UDK 903.02(495)”634”


Documenta Praehistorica XXIX 

Changes in the production and use of pottery from the 
Early Neolithic to the ‘secondary products revolution’: 
some evidence from LN Makriyalos, Northern Greece 

Dimitrios Vlachos 

Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield, UK 
prp00dv@sheffield.ac.uk & dimv@hist.auth.gr 

ABSTRACT – Recent developments in pottery studies have altered the way archaeologists handle and 
interpret prehistoric pottery. The technology and use of pottery, the symbolic and social meaning of 
the pot are considered as anthropological phenomena, the products of human action. Excavations at 
Late Neolithic Makriyalos offered the opportunity to explore from a new perspective several aspects 
of neolithic society in Greece in terms of the use, function, distribution and discard of pottery. 

IZVLE.EK – Sodoben razvoj preu.evanja keramike je spremenil na.in arheolo.ke obravnave in interpretacije prazgodovinske keramike. Tehnologijo in uporabo keramike, simboli.en in dru.beni pomen posod smatramo za antropolo.ki fenomen, za proizvod .lovekove dejavnosti. Izkopavanja poznoneolitskega Makriyalosa so omogo.ila nove poglede na neolitsko dru.bo v Gr.iji z vidika uporabnosti, namenskosti, distribucije in zavr.enosti lon.enine. 

KEY WORDS – Neolithic; Thessaly; pottery use; production; function; discard 

LATE NEOLITHIC MAKRIYALOS: A CASE STUDY 

In 1992 a rescue excavation in Pieria, Northern Gre-II (Fig. 2), which refer respectively to the early and 
ece, near the modern village of Makriyalos, revealed late Late Neolithic. Makriyalos I is dated no earlier 
a prehistoric site with archaeological finds dated to than 5400 BC, while Makriyalos II yielded a great 
the Late Neolithic period (Fig. 1). The site covers ap-amount of pottery that has close relations with decoproximately 50 ha, of which 6 ha was intensively in-rative motifs from pottery assemblages of Thessaly, 
vestigated (Pappa and Besios 1999.179). The exca-those of the so called ‘Classical Dimini’ pottery style 
vation of the site offered valuable information about (Theocharis 1973; 1993) (Figs. 3, 4). These two diffethe character of the flat-extended type of Neolithic rent occupation episodes appear on opposite slopes 
site, which is relatively unknown for Greece in com-of the hill. Only a few sherds of Makriyalos II were 
parison with other regions of Europe and the Bal-found in deposits of Makriyalos I, leading to the conkans, where flat-extended settlements are fairly well clusion that Makriyalos I was completely abandoned 
known. The main characteristics of these settlements before the establishment of Makriyalos II. 
are the horizontally shifting occupation, interspersed with open spaces, presumably cultivated land During Makriyalos I, the entire settlement was en-
and fields, and, finally, their great extent which may circled by two curved, parallel ditches, ditch Alpha 
exceed 50 ha (Andreou, Fotiadis and Kotsakis and ditch Beta, while a third one, ditch Gamma, was 
1996.578). revealed inside the settlement. Makriyalos II is ra

ther different. Spatial overlap with Makriyalos I is 
The excavation revealed, according to pottery finds, minimal and Makriyalos II is possibly smaller in ex-
two different occupation episodes, Makriyalos I and tent than Makriyalos I. In this occupational phase, 


Dimitrios Vlachos 

Fig. 1. Map of Pieria and Thessaly, showing sites mentioned in the 
text (after Pappa and Besios 1999). 
ditches were also present, but their character is unclear, because they lie outside the excavated area. As 
in Makriyalos I, the ditches are comprised of a chain 
of pits forming a linear boundary to the settlement. 
At the intra-site level, habitation is denser in Makriyalos II with almost no open spaces between the 
dwellings. According to the excavators, two habitation subphases were distinguished, an earlier sub-
phase of pit dwellings and a later subphase of apsidal structures (Pappa and Besios 1999.180). Hearths 
and ovens were situated outside the houses in small 
clusters of three or four, while a number of pits around the dwellings were recognised as storage pits, 
refuse pits and possible working areas. 

