Ś L Ą S K I E
SPRAWOZDANIA
ARCHEOLOGICZNE
I N S T Y T U T A R C H E O L O G I I
U N I W E R S Y T E T U W R O C Ł A W S K I E G O
W R O C Ł A W 2 0 2 0
62
EGZEMPLARZ AUTORSKI
DOI: 10.34616/SSA.2020.62.63.74
DOBROCHNA JANKOWSKA
ON THE EFFICIENCY OF TECHNOLOGICAL CRITERIA IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF NEOLITHIC
POTTERY FROM POLISH LOWLANDS AREA
Dobrochna Jankowska, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, ul. Uniwersytetu Po-znańskiego 7, 61-614 Poznań, e-mail: dochnaj@wp.pl
Abstract: The paper addresses the issue of the practical aspects of using technological criteria for the
classification of Neolithic pottery. The author points out a great similarity of some formulas used in Late Linear Pottery culture, Globular Amphora culture and Early Bronze Age assemblages and argues that archaeologists should employ data collected in the course of experimental studies.
Keywords: Neolithic pottery, technological features, classification, code description
Archaeologists took an interest in the techniques for making ceramic vessels as part of the description and classification of pottery quite early. Knowledge of the subject was treated as a (very important) part of the practical initiation, handed down to an adept by experienced researchers, convinced that many technological features of pottery cannot be described with precision. Attempts to overcome this difficulty in relation to Neolithic pottery emerged in the 1970s and were connected with the desire to apply statistical methods to analyses of non-characteristic fragments of pottery. At the same time, physicochemical analyses of pottery with the use of a microscope began to be conducted (Hulthén 1977; Lindahl 1988). However, due to their cost and problems with access to specialised laboratories, they have developed slowly. In Po-land such issues were on a small scale addressed by, inter alia, M. Pawlikowski (1993), M. Daszkiewicz and D. Prinke (1999; 2001), and M. Wirska-Parachoniak (2002). Relatively modest, which is a bit puzzling, are the attempts to employ archaeologi-cal experiments to the study of technology of pottery-making. Such attempts were undertaken, for example, by M. Wirska-Parachoniak (1969) and Czech researchers (Bareš et al. 1981; 1982). A very insightful study by D. Piłaszewicz (2006) on the tech-nology of making pottery from Szczecin-Ustowo is worth noticing here. In addition, Wrocław-based archaeologists has conducted research on this topic for some time.
However, the mainstream interest in the subject was directed towards other issues. The primary objective of the studies was to identify such characteristics of
the material that would be as unambiguous to describe and measure as possible, allowing large sets to be characterised using statistical methods. It was important, at the same time, that the so-called technological features were observable in all potsherds, including those which were devoid of ornamentation or other evidence to support the determination of their cultural origin. Researchers hoped, there-fore, that with the introduction of technological criteria, the cognitive value of non-distinctive ceramic material will significantly increase and that it will also be possible to classify them in a reliable manner. It seems that archaeologists who addressed this issue did not, at least initially, consider relating the distinguished features to the technological process, although, of course, they were aware of such relations. The main objective was to find determinants that could be recorded in code that would be as universal as possible, one that would also enable to dif-ferentiate the material and then determine the regularities that could be used for identifying the “technological characteristics” of particular cultures. It was assumed that each culture had its own tradition of making pottery, which might have evolved in time.
Attempts at creating a recording method that would facilitate the analysis of mass material were additionally stimulated by news from outside the “Iron Curtain” of the conveniences allowing for quick sorting of large data sets. They were originally punched cards (very popular in the 1970s and used with a piece of wire to shake the perforated pattern off the cards; in Poznań, Urszula Dymaczewska was the first to use these cards). Information about the existence of computers (“electronic brains” – as they were called at that time) was quite vague, but it offered hope (today we know that a bit exaggerated). Archaeologists believed that they should be appropriately prepared to this upcoming hardware revolution.
