qu’en ont fait les préhistoriens français. Journal of Lithic Studies, 4(2), 5–73. https://doi.org/10.2218/jls.v4i2.2539
Bácskay, E. (1989). A lengyeli kultúra néhány DK-dunántúli lelőhelyének pattintott kőeszközei. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 41, 5–21.
Bácskay E. (1990). A lengyeli kultúra pattintott kőeszközei a DK-Dunántúlon II. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 42, 59–66.
Bánesz, L. (1991). Neolitická dielňa na výrobu obsidiánovej industrie v Kašove. Východoslovenský Pravek, 3, 39–68.
Bánffy, E., Osztás, A., Oross, K., Zalai-Gaál, I., Marton,T., Nyerges, É. Á., Köhler, K., Bayliss, A., Hamilton, D., & Whittle, A. (2016). The Alsónyék story: towards the history of a persistent place. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission, 94, 283–318.
Bánffy, E. (2019). First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin: Changing Patterns in Subsistence, Ritual and Monumental Figurines. Oxbow Books.
Bartosiewicz, L. (2006). Régenvolt háziállatok. Bevezetés a régészeti állattanba. L’Harmattan Kiadó.
Bell, C. (2009). Ritual theory, ritual practice. Oxford University Press.
Bender, D. R. (1967). A Refinement of the Concept of Household: Families, Co-residence, and Domestic Functions1. American Anthropologist, 69(5), 493–504. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1967.69.5.02a00050
Biagi, P., & Starnini, E. (2013). Pre-Balkan Platform Flint in the Early Neolithic Sites of the Carpathian Basin: Its Occurrence and Signifcance. In A. Anders, G. Kulcsár, G. Kalla, V. Kiss, & G. V. Szabó (Eds.), Moment in Time. Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on His 60th Birthday (pp. 47–60). L’Harmattan.
Bickle, P. (2020). The structure of chaos: decay and deposition in the Early Neolithic. In D. Hofmann (Ed.), Magical, mundane or marginal? Deposition practices in the Early Neolithic Linearbandkeramik culture (pp. 181–204). Sidestone Press.
Biró, T. K. (1989). A lengyeli kultúra dél-dunántúli kőeszköz-leletanyagainak nyersanyagáról I. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 41, 22–31.
Biró, T. K. (1990). A lengyeli kultúra dél-dunántúli kőeszköz-leletanyagainak nyersanyagáról II. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 42, 66–76.
Biró, T. K. (1998). Lithic implements and the circulation of the raw materials in the Great Hungarian Plain during the Late Neolithic Period. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.
Biró, T. K. (2009). Egy sváb menyecske hozománya. Gondolatok a szegvár-tűzkövesi kőeszköz raktárlelet kapcsán. In L. Bende, & G. Lőrinczy (Eds.), Medinától Etéig. Régészeti tanulmányok Csalog József születésének 100. évfordulójára (pp. 103–115). Móra Ferenc Múzeum.
Blanton, R. E. (1994). Houses and Households: A comparative Study. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0990-9
Csengeri, P. (2013). Az alföldi vonaldíszes kerámia kultúrájának késői csoportjai Északkelet-Magyarországon. (Az újabb kutatások eredményei Borsod–Abaúj–Zemplén megyében) [PhD Thesis]. Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem.
Csippán, P. (2012). Őskori települések kulturális ökológiai és zooarchaeológiai vizsgálata [PhD Thesis]. Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem.
Csippán, P. (2013). Az állatcsont, mint információhordozó leletanyag. Dissertationes Archeologicae, 3(1), 53–84. https://doi.org/10.17204/dissarch.2013.53
Delage, C. (2017). Once upon a time…the (hi)story of the concept of the chaîne opératoire in French prehistory. World Archaeology, 49(2), 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2017.1300104
Devlin, Z. L., & Graham, E.-J. (2015). Death embodied: Archaeological approaches to the treatment of the corpse. Oxbow Books.
Domboróczki, L. (2009). Settlement structures of the Alföld Linear Pottery Culture (ALPC) in Heves County (north-eastern Hungary): Development models and historical reconstructions on Micro, meso and macro levels. In J. K. Kozlowski (Ed.), Interactions Between Different Models of Neolithization North of the Central European Agro-Ecological Barrier (pp. 75–127). Polska Akademia Umiejętności.