MAKRIYALOS IN PERSPECTIVE: THE POTTERY 

Understanding of the Greek Neolithic is still dominated by the results of excavations in the early 20th 
century at Sesklo and Dimini (Tsountas 1908), in 
Thessaly. Apart from these two sites, adequate pub

lished information is scarce for settlements of this period and the same 
is true for pottery. Indeed, one of the 
major problems of Greek Neolithic 
studies is the restricted extent of later 20th century excavation programmes, mostly by German and Greek 
groups (Gallis 1979) and, as a result, 
the limited potential for reliable archaeological inferences. Furthermore, most sites in Thessaly are tell-
villages that were densely inhabited, 
long-lived and restricted in extent, 
and so not representative of the 
newly recognised category of flat-extended settlements. 

Until recently the chronological framework for the Greek Neolithic and 
the culture histories of different regions within Greece were based on 
typological differences between pottery groups, analysed at an inter-site 
level and treating date as the only 
significant source of variability at an 
intra-site level (Miloj.i. 1960; Miloj.i. et al. 1976; Hauptmann 1981). 
This framework now seems fragile 
and the mere observation and description of typological differences 
inadequate. Makriyalos offers the opportunity to investigate spatial variability in archaeological material on a large scale and, 
thereby, to explore human activity within an early 
farming community with a high degree of confidence. 

Among the wealth of finds from Late Neolithic Makriyalos the pottery from Makriyalos II amounts to 
approximately 12 tons. Information on production 
of the Makriyalos II pottery and the exchange of 
this material over long distances will be available in 
short time from Elli Hitsiou’s study, based on thin 
section petrography, of certain technological aspects 
and provenance. The objectives of the study were to 
trace the social and functional role of the Makriyalos II pottery, by exploring its use and the spatial distribution of discard. In addition, it was hoped that 
ceramic analysis would help to refine the chronological framework of the site. 

The preliminary results presented here are based on 
8-months of systematic work dealing with approximately 2 tons of pottery. Sampling of material for 
study has focussed on the ‘closed’ excavation units, 


Changes in the production and use of pottery from the Early Neolithic to the ‘secondary products revolution’... 

Fig. 2. Aerial view and sketch plan of Makriyalos I and II. 
the pits, which, with the exception of the two or 
three apsidal buildings, were the basic architectural 
units of this phase. Almost all the material from the 
Makriyalos II pits was examined and recorded. In 
addition, some of the overlying surface layer was 
examined to investigate its relationship with the pits 
and to explore postdepositional factors that may 
have affected the way pottery was distributed in the 
archaeological record. Finally, particular attention 
was paid to an area in excavation sector Eta (H), on 
the northern edge of the settlement, where the excavators had noted an exceptional abundance of ceramics: this area, although only one tenth of the excavated Makriyalos II habitation area, yielded nearly 
one quarter of the total pottery assemblage for this 
phase. 

The most common shapes in Makriyalos II are (Figs. 
5, 6): a) for tableware shallow flat-based bowls, straight-sided open bowls, carinated bowls, fruit-stands 
and cups; b) for serving, storing and transferring liquids jugs and jars with vertical handles; c) for long-

term storage pithoi and other 
small storage pots; and, finally, d) for cooking pots with 
traces of repeated use on fire. 
Spatial distribution within the 
settlement, however, suggests 
variability in the use of space 
and/or date. 

Most striking is the distribution of the so-called ‘Classical 
Dimini’ pottery style (Dimini 
brown-on-cream, Otzaki black-
on-red, polychrome decoration and incised patterns). Almost 90% of this type of pottery comes from the ceramic-
rich area in sector Eta on the 
northern edge of the settlement, discussed above, and 
ca. 10% from pit 24, which 
was recognised by the excavators as a clear example of a 
subterranean dwelling (Fig. 
7). In addition, one pit outside the ditch produced a significant amount of this kind of 
pottery, but otherwise only a 
few sherds were found inside and outside the remaining pits. 

The excavators describe the ceramic-rich area in sector Eta as a ‘borrow pit’ and have suggested that this 
was subsequently filled with pottery eroded from 
the slope above the pit (Pappa and Besios 1999. 
188). In support of this interpretation, the stratigraphy in this area shows a series of deposits of, sometimes, very distinctive pottery, which are separated 
by thin layers of soil. Beneath these deposits, were 
discovered some pits with small amounts of pottery 
and a few traces of minor ditches. If the overlying 
material had been deposited by erosion, however, 
relatively intense abrasion and fragmentation of 
sherds might be expected, whereas in fact the pottery is mostly well preserved and the size of sherds 
is remarkably large compared to other areas of the 
settlement. 