From the very beginning, attempts to codify the description of pottery were focused on including both its stylistic features (macro- and micromorphology, or-namentation) and technology of pottery-making. The latter, however, was treated with more caution. In Western Europe, such determination of technological traits encountered considerable resistance due to the fact that in the “Western archaeolo-gical practice” artefacts are treated with more reverence – breaking potsherds, which is a necessary act in case of this method, is hardly acceptable there.
Observations of technological features of large assemblages of pottery were mostly carried out in the countries of the former Eastern Bloc. The first major publication (Podborský et al. 1977) presenting a proposition of a comprehensive code descrip-tion, including also technological features based on almost ten years of studies on Moravian painted pottery, did not arouse special enthusiasm among archaeologists. However, this book made us realise that such a method was very time-consuming at the stage of preparation (observation and coding) and the measurable benefits could be achieved only at its final stage. Moreover, researches were aware that this method would be really useful only when commonly used, enabling comparative studies of inventories from different sites.
In fact, the idea of describing pottery by encoding its characteristics was ap-preciated only by Poznań-based archaeologists, mainly the members of the newly established Kuyavia Research Team. Perhaps this was because it fitted perfectly the first objective of the Group, namely the development of a dynamic periodisation of the region based on pottery collected during surface (reconnaissance and detailed) surveys and the identification of the largest possible number of sites thanks to the method of large surveys. The main proponent of this method and its “father” in Po-land is undoubtedly Aleksander Kośko, who has addressed these issues in various papers since 1976.
The first “manifesto” presenting the foundations of chronological analysis, one that included technological characteristics along with the proposal of their coded recording, written by L. Czerniak and A. Kośko (1980), was published almost at the same time as the first monograph prepared in accordance with the principles of the “Kuyavian” system analysis (Czerniak 1980). This monograph focused on the problem of the so-called Late Band Pottery culture. A study of the Łupawa group of the Funnel Beaker culture was published in the same year (Jankowska 1980); it was inspired by not yet fully developed ideas of the emerging Neolithic “Kuyavia school”, which used a different way of recording information. A year later, a monograph on the Mątwy group of the Funnel Beaker culture was published (Kośko 1981), which presented a proposal of a code for that culture. In subsequent years, further stud-ies of the members of the Kuyavia Research Team were published that adopted this method for the description of other cultures, first Neolithic (Szmyt 1996, Kurzawa 2001, Przybył 2009), and later also sub-Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (Józwiak 2003, Czebreszuk 1996; 2001; Makarowicz 1998), or even later ones (Ignaczak 2002). The method of coded description, initially greeted with resistance, began to become a popular way to analyse pottery assemblages in other areas. It also encouraged other researchers to develop their own versions of recording on the basis of the same idea (Kukawka 1991; Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 2002; Rzepecki 2004). It should be noted that whereas the system of recording macro- and micromorphological characteristics of pottery is generally accepted (it also concerns ornamentation, although research-ers are less enthusiastic in this case), there is no agreement with regard to the coded description of technology. At the moment, at least as far as the lowland areas are con-cerned, we can say that the “Kuyavia” method of description and analysis of pottery is commonly used, meaning that each study of Neolithic pottery includes the analysis of its technology. Not everyone, however, tries to use a code (e.g. Grygiel 2004; 2008). Long years of work (about 30 years) on the improvement of the discussed system (refined a number of times) resulted in drawing a technological scheme of the devel-opment of local Neolithic and Early Bronze Age pottery for the region of Kuyavia. According to the authors of this scheme, the system enabled a correct chronological-cultural classification of each of the analysed assemblages, even if potsherds with no distinctive features were present. Archaeologists have failed to construct a sin-gle encoding scheme for all cultures, which it seems results not so much from the
resistance of the matter, but from difficulties to persuade others to give up their own ideas, as well as the fear that the situation enabling comparative studies, achieved with difficulties, will be destabilised again as a result of too far-reaching amendments to the recording. The most recent version of the scheme, together with the rules for the description of the characteristics of Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery, was, quite unexpectedly, included in the first volume of the series publishing archaeological record from the site in Opatowice – Wzgórze Prokopiaka (Czebreszuk et al. 2006).
