1.
David N, Kramer C. Ethnoarchaeology in Action [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. Available from: http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9781316036488
2.
Flannery, Kent V. The early Mesoamerican village. Updated ed. Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press; 2009.
3.
Flannery KV. Research strategy and formative Mesoamerica; a prayer for an endangered species. In: The early Mesoamerican village. Updated ed. Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press; 2009.
4.
Banning EB. The archaeologist’s laboratory: the analysis of archaeological data. Vol. Interdisciplinary contributions to archaeology. New York: London; 2000.
5.
Binford LR. Behavioral Archaeology and the ‘Pompeii Premise’ . Journal of Anthropological Research [Internet]. 1981;37(3):195–208. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3629723
6.
Hodder I. Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role. American Antiquity. 1991 Jan;56(01):7–18.
7.
Schiffer MB. Archaeological context and systemic context. American antiquity. 1972;37(2):156–65.
8.
Binford LB. A consideration of archaeological research design. American antiquity. 1964;29(4):425–41.
9.
Clarke D. Archaeology: the loss of innocence. Antiquity. 1973 Mar;47(185):6–18.
10.
Flannery KV. The golden marshalltown. American Anthropologist, New Series. 1982;84(2):265–78.
11.
Hodder I. Excavating Çatalhöyük: south, north and KOPAL area reports from the 1995-99 seasons. Vol. McDonald Institute monographs. Cambridge: MacDonald Institute for archaeological reseach; 2007.
12.
Trigger BG. Aims in Prehistoric Archaeology. Antiquity. 1970 Mar;44(173):26–37.
13.
Woolley L. The beginnings of Ur. In: Ur ‘of the Chaldees’: a revised and updated edition of Sir Leonard Woolley’s Excavations at Ur [Internet]. Rev., updated ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press; 1982. p. 24–35. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=d856208b-ec7a-e911-80cd-005056af4099
14.
Goldberg P. Formation processes of the archaeological record. Geoarchaeology. 1989;4(3):277–8.
15.
Schiffer MB. Formation processes. In: Formation processes of the archaeological record. Albuquerque, N.M.: University of New Mexico Press; 1987. p. 143-150-199–217.
16.
Wood W, Johnson D. A survey of disturbance processes in archaeological site formation. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. 1978;1.
17.
Hodder I. Excavating Çatalhöyük: south, north and KOPAL area reports from the 1995-99 seasons. Vol. McDonald Institute monographs. Cambridge: MacDonald Institute for archaeological reseach; 2007.
18.
Araujo AGM, Feathers JK, Arroyo-Kalin M, Tizuka MM. Lapa das boleiras rockshelter: stratigraphy and formation processes at a paleoamerican site in Central Brazil. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2008 Dec;35(12):3186–202.
19.
Malinsky-Buller A, Hovers E, Marder O. Making time: ‘Living floors’, ‘palimpsests’ and site formation processes – A perspective from the open-air Lower Paleolithic site of Revadim Quarry, Israel. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2011 Jun;30(2):89–101.
20.
Schick K. Geoarchaeological analysis of an acheulean site at Kalambo Falls, Zambia. GEOARCHAEOLOGY. 1992 Jan;7(1):1–26.
21.
Shahack-Gross R, Albert RM, Gilboa A, Nagar-Hilman O, Sharon I, Weiner S. Geoarchaeology in an urban context: The uses of space in a Phoenician monumental building at Tel Dor (Israel). Journal of Archaeological Science. 2005 Sep;32(9):1417–31.
22.
Andrefsky W. Raw material availability and organization of technology. American Antiquity. 1994;59(1):21–34.
23.
Binford LR. Forty-seven trips: A case study in the character of archaeological formation process. In: Working at archaeology. London: Academic Press; 1983. p. 243–68.
24.
Binford LR. Organization and formation processes: looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research. 1979;35(3):255–73.
25.
Binford LR. Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning from an Eskimo Hunting Stand. American Antiquity. 1978 Jul;43(03):330–61.
26.
Hayden B, Cannon A. Where the garbage goes: Refuse disposal in the Maya Highlands. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 1983;2(2):117–63.
27.
