Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:29:47.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pit-digging and Structured Deposition in the Neolithic and Copper Age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

John Chapman
John Chapman
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, the author identifies the concentration principle for the accumulation of large quantities of objects in the settlements of the Balkan Neolithic and Copper Age and suggests reasons for this principle. One of the chief examples of this principle is the structured deposition of objects in pits. After the characterisation of the location of such pits – whether under houses or in the open air, there is a discussion of the forms of deposits in pits – including human bone deposits, burnt deposits and unusual combinations of rare and quotidian objects, as related to different manifestations of the life-cycle of the pits. The structure of the deposits is investigated in the light of their immense variability. Rather than attempting to ‘explain’ all the cited examples in a global, structuralist manner, the pits and their contents are interpreted in terms of local strategies of categorisation of everyday and exotic materials used in social practices. This does not exclude broader forms of prehistoric rationality, which appear to endure over a long period of time and in many different regions. These findings are related to the wider social dynamics of enchainment and accumulation – two important long-term social practices characterising the Balkan Neolithic and Copper Age.

Résumé

Dans cet article, l'auteur identifie le principe de concentration en ce qui concerne l'accumulation de vastes quantités d'objets dans les occupations des Balkans au néolithique et à l'âge du cuivre et propose des raisons pour ce principe. Le dépôt structuré d'objets dans des fosses constitue l'un des principaux exemples illustrant ce principe. Après avoir caractérisé les lieux où se situent ces fosses, que ce soit sous des maisons ou en plein air, on débat de la forme que prennent ces dépôts dans les fosses, y compris dépôts d'ossements humains, dépôts calcinés et combinaisons inhabituelles d'objets rares et d'objets appartenant au quotidien, et de leurs relations avec les différentes manifestations du cycle de vie des fosses. On examine la structure des dépôts à la lumière de leur immense variabilité. Plutôt que d'essayer ‘d'expliquer’ tous les exemples cités d'une manière globale, structuraliste, on offre une interprétation des fosses et de leur contenu en termes de stratégies locales de catégorisation des matériaux quotidiens et exotiques utilisés dans les échanges sociaux. Ce qui n'exclut pas l'existence de formes plus larges de rationalité préhistorique, qui semblent se perpétuer sur une longue période de temps et dans de nombreuses régions différentes. Ces découvertes sont liées aux concepts plus vastes de dynamique sociale d'enchainement et d'accumulation – deux importantes pratiques sociales à long terme caractéritiques du néolithique et de l'âge du cuivre dans les Balkans.

Zusammenfassung

Der Autor identifiziert in diesem Beitrag das Konzentrationsprinzip für die Akkumulation großer Mengen von Objekten in den Siedlungen des balkanischen Neolithikums und Kupferzeit, und schlägt Gründe für dieses Prinzip vor. Eines der primären Beispiele ist die strukturierte Niederlegung von Objekten in Gruben. Nach der Charakterisierung der Lage solcher Gruben – ob sie unter den Häusern oder auf offener Fläche liegen – werden die Formen der Niederlegung in den Gruben diskutiert – inklusive der Niederlungen von Menschenknochen, verbrannten Ablagerungen und ungewöhnlichen Kombinationen von seltenen Alltagsobjekten, als verschiedene Anzeichen der Lebenszyklen der Gruben. Die Struktur der Niederlegungen wurde in Anbetracht ihrer beträchtlichen Variabilität untersucht. Anstelle alle zitierten Beispiele umfassend und strukturalistisch zu „erklären‟, werden die Gruben und ihre Inhalte in bezug auf lokale Strategien zur Kategorisierung der alltäglichen und exotischen Gegenstände, die in sozialen Bräuchen benutzt wurden, interpretiert. Dies schließt aber nicht weitreichendere Formen prähistorischer Rationalität aus, die über eine lange Zeitperiode und in vielen verschiedenen Regionen Bestand zu haben schienen. Diese Befunde sind mit der umfangreicheren sozialen Dynamik der „Verkettung‟ und Akkumulation verknüpft – zwei wichtige langfristige, sozialen Bräuche, die das balkanische Neolithikum und Kupferzeit charakterisieren.