Draşovean, F., & Schier, W. (2010). The Neolithic tell sites of Parţa and Uivar (Romanian Banat): A comparison of their architectural sequence and organisation of social space. In S. Hansen (Ed.), Leben auf dem Tell als soziale Praxis: Beiträge des Internationalen Symposiums in Berlin vom 26.-27. Februar 2007 (pp. 165–187). Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH.
Faragó, N. (2016). Households, Activity Zones in the Post-LBK World. Results of the Raw Material Analysis of the Chipped Stone Tools at Polgár-Csőszhalom, Northeast Hungary. Open Archaeology, 2, 346–367. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0024
Foster, C. P., & Parker, B. J. (2012). Introduction: Household Archaeology in the Near East and Beyond. In C. P. Foster & B. J. Parker (Eds.), New Perspectives on Household Archaeology (pp. 1–12). Eisenbrauns.
Füzesi, A. (2019). A késő neolitikus edények megformálásának technikai jellegzetességei – Öcsöd-Kováshalom leletegyüttese alapján. In M. Vicze & G. Kovács (Eds.), MΩMOΣ X. Őskoros Kutatók X. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete. Őskori technikák, őskori technológiák. Százhalombatta, 2017. április 6-8 (pp. 84–109). Matrica Múzeum.
Gamble, C. (2001). The Peopling of Europe, 700,000-40,000 Years before the Present. In B. Cunliffe (Ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of Prehistoric Europe (pp. 5–41). Oxford University Press.
Gomart, L., Anders, A., Kreiter, A., Marton, T., Oross, K., & Raczky, P. (2020). Innovation or inheritance? Assessing the social mechanisms underlying ceramic technological change in early Neolithic pottery assemblages in Central Europe. In M. Spataro & M. Furholt (Eds.), Detecting and explaining technological innovation in prehistory (pp. 49–71). Sidestone Press.
Hodder, I. (1991). Reading the Past. Current approaches to interpretation in archaeology (2nd editin) Cambridge University Press.
Hodder, I. (1992). Theory and Practice in Archaeology. Routledge.
Hodder, I. (2013). Introduction: Contemporary Theoretical Debate in Archaeology. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Archaeological Theory Today (pp. 1–14). Polity Press.
Hodder, I. (2016). Studies in Human-Things Entanglement. Published by the Author.
Hodder, I., & Hutson, S. (2003). Reading the Past. Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814211
Holló, Zs., Lengyel Gy., & Mester Zs. (2001). Egy pattintott kőeszköz életútja. Magyar kifejezések a technológiai vizsgálatokhoz 1. Ősrégészeti Levelek, 3, 51–57.
Holló, Zs., Lengyel Gy., & Mester Zs. (2002). Egy pattintott kőeszköz elkészítése: rendszer és technika. Magyar kifejezések a technológiai vizsgálatokhoz 2. Ősrégészeti Levelek, 4, 98–104.
Holló, Zs., Lengyel, Gy., Mester, Zs., & Szolyák, P (2004). Egy pattintott kőeszköz vizsgálata. Magyar kifejezések a technológiai vizsgálatokhoz 3. Ősrégészeti Levelek, 6, 62–80.
Inizan, M., Reduron-Ballinger, M., Roche, H., & Tixier, J. (1999). Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone. Cercle de Recherches et d’Etudes Prehistoire.