As I mentioned before, the Kuyavia scheme is now used to describe and analyse archaeological material from other regions of the Lowlands. However, when it comes to interpretation, it is often used uncritically. We should pay attention to this fact, because it turned out that there are distinct differences between particular regions with regard to technological issues, as demonstrated, for instance, by the study of Rejchert (2007, 96–98), who convincingly showed that Proto-Neolithic materials from site no. 9 in Dąbki, classified according to the “Kuyavian” rules, were characterised by features distinctive for the Early Bronze Age technology of pottery-making. Similarly, Wierzbicki (1999) confirmed the already well-known observation that the majority of pottery of the Łupawa group of the Funnel Beaker culture was similar in terms of technology to the so-called “Kuyavian post-Linear macrocycle”.
The development of the study on the technology of Neolithic pottery-making went through several stages. Initially, attempts were made at a maximum accuracy of the description, which meant that the analysed record was divided into relatively small technological groups and subgroups. With time, archaeologists began to reduce this diversity, completely giving up the recording of certain traits and dividing oth-ers into primary and secondary characteristics. At present, while we do not give up more detailed descriptions, it is believed that we can identify three main traditions (macrocycles) of pottery production by the representatives of Neolithic cultures: Linear/Linear-like, post-Linear and Neolithic-Early Bronze Age (sub-Neolithic) (Józwiak 2003, 103–104). Pottery representing the characteristics attributable to these macrocycles is present, of course, in different proportions, in virtually all cultures, with the exception of the technology of cycle Ia (an element of macrocycle I), associ-ated only with the Linear Band Pottery culture. It follows then that the reliability of this classification system, which was to solve all the problems in the “daily life of an archaeologist”, can be questioned.
Most classification problems are related to the pottery classified as macrocycle II, grouping potsherds with an admixture of crushed stone: cycle IIa – so-called “Globular Amphorae-like” – corresponding to the Early Bronze Age technological groups E–H of Czebreszuk (1996), and groups IIIA–C of Globular Amphorae cul-ture pottery according to Szmyt (1996). Indicators qualifying for this category are very similar to, if not identical with, technological groups IVB–V of the Late Linear Pottery culture, distinguished by Czerniak (1980). Therefore, the differentiation of pottery with these characteristics is in practice often intuitive, much less that Sz-myt (1996, 26) questioned the usefulness of such materials as chamotte or mica for
Fig. 1. Selected Neolithic potsherds from Kujavia: A – pottery associated with the Late Linear
Pot-tery culture (according to Czerniak 1980, Grygiel 2008); B – potPot-tery associated with the Globular Amphora culture (according to Szmyt 1996); C – pottery identified with the Early Bronze Age horizon (according to Makarowicz 1998).
classification purposes. It is believed that their presence in the technological formulae used by Globular Amphorae culture people the same as by the Late Linear Pottery culture representatives was quite common. Analysis of other features, such as the characteristics of a fracture, is less useful here because it requires considerable skill and analytical experience of an archaeologist. Therefore, a lot depends on archaeolo-gists’ experience and their knowledge of the specific character of the local area and other subjective factors. Different people will classify the same assemblage in a dif-ferent way. Even the same person, analysing the same assemblage after a while, will get a slightly different result. Much also depends on the attitude of the researcher. Neolithic sites from Kuyavia, documented within motorway rescue excavations, are usually referred to as multi-cultural, while they often do not provide any fragments of pottery specific for all the identified units. One might wonder whether the huge increase in settlement sites of the Globular Amphorae culture in the area of Kuyavia, as shown by Szmyt (1996), is not connected with placing too much confidence in the analysis of technology, particularly also that figures published in monographs on the Globular Amphora and Late Linear Pottery cultures indicate clear similarities of some vessels or their fragments (Fig. 1). At the same time, the proved technological convergence between their pottery is a very good argument supporting the hypothesis of their genetic relationships (Czerniak 1980, 23).