Hardy-Smith T, Edwards PC. The garbage crisis in prehistory: artefact discard patterns at the Early Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27 and the origins of household refuse disposal strategies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2004;23(3):253–89.
28.
Flannery KV, Winter M. Analyzing household activities. In: The early Mesoamerican village. Updated ed. Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press; 2009. p. 34–47.
29.
V.M. LaMotta, M.B. Schiffer. Formation processes of house floor assemblages. In: The archaeology of household activities [Internet]. London: Routledge; 1999. p. 19–29. Available from: https://www.dawsonera.com/abstract/9780203014929
30.
de Loecker et al. D. A re-fitter’s paradise. In: Lithic analysis at the Millennium. London: Institute of Archaeology, University College London; 2003. p. 113–36.
31.
Hayden B, Cannon A. Where the garbage goes: Refuse disposal in the Maya Highlands. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 1983;2(2):117–63.
32.
Hill JD. Introduction. In: Ritual and rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: a study on the formation of a specific archaeological record. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum; 1995. p. 1–11.
33.
Hodder I. Excavating Çatalhöyük: south, north and KOPAL area reports from the 1995-99 seasons. Vol. McDonald Institute monographs. Cambridge: MacDonald Institute for archaeological reseach; 2007.
34.
Kent S. The archaeological visibility of storage: delineating storage from trash areas. American Antiquity. 1999;64(1):79–94.
35.
Pigeot N. Technical and social actors: flintknapping specialists and apprentices at Magdalenian etiolles. Archaeological review from Cambridge [Internet]. 1990;9(1):126–41. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk//secure/link?id=c2071af0-4a36-e711-80c9-005056af4099
36.
Flannery, Kent V. The early Mesoamerican village. Updated ed. Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press; 2009.
37.
Nicholas David. The Fulani compound and the archaeologist. World Archaeology [Internet]. 1971;3(2):111–31. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124068
38.
David N, Kramer C. Ethnoarchaeology in Action [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. Available from: http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9781316036488
39.
Parker Pearson M, Richards C. Ordering the world: perceptions of architecture, space and time. In: Architecture and order: approaches to social space. London: Routledge; 1994. p. 1–36.
40.
Grahame M. Public and private in the Roman house. In: Domestic space in the Roman world: Pompeii and beyond. Portsmouth, RI: JRA; 1997. p. 137–64.
41.
Kramer C. An archaeological view of a contemporary Kurdish village: domestic architecture, household size and wealth . In: Ethnoarchaeology: implications of ethnography for archaeology. Guildford: Columbia University Press; 1979. p. 139–63.
42.
Thomas J. Pluckhahn. Household Archaeology in the Southeastern United States: History, Trends, and Challenges. Journal of Archaeological Research [Internet]. 2010;18(4):331–85. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23018401
43.
Cynthia Robin. New Directions in Classic Maya Household Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research [Internet]. 2003;11(4):307–56. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41053202
44.
Katheryn C. Twiss, Amy Bogaard, Doru Bogdan, Tristan Carter, Michael P. Charles, Shahina Farid, Nerissa Russell, Mirjana Stevanović, E. Nurcan Yalman and Lisa Yeomans. Arson or Accident? The Burning of a Neolithic House at Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Journal of Field Archaeology [Internet]. 2008;33(1):41–57. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40026664
45.
Wright KI. The Social Origins of Cooking and Dining in Early Villages of Western Asia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 2000;66:89–121.
46.
Wright KI (Karen). Domestication and inequality? Households, corporate groups and food processing tools at Neolithic Çatalhöyük. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2014 Mar;33:1–33.
47.
Fairclough G. Meaningful constructions – spatial and functional analysis of medieval buildings. Antiquity. 1992 Jun;66(251):348–66.
48.
Foster SM. Analysis of spatial patterns in buildings (access analysis) as an insight into social structure: examples from the Scottish Atlantic Iron Age. Antiquity. 1989 Mar;63(238):40–50.
49.
Hill J. Broken K pueblo. In: New perspectives in archeology [Internet]. Chicago: Aldine; 1968. p. 103–42. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=df51ecdd-029a-e711-80cb-005056af4099
50.