Király, A., Faragó, N., & Mester, Zs. (2020). Hasznos rítusok és haszontalan technikák. A rituális cselekvés régészeti azonosításának néhány elméleti kérdése egy pattintott kő leletegyüttes kapcsán (Useful Rites and Unfit Techniques. Thoughts about archaeological perception of ritual). In P. Csengeri, A. Kalli, Á. Király, & J. Koós J. (Eds.), MΩMOΣ IX A rituálé régészete. Őskoros Kutatók IX. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete Miskolc, 2015. október 14–16. The Archaeology of Ritual Proceedings of the IXth conference of researchers of prehistory 14–16 October 2015, Miskolc (pp. 9–42). Eötvös Loránd University, Institute of Archaeological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.17204/dissarch.suppl3.9
Le Brun-Ricalens, F., & Potin, Y. (2018). In Memoriam Jacques Tixier (1925–2018). Litikum – Journal of the Lithic Research Roundtable, 6, 5–12. https://doi.org/10.23898/litikuma0021
Lenneis, E. (2013). Reconstruction of domestic units from distribution analysis and study of finds density in pit fills. In C. Hamon & P. Allard (Eds.), The Domestic space in LBK Settlements. Internationale Archäologie. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Symposium Tagung Kongress (pp. 43–50). Verlag Marie Leidorf.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1964). Le Geste et la Parole, tome 1: Technique et Langage. Albin Michel.
Lucas, G. (2015). Archaeology and contemporaneity. Archaeological Dialogues, 22(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203815000021
Lüning, J. (2005). Bandkeramische Hofplätze und die absolute Chronologie der Bandkeramik. In J. Lüning, C. Frirdich, & A. Zimmermann (Eds.), Die Bandkeramik im 21. Jahrhundert. Symposium in der Abtei Brauweiler bei Köln vom 16.9.-19.9.2002. Internationale Archäologie. Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Symposium, Tagung, Kongress (pp. 49–74). Verlag Marie Leidorf.
Manolakakis, L. (2008). Open-cast flint mining, long blade production and long distance exchange: an example from Bulgaria. In P. Allard, F. Bostyn, F. Giligny, & J. Lech (Eds.), Flint mining in the Prehistoric Europe: Interpreting the archaeological records (pp. 111–126). Archaeopress.
Marton, T., Kreiter, A., Füzesi, A., Gomart, L., Gortva, G., Gucsi, L., Oross, K., Pető, Á., Serlegi, G., M. Virág, Zs., & Jakucs, J. (2020). Transforming traditions of material culture. Spatial and temporal patterns in pottery style, production and use during the second half of the 6th millennium cal BC in Southeastern Transdanubia and beyond. Hungarian Archaeology, 9(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.36338/ha.2020.1.3
Mateiciucová, I. (2008). Talking Stones: The Chipped Stone Industry in Lower Austria and Moravia and the Beginnings of the Neolithic in Central Europe (LBK), 5700-4900 BC. Mazarykova univerzita.
Mellars, P. (2001). The Upper Paleolithic Revolution. In B. Cunliffe (Ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of Prehistoric Europe (pp. 42–78). Oxford University Press
Meskell, L., & Preucel, R. W. (2004). A Companion to Social Archaeology. Blackwell.
Mester, Zs., & Tixier, J. (2013). Pot à lames: The Neolithic Blade Depot from Boldogkőváralja (Northeast Hungary). In A. Anders, G. Kulcsár, G. Kalla, V. Kiss, & G. V. Szabó (Eds.), Moments in Time. Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on His 60th Birthday (pp. 173–186). L’Harmattan.
Mithen, S. J. (2001). The Mesolithic Age. In B. Cunliffe (Ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of Prehistoric Europe (pp. 79–135). Oxford University Press.
Müller, J. (2018). The Disentanglement of Landscapes. Remarks on Concepts of Socio-Environmenthal Research and Landscape Archaeology. In A. Haug, L. Käppel, & J. Müller (Eds.), Past Landscapes. The Dynamics of Interaction between Society, Landscape and Culture (pp. 39–52). Sidestone Press.
Müller, J., Hofmann, R., Müller-Scheeßel, N., & Rassmann, K. (2011). Zur sozialen Organisation einer spatneolithischen Gesellschaft in Sudosteuropa (5200–4400 v. Chr). In S. Hansen, & J. Müller (Eds.), Sozialarchaologische Perspektiven: Gesellschaftlicher Wandel 5000–1500 v. Chr. zwischen Atlantik und Kaukasus (pp. 81–106). Philipp Von Zabern Verlag Gmbh
Müller, J., Rassmann, K., & Hofmann, R. (Eds.) (2013). Untersuchungen einer spätneolithischen Siedlungskammer in Zentralbosnien. Habelt Verlag.