Referring to the above-mentioned technological macrocycles, it is worth mention-ing the pottery made of clay containmention-ing a fabric of fine and medium grain-sized sand. It is believed to dominate in the assemblages classified by Czerniak (1980, 22–23) as the so-called “Linear cycle” – identified with the early phases of the Late Linear Pottery culture – but it also appears in small amounts in virtually every Neolithic assemblage. Czerniak argues that this pottery shows a relatively small experience of the pottery makers. Experimental studies generally confirm Czerniak’s view, although they also indicate that such an opinion simplifies the problem to some extent. It turns out that the presence of sand in the ceramic paste is most likely not the result of the potter’s deliberate action, but only provides evidence for inaccurate sludge processing of the raw material in the process of its preparation. At the same time, this “carelessness” brought about positive effects by improving the hardness of the vessel and prevent-ing it from deformation durprevent-ing the process of firprevent-ing (Piłaszewicz 2006, 97). In this sense, it could have been intentional.
Heavily crushed potsherds in the ceramic paste are fairly difficult to detect (Cze-breszuk 1996, 14; Kukawka 2005, 318), so it was only recently that such a fabric ceased to be considered a clear indicator of a particular pottery-making tradition, and it is now widely accepted that it was used in the formulae of representatives of almost all Neolithic cultures (Grygiel 2008, 1858; Kurzawa 2001, 137; Czebreszuk et al. 2006). Similar is the case with a plant admixture, which was also used by the Globular Am-phorae culture communities (Szmyt 1996, 26), and – through the Globular AmAm-phorae cultures – by Early Bronze Age people (Czebreszuk 1996, 77–79). Furthermore, mica, initially identified mainly in the Late Linear Pottery culture vessel, was no longer
regarded a determinant. Mica was always combined with an admixture of crushed granite – it is one of the minerals comprising some types of granite – but, looking similar to it, muscovite and biotite are also a natural component of till (Pawlikowski 1993, 62, 66). Although the presence of mica in itself is undesirable as far as the firing process is concerned (Piłaszewicz 2006, 101–102), it increases the aesthetic qualities of vessels. It is not certain whether mica was intentionally added to the ceramic paste, and whether certain types of granite were chosen because they were easy to reduce and contained this mineral element (Piłaszewicz 2006, 101–102). Czebreszuk (1996, 16) believes that the presence of mica in the used raw material could have been important for the Neolithic pottery. It should be noted that the presence of mica in pottery assemblages of the same culture is not a fixed quality, and may be related to the availability of certain types of granite in the region; therefore, the lack of fabric like this does not say anything about the cultural affiliation.
Referring to the above-mentioned macrocycles, it is worth noticing that the Linear cycle Ia, identified with the Linear Band Pottery culture, is fairly neglected in the above-mentioned literature: on the one hand, it is recognised as a starting point for further stages of the development of pottery in the Neolithic, and on the other hand – as in fact having nothing in common with the rest of the system (Czerniak 1980, 24; Czebreszuk 1996, 22). There are traces in Linear Band Pottery culture pottery of two activities from the stage of preparing the ceramic paste: very thorough treatment of the raw material through sludge processing, and the use of organic (plant) admixtures in the ceramic mass prepared for vessels identified by archaeologists as “coarse ware”. Both of these types of practices were later abandoned or severely limited.
The schemes of technological description of all cultures include a parameter of the thickness of the vessels’ walls. In the case of some cultures, there have even been attempts to treat it as a supplementary chronological criterion based on the obser-vation that the frequency of thick-walled forms in assemblages increased over time (Czerniak 1980, 24; Wierzbicki 1999, 57). Classifications most often divide pottery into three groups (thin-, medium-, and thick-walled pottery), while the boundaries between them are determined in various ways. In addition, we need to take into account the likely inaccuracies of measurement and fairly large differences in the thickness of vessels’ walls in their various parts. Fragments of the same vessel are often categorised into different subgroups. In the case of the assemblages collected during the motorway rescue excavations, in which the bottom fragments of vessels are often dominant, it is possible that the rate of thick-walled pottery may actually be overestimated.