Manfred Bietak, E. B. Pusch, Mark Lehner, M. Verner, D. G. Jeffreys, H. S. Smith, E. Strouhal, D. Arnold, J. Dorner, H. Jaritz, A. J. Spencer, Günter Dreyer, E. Graefe and Michael Allen Hoffman. Ägypten. Archiv für Orientforschung [Internet]. 1985;128–84. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41662069
51.
Lehner M. The Pyramid Age Settlement of the Southern Mount at Giza. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt. 2002;39.
52.
Robinson D. The social texture of Pompeii. In: Sequence and space in Pompeii [Internet]. Oxford: Oxbow Books; 1997. p. 135–44. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=b5667444-039a-e711-80cb-005056af4099
53.
Wallace-Hadrill A. Public honour and private shame: the urban texture of Pompeii. In: Urban society in Roman Italy. London: UCL Press; 1995. p. 39–62.
54.
Whitelaw T. House, households and community at Early Minoan Fournou, Korifi: methods and models for interpretation. In: Building communities: house, settlement and society in the Aegean and beyond. London: British School at Athens; 2007. p. 65–76.
55.
Allison PM. Pompeian households: an analysis of the material culture. Vol. Monograph. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at University of California, Los Angeles; 2004.
56.
Bradley E. Ensor. Kinship theory in archaeology:from crtiques to the study of transformations. American Antiquity [Internet]. 2011;76(2):203–27. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41331888
57.
Laurence R. Roman Pompeii: space and society. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2007.
58.
Parker BJ, Foster CP. New perspectives on household archaeology [Internet]. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns; 2012. Available from: https://ucl.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma9931379375504761&context=L&vid=44UCL_INST:UCL_VU2&lang=en&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&isFrbr=true&tab=Everything&query=any,contains,New%20perspectives%20on%20household%20archaeology&sortby=date_d&facet=frbrgroupid,include,9066180631753836537&offset=0
59.
Poehler E, Flohr M, Cole K. Pompeii: art, industry and infrastructure. Oxford: Oxbow; 2011.
60.
Sharon R. Steadman. Recent Research in the Archaeology of Architecture: Beyond the Foundations. Journal of Archaeological Research [Internet]. 1996;4(1):51–93. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41053111
61.
Wallace-Hadrill A. Houses and society in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1994.
62.
Warren P. Myrtos: an early Bronze Age settlement in Crete. Vol. Supplementary volume / British School of Archaeology at Athens. London: British School of Archaeology at Athens/Thames and Hudson; 1972.
63.
Wilk RR, Rathje WL. Household Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist. 1982 Jul;25(6):617–39.
64.
Whitelaw T. The settlement at Fournou, Korifi, Myrtos and aspects of Early Minoan social organization. In: Minoan society: proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium 1981 [Internet]. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press; 1983. p. 323–45. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=e07e7e3e-009a-e711-80cb-005056af4099
65.
Whitelaw T, Day P, Kiriatzi E, Kilikoglou V, Wilson D. Ceramic traditions at EM IIB Myrtos, Fournou Korifi. In: Techne: craftsmen, craftswomen and craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age : proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference/6e Rencontre égéenne internationale Philadelphia, Temple University, 18-21 April 1996. Liège: Université de Liège; 1997. p. 265–74.
66.
Whitelaw T. Feasts of clay? Ceramics and feasting at Early Minoan Myrtos: Fournou Korifi. In: Galanakis I, Wilkinson TC, Bennet J, editors. ΑΘΥΡΜΑΤΑ: critical essays on the archaeology of the eastern Mediterranean in honour of E Susan Sherratt [Internet]. Oxford: Archaeopress; 2014. p. 247–59. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=0be196aa-fe99-e711-80cb-005056af4099
67.
Andrefsky, Jr W. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis [Internet]. 2nd ed. Vol. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810244
68.
Banning EB. The archaeologist’s laboratory: the analysis of archaeological data. Vol. Interdisciplinary contributions to archaeology. New York: London; 2000.
69.
Magne MP. Lithic reduction stages and assemblage formation processes. In: Experiments in lithic technology [Internet]. Oxford, England: B.A.R; 1989. p. 15–31. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=35cc60f2-8366-e911-80cd-005056af4099
70.