Furthermore, as already noted, tableware in this area 
is overwhelmingly of ‘Classical Dimini’ type. Shallow 
flat-based bowls and straight-sided open bowls are 
dominant and decorated with the characteristic ‘Classical Dimini’ motifs, as are the fruit-stands (Fig. 8). 


Dimitrios Vlachos 


Fig. 3. ‘Classical Dimini’ pottery from Thessalian sites. 

Some incised jars are also present. Pottery with diffe-storage pots were found in this particular area. Thus 
rent decorative motifs is scarce, as is undecorated it seems clear that this area was the location of a distableware like cups or carinated bowls. The unusual tinctive type of activity or at least discard. The alnature of the assemblage from this area suggests that most complete absence of decorated pottery and 
it represents the primary locus of discard from a par-particularly of ‘Classical Dimini’ pottery elsewhere 
ticular human activity, rather than the 
result of postdepositional erosion. 

Further support for this view comes 
from the evidence for cooking vessels 
in the Makriyalos II settlement. Overall, 
very few sherds could be associated 
with cooking and in most cases they 
were situated near cooking facilities, 
such as hearths. Both inside and outside 
the pits, sherds that could be assigned 
to cooking vessels or that seemed to 
have traces of repeated use on fire are 
almost absent and the few exceptions 
belong to fragmentary ‘dish-like’ vessels 
with rough surface, which are very shallow and have a large rim diameter. In 
the sector Eta ‘borrow pit’, however, numerous cooking vessels and pots with 
clear traces of fire were recognised and 
almost all of these have fabrics rich in 
shell inclusions. A very large number of 

Fig. 4. Pottery with polychrome decoration. 

Changes in the production and use of pottery from the Early Neolithic to the ‘secondary products revolution’... 

Fig. 5. Common shapes from Makriyalos II. 
in the settlement and the quantity of this pottery in 
this ‘borrow pit,’ completed with the abundance in 
this pit of pottery related to cooking, suggest that 
this distinctive group of material should be interpreted in terms of patterns of activity or discard rather 
than chronological variation. 

In the Makriyalos II habitation area, no stratigraphic 
distinctions are evident within pits (Fig. 9), but many 
pits contain small quantities of pottery and share a 
common, but limited ‘repertoire’ of ceramic categories. This ‘repertoire’ consists of a small number of 
impressed and incised tableware vessels such as carinated bowls (Fig. 10), but other tableware is undecorated and could be related to the consumption 
of food or liquids, as in the case of cups. Pottery for 
storage needs, like pithoi and small storage vessels, 
and for the transfer of liquids, like jars, was dominant inside the pits. Very few sherds could be ascribed to a cooking vessel, with a preference to the shallow ‘dish-like’ vessels. More cooking 
vessels were recognised in areas near 
hearths, but the number is still low 
compared to the number of cooking 
vessels that was found in the ‘borrow pit’ in sector Eta. A pit in the 
eastern part of the settlement yielded remarkable quantities of incised 
pottery, but it was excavated in a 
trial trench and so its spatial relationship to other pits remains unclear. 

In the southern part of the excavated 
area, the quantity of pottery from 
the boundary ditch is very small, the 
degree of preservation extremely low 
and the fragmentation of sherds very 

high. The fill consists of sherds ascribed to small storage pots and almost complete absence of tableware 
or decorated pottery, except for some 
incised pots, as in the case of most 
pits at the habitation area. It seems 
that the pits which constituted the 
ditch filled with material exposed 
for a long time before incorporation 
in the ditch or in some cases with refuse discarded from the settlement 
itself. 

The apsidal buildings (Fig. 11), assigned by the excavators to a separate 
habitation episode, show clear evidence of a distinctive use, even if 

there is heavy erosion in this area and it is very difficult to explore and interpret them. Their internal 
organisation, including one or two separate rooms 
and an apsidal end with many fragments of storage 
pots, reflects a different and more elaborate perception of the use of space from that of the simple pit 
dwellings. However, inside the rooms differences 
from the pit dwellings in the composition of pottery 
is minimal. 