Experimental studies (Piłaszewicz 2006, 201–221) made it possible to assess the value of the colour of the fracture and surface of vessels as a criterion for classifica-tion. Attempts to fire pottery in different conditions and in different settings, in the fireplace or pottery oven, have shown that in the case of both the reduced and oxidative firing, fractures take a different colour: from black to ash-coloured and from bricky to yellow, respectively (most common in the archaeological material are
various shades of gray-beige). Additionally, two-stage firing has also been performed, resulting in multicoloured fracture. The colour of the fracture could vary in differ-ent parts of the same vessel, depending on the course of the firing, during which a number of random events could happen. In addition, the colours of the fracture and surface were affected by the subsequent use of the vessel and its exposition to high temperatures (Piłaszewicz 2006, 222).
Physicochemical (inter alia, Pawlikowski 1993, 66) and experimental (Piłaszewicz 2006, 78–79) studies indicate that Neolithic pottery was basically made from material collected from the nearest vicinity of a settlement site. In the case of multi-phased sites, a likelihood of using clay from the same clay outcrop is high, which is confirmed by frequent cases of the occurrence of material of different cultures in features inter-preted as clay pits. Therefore, technological similarity of pottery from one site may be greater regardless of the vessels’ cultural origin.
In the absence of potsherds with distinctive features, relying exclusively on the criterion of technology requires a lot of experience and the use of additional indic-ators that are difficult to teach verbally. The subjective opinion of a researcher is particularly evident here; although archaeologists are aware of it, they cannot elimi-nate it completely. Investors’ requirement for a one-hundred-percent classification of materials collected during motorway rescue excavations – unwritten, yet enforced in practice – brings about definitely negative consequences. One might reasonably wonder whether the identification of settlement episodes on the basis of a dozen or so potsherds on sites investigated in the course of such excavations is justified. We should be particularly careful in this respect in relation to sites dominated by Late Linear Pottery culture settlements.
When analysing pottery, various groups of archaeologists take into account prac-tically the same set of technological characteristics, although they assign particular indicators different weight. For example, Scandinavian archaeologists (among others, Wyszomirska 1988, p101) or researchers from research centres from southern Poland (Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 2002, 66; Gumiński 1989, 39–41) pay more attention to the technique of making a vessel – in the west Baltic zone it is even an important determinant of chronology and cultural affiliation. This theme is practically absent in the work of the researchers of Kuyavia. Due to different ways of presenting the results of analyses, comparative studies are still difficult to conduct on a wider scale. We should, therefore, make an effort to adopt uniform rules, to establish the form and a model list of summary tables that should be compulsorily included in such analyses.
So far, the scheme of the technological development of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age pottery has been constructed only for the region of Kuyavia. In addition, there have been attempts to broaden the use of technological data for the construction of hypotheses regarding cross-cultural contacts and genetic relations (Czerniak, Kośko 1980). Attempts to go outside the region in similar respect have been mainly made for the Funnel Beaker culture from the area of Pomerania and the Chełmno Land. There is also a coded characteristics of Funnel Beaker culture pottery from some Lower
Silesian sites (Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 2002, 70–71 – however, this record does not allow for the correlation of characteristics). These tests clearly show that the transfer of the Kuyavian scheme to other regions requires careful consideration. However, it seems that we have already got a database sufficient for determining at least a rough range of “the Kuyavia pottery province” and, in the case of the Funnel Beaker culture, for making a successful, yet still not comprehensive, attempt at developing a complete description of the technological rules observed in this culture, including their varia-tion in time and space. So far, archaeologists have been able to identify formulas for classical and late Funnel Beaker culture pottery from Kuyavia (Kośko 2000).