George H. Odell. Stone Tool Research at the End of the Millennium: Procurement and Technology. Journal of Archaeological Research [Internet]. 2000;8(4):269–331. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41053170
71.
George H. Odell. Stone Tool Research at the End of the Millennium: Classification, Function, and Behavior. Journal of Archaeological Research [Internet]. 2001;9(1):45–100. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41053173
72.
Odell GH. Lithic analysis. Vol. Manuals in archaeological method, theory, and technique. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2004.
73.
Rapp GR. Archaeomineralogy. Vol. Natural science in archaeology. Berlin: Springer; 2002.
74.
Katherine Wright. A classification system for ground stone tools from the prehistoric Levant. Paléorient [Internet]. 1992;18(2):53–81. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41492491
75.
Carter T, Grant S, Kartal M, Coşkun A, Özkaya V. Networks and Neolithisation: sourcing obsidian from Körtik Tepe (SE Anatolia). Journal of Archaeological Science. 2013 Jan;40(1):556–69.
76.
Carter T, Milic M. The chipped stone. In: Substantive technologies at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 2000-2008 seasons. London: British Institute at Ankara and the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA; 2013. p. 409–70.
77.
Carter T, Conolly J, Spasojeviae J. The chipped stone. In: Changing materialities at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995-99 seasons. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research; 2005. p. 221–84.
78.
Carter T. Beyond the Mohs scale: Raw material choice and the production of stone vases in a late Minoan context. In: New approaches to old stones: recent studies of ground stone artifacts [Internet]. London: Equinox Pub; 2008. p. 66–81. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=4d6092b8-e3cd-eb11-a7ad-281878522727
79.
Wright KI. The ground stone technologies of Çatalhöyük, 1993-2008. In: Substantive technologies at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 2000-2008 seasons. London: British Institute at Ankara and the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA; 2013. p. 365–416.
80.
Wright KI (Karen). Domestication and inequality? Households, corporate groups and food processing tools at Neolithic Çatalhöyük. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2014 Mar;33:1–33.
81.
Bains R, Bar-Yosef D, Russell N, Vasic M, Wright KI. A technological approach to personal ornamentation and social expression at Çatalhöyük. In: Substantive technologies at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 2000-2008 seasons. London: British Institute at Ankara and the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA; 2013. p. 331–63.
82.
Wright KI, Critchley P, Garrard A, Baird D, Bains R, Groom S. Stone Bead Technologies and Early Craft Specialization: Insights from Two Neolithic Sites in Eastern Jordan. Levant. 2008 Nov;40(2):131–65.
83.
Wright K, Garrard A. Social identities and the expansion of stone bead-making in Neolithic Western Asia: new evidence from Jordan. Antiquity. 2003 Jun;77(296):267–84.
84.
Adams WY, Adams EW. Archaeological typology and practical reality [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991. Available from: http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9780511558207
85.
Adams JL, Archaeology Southwest (Organization). Ground stone analysis: a technological approach [Internet]. 2nd ed. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press; 2014. Available from: https://muse-jhu-edu.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/book/41396
86.
Andrefsky, Jr W. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis [Internet]. 2nd ed. Vol. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810244
87.
Andrefsky W. Lithic debitage: context, form, meaning. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press; 2001.
88.
Debénath A, Dibble HL. Handbook of paleolithic typology. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania; 1993.
89.
Edmonds MR. Stone tools and society: working stone in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain. London: Batsford; 1995.
90.
Marie-Louise Inizan; Jehanne Féblot-Augustins; Cercle de Recherches et d’Etude Préhistoriques. Technology and terminology of knapped stone : followed by a multilingual vocabulary Arabic, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish / Marie-Louise Inizan ... [et al.] ; translated [from the French] by Jehanne Féblot-Augustins. [Internet]. Available from: http://ucl-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=detailsTab&ct=display&fn=search&doc=UCL_LMS_DS000619591&indx=1&recIds=UCL_LMS_DS000619591&recIdxs=0&elementId=0&renderMode=poppedOut&displayMode=full&frbrVersion=&frbg=&&dscnt=0&scp.scps=scope%3A%28UCL_LMS_DS%29&tb=t&mode=Basic&vid=UCL_VU1&srt=rank&tab=local&dum=true&vl(freeText0)=inizan%20technology%20knapped&dstmp=1507294273024
91.