Resúmen

En este artículo el autor identifica el principio de concentración de la acumulación de gran cantidad de objetos en los asentamientos del Neolítico y Calcolítico en los Balcanes, y sugiere los motivos para este principio. Uno de los principales ejemplos de este principio de concentración es la deposición estructurada de objetos en pozos. Tras hacer una clasificación de los emplazamientos de tales pozos – bien bajo las casas o al aire libre – se procede a la discusión de las formas de deposición en los pozos – que incluye depósitos de hueso humano, depósitos quemados e inusuales combinaciones de objetos poco frecuentes y cotidianos – en cuanto se relacionan con distintas manifestaciones del ciclo de uso de los pozos. Se investiga la estructura de los depósitos a la luz de su inmensa variabilidad. En vez de intentar “explicar” todos los ejemplos mencionados de modo global y estructuralista, los pozos y sus contenidos se interpretan en términos de estrategias locales de categorización de materiales cotidianos y exóticos usados en prácticas sociales. Esto no excluye formas más amplias de racionalidad prehistórica que parecen perdurar durante un largo tiempo en muchas regiones distintas. Estos hallazgos se relacionan con las dinámicas sociales más amplias de encadenamiento y acumulación, dos importantes y duraderas prácticas sociales que caracterizan el Neolítico y la Edad del Cobre en los Balcanes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 66 , 2000 , pp. 61 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Appadurai, A. (ed.). 1986. The Social Life of Things. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachvarov, K. 1994. Hronologogichni aspekti na neolitnite pogrebalni obredi v Trakiya. Godishnik na Department Arheologiya (Nov Bulgarski Universitet) I, 263–9Google Scholar
Bailey, D.W. 1999. the built environment: Pit-huts and houses in the Neolithic. Documenta Praebistorica 26, 153–62Google Scholar
Bánffy, E. 1985. Kultikus rendeltetesű leletegyüttes a Kis-Balaton középső rézkorából. Archaeologiai Értesitő 112, 187–92Google Scholar
Banffy, E. 1990 1991. Cult and archaeological context in Central and South East Europe in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. Antaeus 19–20, 183–250Google Scholar
Barrett, J. 1988. Fields of discourse: reconstituting a social archaeology. Critique of Anthropology 7.3, 5–16Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C. 1991. Towards an archaeology of ritual. In Garwood, P., Jennings, D., Skeates, R. & Toms, J. (eds), Sacred and Profane: proceedings of a conference on archaeology, ritual and religion, Oxford, 1989, 1–9. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 32Google Scholar
Bibikov, S. 1953. Rannetripolskoie poselenie Luka-Vrublevetskaya na Dnestre, MIA 38, Moskva: Akademia Nauk SSSRGoogle Scholar
Bintliff, J.L. & Snodgrass, A.M. 1988. Off-site pottery distributions: a regional and interregional perspective, Current Anthropology 29.3, 506–13Google Scholar
Bogdanović, M. 1988. Architecture and structural features at Divostin. In McPherron, A. & Srejović, D. (eds) Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia, 35–142. Pittsburgh: University PressGoogle Scholar
Bognár-Kutzian, I. 1963. The Copper Age Cemetery of Tiszapolgár-Basatanya. Budapest: Archaeologia Hungarica 42Google Scholar
Bökönyi, S. 1992. The Early Neolithic vertebrate fauna of Endrőd 119. In Bökönyi, S. (ed.), Cultural and Landscape Changes in South East Hungary I. Reports on the Gyomaendrőd Project, 195–299. Budapest: MTA Institute of Archaeology, Archaeolingua IGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. 1998. The Passage of Arms. An Archaeological Analysis of Prehistoric Hoards and Votive Deposits (2 edn). Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Brück, J. 1999. Ritual and rationality: some problems of interpretation in European archaeology, European Journal of Archaeology 2.3, 313–44Google Scholar