The subterranean dwelling, Pit 24, is the only pit 
that presents stratigraphic differences (Fig. 12). This 
pit is unusual in its depth, its diameter, the entrance 
identified by the excavators and the discovery of 
three holes marking the position of storage pots on 
the floor, 2 m below the present surface. The sherds 
of these storage pots were found in the floor deposit. The excavators suggest that the bottom of the pit 
could have been used as a cellar. The pottery of the 
pit exhibits a clear stratigraphic sequence. ‘Classical 

Fig. 6. Pottery from Makriyalos II. 

Dimitrios Vlachos 


Fig. 7. Plan of Makriyalos II marking places of interest as mentioned in the text.


Dimini’ pottery is dominant in the upper layers 
along with many big storage pots. In the lower levels, the amount of ‘Classical Dimini’ pottery decreases and other decorative motifs are present, albeit in 
small quantities, while the frequency of storage pots 
increases. Whether this difference in the composition of the pottery from successive levels in this particular pit reflects changes in the use of space, as 
suggested by the excavators, chronological differences, or both, demands further examination in the future. 

CONCLUSIONS 

In recent years, pottery studies in archaeology have 
moved beyond the traditional dichotomy between 
technology-use and social-symbolic (Pritchard and 


van der Leeuw 1984; Stark 1998). The technology 
and use of pottery and the symbolic and social meaning the pot itself carries, are now regarded from a 
more anthropological perspective as parts of the 
same sequence of actions that begin with the manufacture and production of a pot and includes its various uses and, ultimately, its discard (Lemonnier 
1993; Skibo 1999). Of course, people are the main 
participants in these actions. They understand and 
even change the social meaning of pottery through 
time, organising the production of a pot not only to 
meet basic biological needs, but also to represent certain perceptions of dietary traditions or as a means 
of changing them. 

As for Makriyalos II, the history of research in Macedonia and Thessaly shows that, in the later Late 
Neolithic, stylistic regions are smaller and there is a 
variety of ‘wares’ and decorative motifs (Demoule 
and Perles 1993.392–393; Perles and Vitelli 1999. 
98). Certain wares are evident over very large geographical areas, as in case of the ‘Classical Dimini’ 
pottery, distribution of which reaches Albania, but 
seems uneven as is indicated by the absence of ‘Classical Dimini’ pottery at Mandalo and Dispilio. In the 
case of Makriyalos, the quantity and quality of this 
particular ceramic category is high. The origin of this 


Fig. 8. ‘Classical Dimini’ pottery from Makriyalos II. Fig. 9. Pit-dwellings.



Changes in the production and use of pottery from the Early Neolithic to the ‘secondary products revolution’... 

pottery is still unclear and whether pots were imported and so represent products that were exchanged 
widely, as in the case of obsidian, or were produced 
locally, is still uncertain. On the other hand, Makriyalos lacks the variety of ‘wares’ and decoration evident elsewhere in Macedonia, as at Servia (Ridley 
and Wardle 1979.213–217) or Giannitsa B (Chrysostomou 1996.165), where ‘Classical Dimini’ pottery 
is only a part of the decorated pottery assemblage. 
Decorated pottery at Makriyalos II is dominated by 
the ‘Classical Dimini’ styles and only a few other decorative styles occur, such as the incised carinated 
bowls and some incised pots, but the number of these 
pots or sherds is limited. The possibility that this is 
a result of differences in chronological sequence, yet 
undetected, inside the settlement demands further 
examination. 

In the later Late Neolithic, coarse wares and pottery 
shapes that could be related to cooking and pottery 
with traces of repeated use on fire make up a large 
part of the ceramic assemblage. This perhaps reflects 
increasing use of pottery in the domestic sphere 
(Perles and Vitelli 1999.98). At Late Neolithic Makriyalos II, the preparation of food in particular areas, 
where there is a concentration of hearths and cooking vessels, seems to be an activity that engaged several individuals or more than one family. On the 
other hand, the consumption of that food may have 
been more individualised as the number of cups and 
some undecorated shallow bowls inside the pits 
shows. This dual pattern of collective production 
and individual consumption might suggest that relations between inhabitants were negotiated in everyday life through food. It has been previously been 
argued that the consumption of food and drink, and 
of the tableware, played such a role in negotiating 
social relations in neolithic Greece, particularly between different ‘household’ groups (Halstead 1995; 
Andreou, Fotiadis and Kotsakis 1996). Makriyalos 

Fig. 10. Incised carinated bowl with painted deco-
ration at the lower part. 
II offers the opportunity to explore this role in the 
rather different social context of a site dominated architecturally by small pit dwellings, suitable for housing only restricted numbers of people. 