Rosen SA. Lithics after the Stone Age: a handbook of stone tools from the Levant. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press; 1997.
92.
Rowan YM, Ebeling JR. New approaches to old stones: recent studies of ground stone artifacts. Vol. Approaches to anthropological archaeology. London: Equinox Pub; 2008.
93.
Schumann W. Handbook of rocks, minerals, and gemstones. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1993.
94.
Binford L. Interassemblage variability - the Mousterian and the functional argument. In: The explanation of culture change: models in prehistory. London: Duckworth; 1973. p. 227–54.
95.
Michael S. Bisson. Nineteenth Century Tools for Twenty-First Century Archaeology? Why the Middle Paleolithic Typology of François Bordes Must Be Replaced. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory [Internet]. 2000;7(1):1–48. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20177411
96.
Francois Bordes and Denise de Sonneville-Bordes. The Significance of Variability in Palaeolithic Assemblages. World Archaeology [Internet]. 1970;2(1):61–73. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124167
97.
Bordes F. On the chronology and contemporaneity of different palaeolithic cultures. In: The explanation of culture change: models in prehistory. London: Duckworth; 1973. p. 217–26.
98.
Barnett WK, Kingery WD, Close AE, Dibble HL, McDonald MMA. News and Short Contributions. Journal of Field Archaeology. 1991 Summer;18(2).
99.
Dibble HL. Raw material availability , intensity of utilization and Middle Paleolithic assemblage variability. In: The Middle Paleolithic site of Combe-Capelle Bas (France). Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania; 1995.
100.
Fladmark KR. Microdebitage analysis: Initial considerations. Journal of Archaeological Science. 1982 Jun;9(2):205–20.
101.
Angela E. Close. The Identification of Style in Lithic Artefacts. World Archaeology [Internet]. 1978;10(2):223–37. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/124230
102.
Gero J. Assessing social information in material objects: how well do lithics measure up? In: Time, energy and stone tools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989.
103.
Sackett JR. Style and Ethnicity in the Kalahari: A Reply to Wiessner. American Antiquity. 1985 Jan;50(01):154–9.
104.
Wiessner P. Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity. 1983 Apr;48(02):253–76.
105.
DeLoecker D. A re-fitter’s paradise. In: Lithic analysis at the Millennium [Internet]. London: Institute of Archaeology, University College London; 2003. p. 113–36. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=43d32496-7536-e711-80c9-005056af4099
106.
Pigeot N. Technical and social actors: flintknapping specialists at Magdalenian Etiolles. Archaeological review from Cambridge. 1990;9(1):126–41.
107.
Clark JE. Ground stone tools and hunter-gatherer subsistence in southwest Asia: implications for the transition to farming. In: The organization of core technology. Boulder: Westview Press; 1987. p. 259–84.
108.
Perles C. Systems of Exchange and Organization of Production in Neolithic Greece. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology. 1992 Dec 1;5(2):115–64.
109.
Ramos Millán A, Ángeles Bustillo M, International Flint Symposium. Siliceous rocks and culture. Granada: Universidad de Granada; 1997.
110.
Wright KI. Ground-Stone Tools and Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence in Southwest Asia: Implications for the Transition to Farming. American Antiquity. 1994 Apr;59(02):238–63.
111.
Adams RM. Complexity in Archaic States. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2001 Sep;20(3):345–60.
112.
Cherry J. Power in space: archaeological and geographical studies of the state. In: Landscape and culture: geographical and archaeological perspectives. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1987. p. 146–72.
113.
Binford LR. Willow smoke and dog’s tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity. 1980;45(1):4–20.
114.
Davies T, Fry H, Wilson A, Palmisano A, Altaweel M, Radner K. Application of an entropy maximizing and dynamics model for understanding settlement structure: the Khabur Triangle in the Middle Bronze and Iron Ages. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2014 Mar;43:141–54.
115.
Flannery, Kent V. The early Mesoamerican village. Updated ed. Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press; 2009.