Although the studies on the technology of Neolithic pottery have not yet com-pletely fulfilled archaeologists’ expectations, they have been a step in the right di-rection. The results of such analyses, only outlined here, deserve a detailed critical consideration and should be compared with the results of carefully selected experi-ments, conducted professionally with the participation of experienced potters.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Agnieszka Tokarczuk-Różańska for translation of the manu-script. The paper was prepared in 2012.
LITERATURE
Bareš M., Lička M., Rúžičková M. 1982. K technologii neolitické keramiky II, Sborník Národniho Muzea w Praze 36, z. 3–4, 121–237.
Czebreszuk J. 1996. Społeczności Kujaw w początkach epoki brązu. Poznań: Wydawnictwo PSO. Czebreszuk J. 2001. Schyłek neolitu i początki epoki brązu w strefie południowo-zachodniobałtyckiej
(III i początek II tys. przed Chr.). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
Czebreszuk J., Kośko A., Szmyt M. 2006. Zasady analizy źródeł ceramicznych z okresu późnego ne-olitu oraz interstadium nene-olitu i brązu na Kujawach, (In:) Kośko A., Szmyt M. (eds.), Opatowice – Wzgórze Prokopiaka, t. 1. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 39–64.
Czerniak L. 1980. Rozwój społeczeństw kultury późnej ceramiki wstęgowej na Kujawach, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza.
Czerniak L., Kośko A. 1980. Zagadnienie efektywności poznawczej analizy chronologicznej ceramiki na podstawie cech technologicznych. Z problematyki badań nad „datowaniem technologicznym” ceramiki kultur neolitycznych w strefie Kujaw, Archeologia Polski 25 (2), 247–279.
Daszkiewicz M., Prinke D. 1999. Archäokeramologische Untersuchungen zur Trichterbecherkultur in Kujawien (Zentralpolen), Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 3, 299–335.
Daszkiewicz M., Prinke D. 2001. Problem relacji tzw. ceramiki pasmowo-grzebykowej i kultury pucha-rów lejkowatych na podstawie źródeł z Kujaw, (In:) Czebreszuk J., Kryvolcevicz M., Makare-wicz P. (eds.), Od neolityzacji do początków epoki brązu. Przemiany kulturowe między Dnieprem a Odrą od IV do początków II tys. przed Chr. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 121–132. Grygiel R. 2004. Neolit i początki epoki brązu w rejonie Brześcia Kujawskiego i Osłonek, t. I, Wczesny
neolit. Kultura ceramiki wstęgowej rytej. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Fundacji Badań Archeologicznych im. Profesora Konrada Jażdżewskiego.
Grygiel R. 2008: Neolit i początki epoki brązu w rejonie Brześcia Kujawskiego i Osłonek, T. II, Środkowy neolit. Grupa brzesko-kujawska kultury lendzielskiej. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Fundacji Badań Ar-cheologicznych im. Profesora Konrada Jażdżewskiego.
Gumiński W. 1989: Gródek Nadbużny. Osada kultury pucharów lejkowatych. Wrocław: Ossolineum. Hulthén B. 1977. On Ceramic Technology during the Scanian Neolithic and Bronze Age (Theses and
Papers North-European Archaeology, 6). Stockholm: Akademilitteratur.
Ignaczak M. 2002. Ze studiów nad genezą kultury łużyckiej w strefie Kujaw. Poznań: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza.
Jankowska D. 1980. Kultura pucharów lejkowatych na Pomorzu środkowym. Grupa łupawska. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
Józwiak B. 2003. Społeczności subneolitu wschodnioeuropejskiego na Niżu polskim w międzyrzeczu Odry i Wisły. Poznań: Instytut Prahistorii UAM.
Kośko A. 1981. Udział południowo-wschodnioeuropejskich wzorców kulturowych rozwoju niżowych społeczeństw kultury pucharów lejkowatych. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
Kośko A. 2000. Osadnictwo społeczności kultury pucharów lejkowatych (grupy: wschodnia i radzie-jowska), (In:) Kośko A. (ed.), Archeologiczne badania ratownicze wzdłuż trasy gazociągu tranzy-towego, t. III. Kujawy. Część 4. Osadnictwo kultur późnoneolitycznych oraz interstadium epok neolitu i brązu: 3900–1400/1300 przed Chr. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 19–133.