Müller-Scheeßel, N., Müller, J., & Hofmann, R. (2010). Entwicklung und Struktur des spätneolithischen Tells von Okolište (Bosnien-Herzegowina) unter architektursoziologischen Gesichtspunkten. In P. Trebsche, N. Müller-Scheeßel, & S. Reinhold (Eds.), Der gebaute Raum: Bausteine einer Architektursoziologie vormoderner Gesellschaften (pp. 171–192). Waxmann Verlag.
Odell, G. H. (2006). Lithic Analysis. University of Tulsa.
Parker, B. J., & Forster, C. P. (2012). New Perspectives on Household Archaeology. Eisenbrauns.
Preucel, R. W., & Mrozowki, S. A. (2010). Contemporary Archaeology in Theory. The New Pragmatism. Blackwell.
Raczky, P., & Anders, A (2006). Social dimensions of the Late Neolithic settlement of Polgár-Csőszhalom (Eastern Hungary). Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 57, 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1556/AArch.57.2006.1-3.3
Renfrew, C. (1973). Before Civilisation. The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. Jonathan Cape Ltd.
Renfrew, C. (1994). Towards a cognitive archaeology. In C. Renfrew & E. B. W. Zubrow (Eds.), The ancient mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology (pp. 3–12). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511598388.002
Renfrew, C., & Bahn, P. (1996). Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice (2nd edition). Thames & Hudson.
Rosenstock, E. (2009). Tells in Südwestasien und Südosteuropa. Greiner.
Roux, V. (2016). Ceramic manufacture: the chaîne opératoire approach. In A. M. W. Hunt (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Ceramic Analysis (pp. 2–17). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199681532.013.1
Rück, O. (2007). Neue Aspekte und Modelle in der Siedlungsforschung zur Bandkeramik. Leidorf.
Saville, A. (2008). Flint Extraction and Processing from secondary flint deposits in the North-East of Scotland in the Neolithic period. In P. Allard, F. Bostyn, F. Giligny, & J. Lech (Eds.), Flint mining in the Prehistoric Europe: Interpreting the archaeological records (pp. 1–13). Archaeopress.
Sellet, F. (1993). Chaîne Opératoire; the concept and its applications. Lithic Technology, 18(1–2), 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.1993.11720900
Shennan, S. (2009). Pattern and Process in Cultural Evolution. University of California Press.
Short, T. L. (2007). Peirce’s Theory of Signs. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498350
Shott, M. (2003). Chaîne Opératoire and Reduction Sequence. Lithic Technology, 28(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2003.11721005
Soressi, M., & Geneste, J.-M. (2011). Special Issue: Reduction Sequence, Chaîne Opératoire, and Other Methods: The Epistemologies of Different Approaches to Lithic Analysis. The History and Efficacy of the Chaîne Opératoire Approach to Lithic Analysis: Studying Techniques to Reveal Past Societies in an Evolutionary Perspective. PaleoAnthropology, 2011, 334–350.
Siklósi Zs., & Szilágyi M. (2016). Módszertani, interpretációs kérdések az alföldi rézkor radiokarbon keltezése kapcsán. TISICUM A Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve, 25, 65–72.
Souvatzi, S. G. (2008). A Social Archaeology of Households in Neolithic Greece. An Anthropological Approach. Cambridge University Press.
Spataro, M. (2018). Origins of Specialization: The Ceramic Chaîne Opératoire and Technological Take-Off at Vinča-Belo Brdo, Serbia. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 37(3), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/ojoa.12140
Spataro, M., & Furholt, M. (2020). Detecting and explaining technological innovation in prehistory – an introduction. In M. Spataro & M. Furholt (Eds.), Detecting and explaining technological innovation in prehistory (pp. 1–11). Sidestone Press. https://doi.org/10.59641/i1801lu
Starnini, E., Szakmány, Gy., Józsa, S., Kasztovszky, Zs., Szilágyi, V., Maróti, B., Voytek, B., & Horváth, F. (2015). Lithics from the tell site Hódmezővasarhely-Gorzsa (Southeast Hungary): Typology, technology, use and raw material strategies during the Late Neolithic (Tisza culture). In S. Hansen, P. Raczky, & A. Anders (Eds.), Neolithic and Copper Age between the Carpathians and the Aegean Sea. Chronologies and Technologies from the 6th to the 4th Millenium BCE. International Workshop Budapest 2012 (pp. 105–128). Habelt-Verlag.