116.
Knappett C, Evans T, Rivers R. Modelling maritime interaction in the Aegean Bronze Age. Antiquity. 2008 Dec;82(318):1009–24.
117.
Roth A, editor. Social change in the Fourth Dynasty (Egypt): the spatial organization of pyramids, tombs and cemeteries. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt. 1993;30.
118.
Bietak M. The archaeology of the ‘gold of valour’. Egyptian archaeology: bulletin of the Egypt Exploration Society [Internet]. 2012;40:42–3. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=f53f8d79-7f66-e911-80cd-005056af4099
119.
The location of Alashiya: new evidence from petrographic investigation of Alashiyan tablets from el-Amarna and Ugarit. American Journal of Archaeology. 2003;107(2):233–55.
120.
Izre’el S. The Amarna letters from Canaan. In: Civilizations of the ancient Near East. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson; 2000. p. 2411–20.
121.
Postgate N, Wang T, Wilkinson T. The evidence for early writing: utilitarian or ceremonial? Antiquity. 1995 Sep;69(264):459–80.
122.
Serpico M, White R. The botanical identity and transport of incense during the Egyptian New Kingdom. Antiquity. 2000 Dec;74(286):884–97.
123.
Weiss H. Rediscovering: Tell Leilan on the Habur Plains of Syria. The Biblical Archaeologist. 1985 Mar;48(1).
124.
Weiss H, Akkermans P, Stein GJ, Parayre D, Whiting R. 1985 Excavations at Tell Leilan, Syria. American Journal of Archaeology. 1990 Oct;94(4).
125.
Woolley L. The beginnings of Ur. In: Ur ‘of the Chaldees’: a revised and updated edition of Sir Leonard Woolley’s Excavations at Ur [Internet]. Rev., updated ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press; 1982. p. 24–35. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=d856208b-ec7a-e911-80cd-005056af4099
126.
Andrén, Anders, Crozier, Alan. Between artifacts and texts: historical archaeology in global perspective. Vol. Contributions to global historical archaeology. London: Plenum Press; 1998.
127.
Cohen R, Westbrook R. Amarna diplomacy: the beginnings of international relations. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins Univeristy Press; 2000.
128.
Parker HDD, Rollston CA. The Epigraphic Digital Lab: Teaching Epigraphy in the Twenty-First Century. Near Eastern Archaeology. 2016 Mar;79(1):44–56.
129.
Goren, Yuval, Artzy, Michal, Finkelstein, Israel, Naʼaman, Nadav, Makhon le-arkheʼologyah ʻa. sh. Sonyah u-Marḳo Nadler. Inscribed in clay: provenance study of the Amarna tablets and other ancient Near Eastern texts. Vol. Monograph series / Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archeology. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology; 2004.
130.
Little BarbaraJ. Text-aided archaeology. In: Text-aided archaeology. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press; 1992. p. 1–6.
131.
Moran, William L. The Amarna letters. English-language ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1992.
132.
Rollston CA, Vaughn AG. Fakes, Forgeries and Biblical Scholarship. Near Eastern archaeology. 2005;68(1/2):61–72.
133.
Westbrook, Raymond, Cohen, Raymond. Amarna diplomacy: the beginnings of international relations [Internet]. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins Univeristy Press; 2000. Available from: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;idno=heb30995.0001.001
134.
Duday H. The archaeology of the dead: lectures in archaeothanatology. Vol. Studies in funerary archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books; 2009.
135.
Giles M. Preserving the body. In: The Oxford handbook of the archaeology of death and burial. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 475–96.
136.
Michael Parker Perason. Form now to then: ethnoarchaeology and analogy. In: The archaeology of death and burial [Internet]. Stroud: Sutton; 1999. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=364ba8be-9666-e911-80cd-005056af4099
137.
C. Scarre. The meaning of death: funerary beliefs and the prehistorian. In: Renfrew C, Zubrow EBW, editors. The Ancient Mind [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994. p. 75–82. Available from: http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9780511598388
138.
Ucko PJ. Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains. World Archaeology. 1969 Oct;1(2):262–80.
139.