Buttler, W. 1936. Pits and pit-dwellings in Southeast Europe, Antiquity 10, 25–36Google Scholar
Chapman, J. 1981. The Vinča Culture of South East Europe. Studies in Chronology, Economy and Society. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S119Google Scholar
Chapman, J. 1983. Meaning and illusion in the study of burial in Balkan prehistory. In Poulter, A. (ed.), Ancient Bulgaria Vol. 1, 1–45. Nottingham: University PressGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. 1990. Social inequality on Bulgaria tells and the Varna problem. In Samson, R. (ed.), The Social Archaeology of Houses, 49–92. Edinburgh: University PressGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. 1991. The creation of social arenas in the Neolithic and Copper Age of South East Europe: the case of Varna. In Garwood, P., Jennings, D., Skeates, R. & Toms, J. (eds), Sacred and Profane: proceedings of a conference on archaeology, ritual and religion, Oxford, 1989, 152–71. Oxford: Oxford Committee for Archaeology Monograph 32Google Scholar
Chapman, J. 1993. Social power in the Iron Gates Mesolithic. In Chapman, J.C. & Dolukhanov, P. (eds), Cultural Transformations and Interactions in Eastern Europe, 61–106. Aldershot: Worldwide Archaeology Series 5Google Scholar
Chapman, J.C. 1994. The living, the dead, and the ancestors: time, life cycles and the mortuary domain in later European prehistory. In Davies, J. (ed.), Ritual and Remembrance. Responses to Death in Human Societies, 40–85. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. 1996. Enchainment, commodification and gender in the Balkan Neolithic and Copper Age, Journal of European Archaeology 4, 203–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. 1997. The origins of tells in eastern Hungary. In Topping, P. (ed.), Neolithic Landscapes, 139–64. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. 1999. Burning the ancestors: deliberate house-firing in Balkan prehistory'. In Gustafsson, A. & Karlsson, H. (eds), Glyfer och arkeologiska rum – en vänbok till Jarl Nordblad, 113–26. Gothenburg: Institute of ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology: people, places and broken objects in the prehistory of south eastern Europe. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. in press. ‘Rubbish-dumps’ or places of deposition ?: Neolithic and Copper Age settlements in Central and Eastern Europe. In Ritchie, A. (ed.), Neolithic Orkney in its European Context. Cambridge: MacDonald Institute MonographGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. & Laslovszky, J. 1995. A Neolithic flood in eastern Hungary: the Upper Tisza Project 1994. Archaeological Reports for 1994 (Durham & Newcastle upon Tyne), 8–17Google Scholar
Childe, V.G. 1929. The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford: ClarendonGoogle Scholar
Childe, V.G. 1939. The Dawn of European Civilisation. (3 edn). London: Kegan Paul, Trench & TrubnerGoogle Scholar
Clarke, S. 1997. Abandonment, rubbish disposal and ‘special’ deposits at Newstead. In Meadows, K., Lemke, C. & Heron, J. (eds), TRAC 96, Proceedings of the 6th Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, 73–81. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Cornea, E. 1974. Die Bestattungsriten in rumänischen Neolithikum, Jahresshrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 58, 113–56Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B.W. 1992. Pits, preconceptions and propitiation in the British Iron Age. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 11, 69–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dombay, J. 1939. A zengővárkonyi őskori telep és temető, Archaeologica Hungarica 23, 47–88Google Scholar