Szilágyi, K. (2018a). A Field survey of knappable raw materials in the Eastern Mecsek area. Hungarian Archaeology, 2018(2), 1–9.
Szilágyi, K. (2018b). Lithic Raw Material Procurement in the Late Neolithic Southern-Transdanubian Region: A Case Study from the Site of Alsónyék-Bátaszék. Archaeologia Polona, 56, (pp. 123–136). https://doi.org/10.23858/APa56.2018.009
Szilágyi, K. (2018c). IX. Kőkor Kerekasztal Konferencia. 2018. december 7. Szeged, Szegedi Akadémiai Bizottság Székháza. Program és absztraktkötet. Móra Ferenc Múzeum, Szegedi Tudományegyetem.
Szilágyi, K. (2019). A késő neolitikus lengyeli kultúra délkelet-dunántúli csoportjának pattintott kőeszközkészítő tevékenysége [PhD Thesis]. Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem. http://hdl.handle.net/10831/46276.
Szilágyi, K. (2020). Die Silexproduktion im Kontext der Südosttransdanubischen Gruppe der spätneolithischen Lengyel-Kultur. Dissertationes Archaeologicae Ser. 4, 7, 281–299. https://doi.org/10.17204/dissarch.2019.281
Szilágyi, K. (in press a). Leaving no stone unturned. The production and use of chipped stone artefacts among the Late Neolithic Lengyel communities of southern Transdanubia during the fifth millennium BC. [Römisch-Germanische Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Frankfurt am Main (2023)]
Szilágyi, K. (in press b). Perversion of the Pareto Principle: Using bottom-up approach to study the burial practices in the Late Neolithic Carpathian Basin. In C. Heitz, M. Wunderlich, & M. Furholt (Eds.), Questioning Neolithic Societies: Alternative Approaches to Social Relations, Political Organization and Cohabition.
Tixier, J. (2012). A method for the study of stone tools. In J. Tixier (Ed.), Méthode Pour L’Étude des Outillages Lithiques. Centre National de Recherche Archéologique du Luxembourg.
Tóth, Zs. (2014). Csont- és agancseszközök komplex vizsgálata a késő-neolitikus Aszód – Papi földek lelőhelyén [PhD Thesis]. Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem.
Vandkilde, H. (2007). Culture and change in Central European prehistory: 6th to 1st millennium BC. Aarhus University Press.
Vieugue, J. (2014). Use-wear analysis of prehistoric pottery: Methodological contributions from the study of the earliest ceramic vessels in Bulgaria (6100–5500 BC). Journal of Archaeological Science, 41, 622–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.09.004
Vukovic, J. (2010). Neolithic Fine Pottery: Properties, Performance and Function. Journal of the Serbian Archaeological Society, 26, 7–23.
Whittle, A. (1996). Europe in the Neolithic. The Creation of New Worlds. Cambridge University Press.
Whittle, A. (2001). The First Farmers. In B. Cunliffe (Ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of Prehistoric Europe (pp. 136–166). Oxford University Press.
Whittle, A., Anders, A., Bentley, R. A., Bickle, P., Cramp, L., Domboróczki, L., Fibiger, L., Hamilton, J., Hedges, R., Kalicz, N., Kovács, Zs. E., Marton, T., Oross, K., Pap, I., & Raczky, P. (2013). Hungary. In P. Bickle, & A. Whittle (Eds.), The first farmers of Central Europe. Diversity in LBK lifeways (pp. 49–100). Oxbow Books.
Wilk, R. R & Rathje, W. L. (1982). Household Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist, 25(6), 617–639. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276482025006003
Zalai-Gaál, I. (2010). Die Soziale Differenzierung im Spätneolithikum Südtransdanubiens. Die Funde und Befunde aus dem Altgrabungen der Lengyel-Kultur. Archaeolingua.