Evans JG. Stonehenge - the enviroment in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age and a Beaker Age burial. Wiltshire archaeological and natural history magazine. 1984;78:7–30.
140.
Bentley RA, Wahl J, Price TD, Atkinson TC. Isotopic signatures and hereditary traits: snapshot of a Neolithic community in Germany. Antiquity. 2008 Jun;82(316):290–304.
141.
Bickle P, Hofmann D. Moving on: the contribution of isotope studies to the early Neolithic of Central Europe. Antiquity. 2007 Dec;81(314):1029–41.
142.
Golitko M, Keeley LH. Beating ploughshares back into swords: warfare in the Linearbandkeramik. Antiquity. 2007 Jun;81(312):332–42.
143.
Jantzen D, Brinker U, Orschiedt J, Heinemeier J, Piek J, Hauenstein K, et al. A Bronze Age battlefield? Weapons and trauma in the Tollense Valley, north-eastern Germany. Antiquity. 2011 Jun;85(328):417–33.
144.
Michael Parker Pearson. Mortuary practices, society and ideology: an ethnographical study. In: Hodder I, editor. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982. p. 99–113.
145.
Rega E. Age, gender and biological reality in the Early Bronze Age cemetery at Mokrin. In: Invisible people and processes: writing gender and childhood into European archaeology. London: Leicester University Press; 1996. p. 229–47.
146.
Shennan S. The social organization at Branč. Antiquity. 1975 Dec;49(196):279–88.
147.
Caple C. Objects: reluctant witnesses to the past. London: Routledge; 2006.
148.
Costin C. Craft production. In: Handbook of archaeological methods [Internet]. Lanham, Md: Altamira Press; 2005. p. 1034–107. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=364d506d-ef01-e811-80cd-005056af4099
149.
Forbes RJ. Studies in ancient technology: Vol.8. Vol. Studies in ancient technology. Leiden: Brill; 1971.
150.
Hodges, Henry. Artifacts: an introduction to early materials and technology. Duckworth; 1989.
151.
Hurcombe, L. M. Archaeological artefacts as material culture. London: Routledge; 2007.
152.
Shaw, Ian, Nicholson, Paul T. Ancient Egyptian materials and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
153.
Singer C. A history of technology: Vol.1: From earliest times to fall of ancient empires [Internet]. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1954. Available from: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;idno=heb02191.0001.001
154.
Banning EB. The archaeologist’s laboratory: the analysis of archaeological data. Vol. Interdisciplinary contributions to archaeology. New York: London; 2000.
155.
Rice PM. Pottery analysis: a sourcebook. Second edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2015.
156.
Prudence M. Rice. Recent Ceramic Analysis: 1. Function, Style, and Origins. Journal of Archaeological Research [Internet]. 1996;4(2):133–63. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41053114
157.
Braun D. Pots as tools. In: Archaeological hammers and theories. New York: Academic Press; 1983. p. 107–34.
158.
Rice PM. Pottery analysis: a sourcebook. Second edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2015.
159.
Prudence M. Rice. Recent Ceramic Analysis: 1. Function, Style, and Origins. Journal of Archaeological Research [Internet]. 1996;4(2):133–63. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41053114
160.
Nicholas David, Judy Sterner and Kodzo Gavua. Why Pots are Decorated. Current Anthropology [Internet]. 1988;29(3):365–89. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2743453
161.
Gosselain OP. Technology and Style: Potters and Pottery Among Bafia of Cameroon. Man. 1992 Sep;27(3).
162.
Hegmon M. Archaeological Research on Style. Annual Review of Anthropology. 1992 Oct;21(1):517–36.
163.
Frank Hole. Analysis of Structure and Design in Prehistoric Ceramics. World Archaeology [Internet]. 1984;15(3):326–47. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124629
164.
Lechtman H. Style in technology: some early thoughts. In: Material culture: styles, organization, and dynamics of technology. St. Paul: West Pub. Co; 1977. p. 3–20.
165.
Rice PM. Pottery analysis: a sourcebook. Second edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2015.
166.
Barbara J. Mills. Integrating Functional Analyses of Vessels and Sherds through Models of Ceramic Assemblage Formation. World Archaeology [Internet]. 1989;21(1):133–47. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124489
167.