Dombay, J. 1960. Die Siedlung und das Gräberfeld in Zengővárkony. Budapest: Ungarische Akademie der WissenschaftGoogle Scholar
Douglas, M. 1966. Purity and Danger. An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
Dumitrescu, H. 1957. Découvertes concernant un rite funéraire magique dans l'aire de la civilisation de la ceramique peinte du type Cucuteni-Tripolje. Dacia n.s. 1, 97–116Google Scholar
Dumitrescu, H. 1958. Deux nouvelles tombes cucuténiennes à rite magique découvertes à Traian. Dacia n.s. 2, 407–23Google Scholar
Dumitrescu, V. 1965. Les principaux résultats des deux premières campagnes de fouilles dans la station néolithique récente de Cascioarele. SCIVA 16.2, 215–37Google Scholar
Dumitrescu, V. 1970. Édifice destiné au culte découvert dans la couche Boian-Spanţov de la station-tell de Cǎscioarele. Dacia 14, 5–24Google Scholar
Galović, R. 1962–1963. Neue Funde der Starčevo-Kultur in Mittelserbien und Makedonien. BRGK 43–4, 1–29Google Scholar
Garašanin, M.V. 1958. Kontrollgrabung in Bubanj bei Niš. Prähistorisches Zeitschrift 36, 226–43Google Scholar
Ghermann, C. and Resch, E. F. 1981. Depozitul ceramic de la Parţa. Banatica 6, 11–33Google Scholar
Gimbutas, M. 1976. Figurines. In Gimbutas, M. (ed.), Neolithic Macedonia, Monumenta Archaeologica 1, 198–241. Los Angeles: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
Gosden, C. 1994. Social Being and Time. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Haşotti, P. 1986. Observaţji asupra ceramicii dintr-un complex al culturii Hamangia de la Medgidia, punctul ‘Cocoaşe’. SCIVA 37.2, 121–33Google Scholar
Hegedűs, K. 1982–1983. The settlement of the Neolithic Szakalhát-Group at Csanytelek-Újhalasztó. A Mora Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 83.1, 7–42Google Scholar
Hill, J.D. 1995a. Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: a study on the formation of a particular archaeological record. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 242Google Scholar
Hill, J.D. 1995b. How should we understand Iron Age societies and hillforts? A contextual study from southern Britain. In Hill, J.D. & Cumberpatch, C.G. (eds), Different Iron Ages. Studies on the Iron Age in Temperate Europe, 45–66. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höckmann, O. 1990. Frühneolitische Einhegungen in Europa. Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 73, 57–86Google Scholar
Hvojko, V.V. 1901. Kamenyj vek Srednego Pridneprov'ja. Trudy X, Arkheol. S'ezda v Kieve 1899, 1, 736–813Google Scholar
Jankovitch, D., Szőke, B. & Makkay, J. 1989. A Békés megye régészeti topográfiajá. A szarvasi járás VI.2. MRT 8. Budapest: Akademiai KiadoGoogle Scholar
Kalicz, N. 1990. Frühneolitische Siedlungsfunde aus Sudwestungarn. Quellenanalyse zur Geschichte der Starčevo-Kultur. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae V, Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti MúzeumGoogle Scholar
Kalicz, N. & Makkay, J. 1977. Die Linienbandkeramik in der Grossen Hungarischen Tiefebene. Budapest: Akadémiai KiadóGoogle Scholar
Kalicz, N. & Raczky, P. 1984. Preliminary report on the 1977–1982 excavation at the Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement of Berettyóújfalu-Herpály. Part I: Neolithic. Acta Archaeologia Hungarica 36, 85–136Google Scholar
Kopytoff, I. 1986. The cultural biography of things: commodification as a process. In Appadurai, A. (ed.), The Social Life of Things, 64–94. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
László, F. 1914. Asatások az erösdi östelepen. Dolgozatok (Koloszvár) 5, 279–417Google Scholar
Lazarovici, Gh. 1989. Das neolitische Heiligtum von Parţa. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2, 149–173Google Scholar