Finally, while the study of Late Neolithic ceramics 
has begun in recent years to move beyond the mere 
concern for chronology, it is clear that little progress 
has been made in the basic source of the archaeological record, excavation. The extensive excavation at 
Makriyalos is rare, in terms of Greek archaeology, 
and more work on this scale is needed to clarify the 
spatial organization and possible symbolic uses of 
ceramics and ultimately to treat pottery as an anthropological phenomenon, as a product of human action. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

I thank Professor Miha Budja for inviting me to the 
seminar. Professor K. Kotsakis and my supervisor P. 
Halstead strongly encouraged me to participate and 
offered valuable suggestions and corrections to the 
text. I also thank the excavators, Maria Pappa and 
Manthos Besios, for giving me the opportunity to 
study the material from Makriyalos II. Photographs 
were taken by Arturo Vargas and the photographs 
and plans were processed by Nikos Valasiadis. 


Fig. 11. The apsidal building. Fig. 12. Pit 24.



Dimitrios Vlachos 

REFERENCES


ANDREOU S., FOTIADIS M., KOTSAKIS K. 1996. Review of Aegean Prehistory. The Neolithic and Bronze 
Age of Northern Greece. American Journal of Archaeology 100: 537–597. 

CHRYSOSTOMOU P. 1996. I Neolithiki Katoikisi sti 
Voreia Paraktia Zoni tou Allote Thermaikou Kolpou. 

To Arxaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 

10: 159–172. 
GALLIS C. J. 1979. A Short Chronicle of Greek Archaeological Investigations in Thessaly from 1881 
until the Present Day. La Thessalie, Actes de la Table-Ronde 21–24 juillet 1975, Lyon: 1–30. 

HALSTEAD P. 1995. From Sharing to Hoarding: the 
Neolithic Foundations of Aegean Bronze Age Society? 
In R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier (eds.), Politeia: 
Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Aegaeum 12: 11–20. 

HAUPTMANN H. 1981. Die deutchen Ausgrabungen 
auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien, III: Das späte 
Neolithikum und das Chalkolithikum. Bonn. 

LEMONNIER P. 1993. Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Culture since the Neolithic. 
London and New York, Routledge. 

MILOJ.I. V. 1960. Hauptergebnisse der deutschen 
Ausgrabungen in Thessalien 1953–58. Bonn. 

MILOJ.I. V. et al. 1976. Die deutchen Ausgrabungen auf Magulen um Larisa in Thessalien, 1996: 
Agia Sofia-Magula, Karagyös-Magula, Bunar Baschi. Bonn. 

PAPPA M. AND BESIOS M. 1999. The Neolithic Settlement at Makriyalos, Northern Greece: Preliminary 

Report on the 1993–1995 Excavations. Journal of 
Field Archaeology 26: 177–195. 

PERLES C. AND DEMOULE J. P. 1993. The Greek Neolithic: a New Review. Journal of World Prehistory 7: 
355–416. 

PERLES C. AND VITELLI K. D. 1999. Craft Specialization in the Neolithic of Greece. In P. Halstead (ed.), 
Neolithic Society in Greece: 96–107. 

PRITCHARD A. C. and VAN DER LEEUW S. E. 1984. 
Introduction: The Many Dimensions of Pottery. In 

S. E. van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard (eds.), The 
Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology: 1–23. 
RIDLEY C. AND WARDLE K. A. 1979. Rescue Excavations at Servia 1971–1973: a Preliminary Report. Annals of the The British School at Athens 74: 185– 

230. 
SKIBO J. M. 1999. Pottery and People. In J. M. Skibo 
and G. M. Feinman (eds.), Pottery and People: a Dynamic Interaction: 1–8. 

STARK M. T. 1998. Technical Choices and Social Boundaries in Material Culture Patterning. In M. T. Stark 
(ed.), The Archaeology of Social Boundaries: 1–11. 

THEOCHARIS D. 1973. Neolithiki Ellas. Ethnikis 
Trapeza tis Ellados. Athens. 

1993. Neolithikos Politismos. Morfotiko Idryma 
Ethnikis Trapezis. Athens. 

TSOUNTAS Ch. 1908. Ai Proistorikai Akropoleis Diminiou kai Sesklou. Vivliothiki Arxaiologikis Etaireias 14. Athens. 

go back to CONTENTS