Morris E. Staying alive: the function and use of prehistoric ceramics. In: Prehistoric Britain: the ceramic basis. Oxford: Oxbow; 2002. p. 54–61.
168.
Prudence M. Rice. On the Origins of Pottery. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory [Internet]. 1999;6(1):1–54. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20177395
169.
Woodward A, Blinkthorn J. Size is important: Iron Age vessels capacities in central and southern England. In: Not so much a pot, more a way of life: current approaches to artefact analysis in archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow; 1997. p. 21–35.
170.
Ferguson L. Struggling with pots in colonial South Carolina. In: The archaeology of inequality. Oxford: Blackwell; 1991. p. 28–39.
171.
Gosselain OP. Social and technical identity in a clay crystal ball. In: The archaeology of social boundaries. Washington [D.C.]: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1998. p. 78–106.
172.
Gosselain OP. Technology and Style: Potters and Pottery Among Bafia of Cameroon. Man. 1992 Sep;27(3).
173.
Hamilton S. Between ritual and routine: interpreting prehistoric British pottery production and distribution. In: Prehistoric Britain: the ceramic basis. Oxford: Oxbow; 2002. p. 38–53.
174.
Meadows K. Much ado about nothing: the social context of eating and drinking in early Roman Britain. In: Not so much a pot, more a way of life: current approaches to artefact analysis in archaeology [Internet]. Oxford: Oxbow; 1997. p. 21–35. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=9b5a7c27-75c8-eb11-a7ad-281878521be7
175.
Amiran R, Beck P, Zevulan U. Ancient pottery of the Holy Land: from its beginnings in the Neolithic period to the end of the Iron Age. Jerusalem: Masada Press; 1969.
176.
Dothan T, Ḥevrah la-ḥaḳirat Erets-Yiśraʼel ṿe-ʻatiḳoteha. The Philistines and their material culture. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society; 1982.
177.
Last J, et al. Pottery from the east mound. In: Changing materialities at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995-99 seasons. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research; 2005.
178.
Wright K, Najjar M, Last J, Moloney N, Flender M, Gower J, et al. The Wadi Faynan Fourth and Third Millennia Project, 1997: Report on the First Season of Test Excavations at Wadi Faynan 100. Levant. 1998 Jan;30(1):33–60.
179.
Orton C, Hughes M. Pottery in archaeology. 2nd ed. Vol. Cambridge manuals in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013.
180.
Sinopoli CM. Approaches to archaeological ceramics. New York: Plenum Press; 1991.
181.
Skibo JM. Pottery function: a use-alteration perspective. Vol. Interdisciplinary contributions to archaeology. New York: Plenum Press; 1992.
182.
Banning EB. The archaeologist’s laboratory: the analysis of archaeological data. Vol. Interdisciplinary contributions to archaeology. New York: London; 2000.
183.
Binford LR. Behavioral Archaeology and the ‘Pompeii Premise’ . Journal of Anthropological Research [Internet]. 1981;37(3):195–208. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3629723
184.
Flannery, Kent V. The early Mesoamerican village. Updated ed. Walnut Creek, Calif: Left Coast Press; 2009.
185.
Hodder I. Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role. American Antiquity. 1991 Jan;56(01):7–18.
186.
Schiffer MB. Archaeological context and systemic context. American antiquity. 1972;37(2):156–65.
187.
Binford LB. A consideration of archaeological research design. American antiquity. 1964;29(4):425–41.
188.
Clarke D. Archaeology: the loss of innocence. Antiquity. 1973 Mar;47(185):6–18.
189.
Flannery KV. The golden marshalltown. American Anthropologist, New Series. 1982;84(2):265–78.
190.
Trigger BG. Aims in Prehistoric Archaeology. Antiquity. 1970 Mar;44(173):26–37.
191.
Woolley L. The beginnings of Ur. In: Ur ‘of the Chaldees’: a revised and updated edition of Sir Leonard Woolley’s Excavations at Ur [Internet]. Rev., updated ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press; 1982. p. 24–35. Available from: https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/secure/link?id=d856208b-ec7a-e911-80cd-005056af4099