Lazarovici, Gh. 1990. Uber neo- bis äneolitische Befestigungen aus Rumänien. Jahresschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 73, 93–118Google Scholar
Macrea, M. 1959. Şantierul arheologic Caşolţ-Boiţa. Materiale şi Cercetari Areologice 6, 407–43Google Scholar
Makkay, J. 1975. Über neolitische Opferformen. In Anati, E. (ed.), Les Religions de la Préhistoire, 161–73. Capo di Ponte, Brescia: Centro Camuno di Studi PreistoriciGoogle Scholar
Makkay, J. 1977. Mahlstein und das rituale Mahlen in den prähistorischen Opferzeremonien. Acta Archaeologica Hungarica 30, 13–36Google Scholar
Makkay, J. 1983. Foundation sacrifices in Neolithic houses of the Carpathian Basin. In Anati, E. (ed.), The Intellectual Expressions of Prehistoric Art and Religion, 157–67 Capo di Ponte, Brescia: Centro Camuno di Studi PreistoriciGoogle Scholar
Makkay, J. 1992. Excavations at the Körös culture settlement of Endrőd-Öregszőlők 119. In Bökönyi, S. (ed.), Cultural and Landscape Changes in South East Hungary I. Reports on the Gyomaendrőd Project, 121–94. Archaeolingua 1, Budapest: MTA Institute of ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Mantu, C-M. 1991. The Starčevo-Criş, settlement form Poieneşti (Vaşlui County). Banatica 11, 173–83Google Scholar
Maxim-Kalmar, Z. 1991. Turdaş. Cluj-Napoca: Muzeul de IstorieGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. 1987. Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Monah, D. 1976. Sondajul de salvare din aşezarea neo-eneoliticǎ de la Vermeşti-Comǎneşti. Carpica 8, 7–29Google Scholar
Movsa, T. G. 1964. Tripilskie pohovannia v s. Cviklivci. Arheologia (Kiev) 16, 213–22Google Scholar
Nevizansky, G. 1985. Sozial-ökonomische Verhältnisse in der Polgár-Kultur aufgrund der Gräberfeldanalyse. Slovenská Archeologia 32.2, 263–310Google Scholar
Nica, M. 1981. Grǎdinile, o nouǎ aşezare a neoliticului timpuriu in sud-estul Olteniei. Arhivele Olteniei n.s. 1, 27–39Google Scholar
Parker Pearson, M. & Richards, C. 1994. Architecture and order: spatial representation and archaeology. In Pearson, M Parker & Richards, C. (eds), Architecture and Order: approaches to social space, 38–72. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Raczky, P. 1974. A Lengyeli-kultúra legkésőbbi szakaszának leletei a Dunántúlon. Archaeologiai Értesitő 101, 185–210Google Scholar
Rathje, W. 1978. Archaeological ethnography … because sometimes it is better to give than to receive. In Gould, R.A. (ed.), Explorations in Ethno-archaeology, 4–76. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico PressGoogle Scholar
Regenye, J. 1994. Építési áldozat a lenyeli kultúrából, Bakonyszücről. In Von der Steinzeit bis zum Mittelalter, Trogmayer Festschrift, 151–60. Szeged: Mora Ferenc MúzeumGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, A.C. 1985. The Archaeology of Cult: the sanctuary at Phylakopi. London: British School of Archaeology at AthensGoogle Scholar
Resch, F. 1991. Typologische Studien kultischer Gesichtsdeckel aus der jungsteinzeitlicher Siedlung von Parţa I. Banatica 11, 185–92Google Scholar
Richards, C. & Thomas, J. 1984. Ritual activity and structured deposition in Later Neolithic Wessex. In Bradley, R. & Gardiner, J. (eds), Neolithic Studies: a review of some recent research, 189–218. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 133Google Scholar
Roman, P. & Dodd-Opriţescu, A. 1989. Interference etnoculturale, din perioda indo-europenizarii, reflectate in cimitirul eneolitic de la Ostrovul Corbului. Thraco-Dacica 10.1–2, 11–38Google Scholar
Roska, M. 1928. Staţiunea neoliticǎ de la Turdaş. Materiale judeţul Hunedoara 3–4, 18–25Google Scholar
Rus, D. & Lazarovici, G. 1991. On the developed Neolithic architecture in Banat. Banatica 11, 87–118Google Scholar