Kośko A. 2005. Archeologiczna struktura zbiorów ceramiki z osad neolitycznych, Folia Praehistorica Posnaniensia 13/14, 311–321.
Kukawka S. 1991. Kultura pucharów lejkowatych na ziemi chełmińskiej, Toruń: Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu.
Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa A. 2002. Zawarża. Osiedle neolityczne w południowopolskiej strefie lessowej. Wrocław: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN.
Kurzawa J. 2001. Zagadnienie najwcześniejszych faz kultury ceramiki sznurowej na Nizinie Wielkopol-sko-Kujawskiej, Poznań.
Lindahl A. 1988. Teknologisk undersökningav keramik från boplatsen Nymölla III samt ett jåmförande material från boplatsen Nymölla I, Skåne, (in:) Wyszomirska B. (ed.), Ekonomisk stabilitet vid kusten. Nymölla III. En tidigneolitisk bosättning med fångstekonomi i Nordöstra Skåne (Acta Archaeologica Lundensia 8 (17), 125–138.
Makarowicz P. 1998. Rola społeczności kultury iwieńskiej w genezie trzcinieckiego kręgu kulturowego (2000–1600 BC). Poznań: Uniwersytet im. A. Mickiewicza.
Pawlikowski M. 1993. Wyniki badań mineralogiczno-petrograficznych ceramiki kultury pucharów lejkowatych z osady w Polanicach, (In:) Jankowska D., Wierzbicki J. (ed.), Kopalnia surowców mineralnych kultury pucharów lejkowatych w Poganicach, woj. Słupsk, stanowisko 4 (strefa 10). Poznań: Instytut Prahistorii UAM, 59–73.
Piłaszewicz D. 2006. Zastosowanie metody makroskopowej i eksperymentalnej do badań nad wytwar-zaniem neolitycznej ceramiki naczyniowej na przykładzie materiałów z osady w Szczecinie-Ustowie (stan. 1), woj. zachodniopomorskie. Poznań: archiwum Wydziału Archeologii UAM w Poznaniu (maszynopis).
Podborský V. Kazdová E. Koštuřík P. Weber Z. 1977. Numerický kód moravské malované keramiký. Problemy deskripce v archeologii. Brno: Univerzita Jana Evangelisty Purkyně v Brně.
Przybył A. 2009. Społeczności późnoneolitycznej kultury pucharów lejkowatych na Kujawach. Problem wpływów z kręgu kultury badeńskiej. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie.
Rejchert M. 2007. Analiza technologiczna i morfologiczna ceramiki ze stanowiska Dąbki 9, gm. Darłowo, pow. Sławno. Poznań: archiwum Wydziału Archeologii UAM (maszynopis).
Rzepecki S. 2004. Społeczności środkowoneolitycznej kultury pucharów lejkowatych na Kujawach. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie.
Szmyt M. 1996. Społeczności kultury amfor kulistych na Kujawach. Poznań: Uniwersytet im. A. Mickiewicza.
Wierzbicki J. 1999. Łupawski mikroregion osadniczy ludności kultury pucharów lejkowatych. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
Wirska-Parachoniak M. 1969. Analiza technologiczna fragmentów ceramiki z osady neolitycznej w Nowej Hucie-Pleszewie, Materiały Archeologiczne Nowej Huty 2, 125–129.
Wirska-Parachoniak M. 2002. Analiza technologiczna fragmentów neolitycznych naczyń cera-micznych z Zawarży, (In:) Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa A. (ed.) Zawarża. Osiedle neolityczne w południowopolskiej strefie lessowej. Wrocław: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, 161–165.
!["Amerykańscy prezydenci. 41 historycznych portretów od Jerzego Waszyngtona do Billa Clintona", Jürgen Heideking [red.], Wrocław 1999 : [recenzja]]()