Russell, N. 1994. Hunting, Fishing and Feasting: human uses of animals in Neolithic South East Europe. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of California at BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, M.B. 1975. Behavioral Archeology. New York: AcademicGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, M.B. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico PressGoogle Scholar
Šiška, S. 1968. Tiszapolgarska kulture na Slovensku. Slovenská Archaeologia 16, 61–171Google Scholar
Srejović, D. 1969. Lepenski Vir. Nova praistorijska kultura u Podunavlju. Beograd: Srpska knizevna zadrugaGoogle Scholar
Stevanović, M. 1997. The age of clay: the social dynamics of house construction. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16, 334–95Google Scholar
Strathern, M. 1987. Producing difference: connections and disconnections in two New Guinea Highland kinship systems. In Collier, J.F. & Yanagisako, S.J. (eds), Gender and Kinship. Essays Towards a Unified Analysis, 271–300. Stanford: University PressGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 1991. Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 1996. Time, Culture and Identity. An Interpretive Archaeology. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Todorova, H. 1983. Arheologichesko prouchvanie na praistoricheski objekti v raiona na s. Ovcharovo, Targovishko, prez 1971–1974 g. In Todorova, H. et al. 1983, 7–105Google Scholar
Todorova, H., Vasilev, V., Yanusevitch, Z., Kovacheva, M. & Vulev, P. 1983. Ovcharovo. Razkopki i Prouchvaniya 9. Sofia: Bulgarska Akademiya na NaukiteGoogle Scholar
Todorović, J. & Cermanović, A. 1961. Banjica – naselje Vinǎnske kulture. Beograd: Muzej Grada BeogradaGoogle Scholar
Tomić, E. 1988. Vitkovačko polje, Aleksandrovac. In Srejović, D. (ed.), The Neolithic of Serbia, 105–6. Beograd: Centre for Archaeological Research, University of BelgradeGoogle Scholar
Trajković, C. 1988. Topole-Bač. In Srejović, D. (ed.), The Neolithic of Serbia, 99–101. Beograd: Centre for Archaeological Research, University of BelgradeGoogle Scholar
Tringham, R. 1971 Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of Eastern Europe 6000–3000 BC. London: HutchinsonGoogle Scholar
Tringham, R.Brukner, B., Kaiser, T., Borojević, Ks., Bukvić, Lj., Steli, P., Russell, N., Stevanović, M. & Voytek, B. 1992. Excavations at Opovo, 1985–1987: socio-economic change in the Balkan Neolithic. Journal of Field Archaeology 19, 351–86Google Scholar
Trogmayer, O. 1968. A Dél-Alföld kora neolitikumának főbb kérdései. Unpublished Candidate's thesis, University of SzegedGoogle Scholar
Vaday, A., Bánffy, E., Bartosiewicz, L., Bíró, K., Gogâltan, F., Horváth, F. & Nagy, A. 1999. Kompolt-Kistér. A Neolithic, Bronze Age, Sarmatian and Avar site. Rescue Excavation at the M3 Motorway. Eger: Dobó István VármúzeumGoogle Scholar
Virág, M. Sz. 1992. Újkőkori és középső rézkori telepnyomok az M0 autópálya szigetszentmiklósi szakaszánál. In Havassy, P. & Selmeczi, L. (eds), Régészeti kutatások az M0 autópálya nyomvonalán, 15–60. Budapest: Budapesti Törtenete MüzeumGoogle Scholar
Vlassa, N. 1963. Chronology of the Neolithic in Transylvania in the light of the Tǎrtǎria settlement's stratigraphy. Dacia n.s. 7, 485–95Google Scholar
Wagner, R. 1991. The fractal person. In Godelier, M. & Strathern, M. (eds), Big Men and Great Men. Personifications of Power in Melanesia, 159–73. Cambridge & Paris: Cambridge University Press & Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l'HommeGoogle Scholar
Weiner, A. 1992. Inalienable Possessions. The Paradox of Keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
Willis, S. 1997. Samian: beyond dating. In Meadows, K., Lemke, C. & Heron, J. (eds), TRAC 96, Proceedings of the 6th Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, 38–54. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar