changes in the production and use of pottery from the

119

UDK 903.02(495)”634”

Documenta Praehistorica XXIX

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

Dimitrios VlachosDepartment of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield, UK

[email protected] & [email protected]

LATE NEOLITHIC MAKRIYALOS: A CASE STUDY

In 1992 a rescue excavation in Pieria, Northern Gre-ece, near the modern village of Makriyalos, revealeda prehistoric site with archaeological finds dated tothe Late Neolithic period (Fig. 1). The site covers ap-proximately 50 ha, of which 6 ha was intensively in-vestigated (Pappa and Besios 1999.179). The exca-vation of the site offered valuable information aboutthe character of the flat-extended type of Neolithicsite, which is relatively unknown for Greece in com-parison with other regions of Europe and the Bal-kans, where flat-extended settlements are fairly wellknown. The main characteristics of these settlementsare the horizontally shifting occupation, intersper-sed with open spaces, presumably cultivated landand fields, and, finally, their great extent which mayexceed 50 ha (Andreou, Fotiadis and Kotsakis1996.578).

The excavation revealed, according to pottery finds,two different occupation episodes, Makriyalos I and

II (Fig. 2), which refer respectively to the early andlate Late Neolithic. Makriyalos I is dated no earlierthan 5400 BC, while Makriyalos II yielded a greatamount of pottery that has close relations with deco-rative motifs from pottery assemblages of Thessaly,those of the so called ‘Classical Dimini’ pottery style(Theocharis 1973; 1993) (Figs. 3, 4). These two diffe-rent occupation episodes appear on opposite slopesof the hill. Only a few sherds of Makriyalos II werefound in deposits of Makriyalos I, leading to the con-clusion that Makriyalos I was completely abandonedbefore the establishment of Makriyalos II.

During Makriyalos I, the entire settlement was en-circled by two curved, parallel ditches, ditch Alphaand ditch Beta, while a third one, ditch Gamma, wasrevealed inside the settlement. Makriyalos II is ra-ther different. Spatial overlap with Makriyalos I isminimal and Makriyalos II is possibly smaller in ex-tent than Makriyalos I. In this occupational phase,

ABSTRACT – Recent developments in pottery studies have altered the way archaeologists handle andinterpret prehistoric pottery. The technology and use of pottery, the symbolic and social meaning ofthe pot are considered as anthropological phenomena, the products of human action. Excavations atLate Neolithic Makriyalos offered the opportunity to explore from a new perspective several aspectsof 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 in-terpretacije prazgodovinske keramike. Tehnologijo in uporabo keramike, simboli≠en in dru∫beni po-men posod smatramo za antropolo∏ki fenomen, za proizvod ≠lovekove dejavnosti. Izkopavanja po-znoneolitskega Makriyalosa so omogo≠ila nove poglede na neolitsko dru∫bo v Gr≠iji z vidika uporab-nosti, namenskosti, distribucije in zavr∫enosti lon≠enine.

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

Dimitrios Vlachos

120

ditches were also present, but their character is un-clear, because they lie outside the excavated area. Asin Makriyalos I, the ditches are comprised of a chainof pits forming a linear boundary to the settlement.At the intra-site level, habitation is denser in Makri-yalos II with almost no open spaces between thedwellings. According to the excavators, two habita-tion subphases were distinguished, an earlier sub-phase of pit dwellings and a later subphase of apsi-dal structures (Pappa and Besios 1999.180). Hearthsand ovens were situated outside the houses in smallclusters of three or four, while a number of pits aro-und 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 domi-nated by the results of excavations in the early 20th

century at Sesklo and Dimini (Tsountas 1908), inThessaly. Apart from these two sites, adequate pub-

lished information is scarce for set-tlements of this period and the sameis true for pottery. Indeed, one of themajor problems of Greek Neolithicstudies is the restricted extent of la-ter 20th century excavation program-mes, mostly by German and Greekgroups (Gallis 1979) and, as a result,the limited potential for reliable ar-chaeological inferences. Further-more, most sites in Thessaly are tell-villages that were densely inhabited,long-lived and restricted in extent,and so not representative of thenewly recognised category of flat-ex-tended settlements.

Until recently the chronological fra-mework for the Greek Neolithic andthe culture histories of different re-gions within Greece were based ontypological differences between pot-tery groups, analysed at an inter-sitelevel and treating date as the onlysignificant source of variability at anintra-site level (Miloj≠i≤ 1960; Miloj-≠i≤ et al. 1976; Hauptmann 1981).This framework now seems fragileand the mere observation and de-scription of typological differencesinadequate. Makriyalos offers the op-portunity to investigate spatial varia-

bility in archaeological material on a large scale and,thereby, to explore human activity within an earlyfarming community with a high degree of confidence.

Among the wealth of finds from Late Neolithic Ma-kriyalos the pottery from Makriyalos II amounts toapproximately 12 tons. Information on productionof the Makriyalos II pottery and the exchange ofthis material over long distances will be available inshort time from Elli Hitsiou’s study, based on thinsection petrography, of certain technological aspectsand provenance. The objectives of the study were totrace the social and functional role of the Makriya-los II pottery, by exploring its use and the spatial di-stribution of discard. In addition, it was hoped thatceramic analysis would help to refine the chronolo-gical framework of the site.

The preliminary results presented here are based on8-months of systematic work dealing with approxi-mately 2 tons of pottery. Sampling of material forstudy has focussed on the ‘closed’ excavation units,

Fig. 1. Map of Pieria and Thessaly, showing sites mentioned in thetext (after Pappa and Besios 1999).

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

121

the pits, which, with the exception of the two orthree apsidal buildings, were the basic architecturalunits of this phase. Almost all the material from theMakriyalos II pits was examined and recorded. Inaddition, some of the overlying surface layer wasexamined to investigate its relationship with the pitsand to explore postdepositional factors that mayhave affected the way pottery was distributed in thearchaeological record. Finally, particular attentionwas paid to an area in excavation sector Eta (H), onthe northern edge of the settlement, where the ex-cavators had noted an exceptional abundance of ce-ramics: this area, although only one tenth of the ex-cavated Makriyalos II habitation area, yielded nearlyone quarter of the total pottery assemblage for thisphase.

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

term storage pithoi and othersmall storage pots; and, final-ly, d) for cooking pots withtraces of repeated use on fire.Spatial distribution within thesettlement, however, suggestsvariability in the use of spaceand/or date.

Most striking is the distribu-tion of the so-called ‘ClassicalDimini’ pottery style (Diminibrown-on-cream, Otzaki black-on-red, polychrome decorati-on and incised patterns). Al-most 90% of this type of pot-tery comes from the ceramic-rich area in sector Eta on thenorthern edge of the settle-ment, discussed above, andca. 10% from pit 24, whichwas recognised by the excava-tors as a clear example of asubterranean dwelling (Fig.7). In addition, one pit outsi-de the ditch produced a signi-ficant amount of this kind ofpottery, but otherwise only afew sherds were found in-side and outside the remain-ing pits.

The excavators describe the ceramic-rich area in sec-tor Eta as a ‘borrow pit’ and have suggested that thiswas subsequently filled with pottery eroded fromthe slope above the pit (Pappa and Besios 1999.188). In support of this interpretation, the stratigra-phy in this area shows a series of deposits of, some-times, very distinctive pottery, which are separatedby thin layers of soil. Beneath these deposits, werediscovered some pits with small amounts of potteryand a few traces of minor ditches. If the overlyingmaterial had been deposited by erosion, however,relatively intense abrasion and fragmentation ofsherds might be expected, whereas in fact the pot-tery is mostly well preserved and the size of sherdsis remarkably large compared to other areas of thesettlement.

Furthermore, as already noted, tableware in this areais overwhelmingly of ‘Classical Dimini’ type. Shallowflat-based bowls and straight-sided open bowls aredominant and decorated with the characteristic ‘Clas-sical Dimini’ motifs, as are the fruit-stands (Fig. 8).

Fig. 2. Aerial view and sketch plan of Makriyalos I and II.

Dimitrios Vlachos

122

Some incised jars are also present. Pottery with diffe-rent decorative motifs is scarce, as is undecoratedtableware like cups or carinated bowls. The unusualnature of the assemblage from this area suggests thatit represents the primary locus of discard from a par-ticular human activity, rather than theresult of postdepositional erosion.

Further support for this view comesfrom the evidence for cooking vesselsin the Makriyalos II settlement. Overall,very few sherds could be associatedwith cooking and in most cases theywere situated near cooking facilities,such as hearths. Both inside and outsidethe pits, sherds that could be assignedto cooking vessels or that seemed tohave traces of repeated use on fire arealmost absent and the few exceptionsbelong to fragmentary ‘dish-like’ vesselswith rough surface, which are very shal-low and have a large rim diameter. Inthe sector Eta ‘borrow pit’, however, nu-merous cooking vessels and pots withclear traces of fire were recognised andalmost all of these have fabrics rich inshell inclusions. A very large number of

storage pots were found in this particular area. Thusit seems clear that this area was the location of a dis-tinctive type of activity or at least discard. The al-most complete absence of decorated pottery andparticularly of ‘Classical Dimini’ pottery elsewhere

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

Fig. 4. Pottery with polychrome decoration.


123

in the settlement and the quantity of this pottery inthis ‘borrow pit,’ completed with the abundance inthis pit of pottery related to cooking, suggest thatthis distinctive group of material should be interpre-ted in terms of patterns of activity or discard ratherthan chronological variation.

In the Makriyalos II habitation area, no stratigraphicdistinctions are evident within pits (Fig. 9), but manypits contain small quantities of pottery and share acommon, but limited ‘repertoire’ of ceramic catego-ries. This ‘repertoire’ consists of a small number ofimpressed and incised tableware vessels such as ca-rinated bowls (Fig. 10), but other tableware is un-decorated and could be related to the consumptionof food or liquids, as in the case of cups. Pottery forstorage needs, like pithoi and small storage vessels,and for the transfer of liquids, like jars, was domi-nant inside the pits. Very few sherds could be ascri-bed to a cooking vessel, with a preference to the shal-low ‘dish-like’ vessels. More cookingvessels were recognised in areas nearhearths, but the number is still lowcompared to the number of cookingvessels that was found in the ‘bor-row pit’ in sector Eta. A pit in theeastern part of the settlement yield-ed remarkable quantities of incisedpottery, but it was excavated in atrial trench and so its spatial relati-onship to other pits remains unclear.

In the southern part of the excavatedarea, the quantity of pottery fromthe boundary ditch is very small, thedegree of preservation extremely lowand the fragmentation of sherds very

high. The fill consists of sherds as-cribed to small storage pots and al-most complete absence of tablewareor decorated pottery, except for someincised pots, as in the case of mostpits at the habitation area. It seemsthat the pits which constituted theditch filled with material exposedfor a long time before incorporationin the ditch or in some cases with re-fuse discarded from the settlementitself.

The apsidal buildings (Fig. 11), assi-gned by the excavators to a separatehabitation episode, show clear evi-dence of a distinctive use, even if

there is heavy erosion in this area and it is very dif-ficult to explore and interpret them. Their internalorganisation, including one or two separate roomsand an apsidal end with many fragments of storagepots, reflects a different and more elaborate percep-tion of the use of space from that of the simple pitdwellings. However, inside the rooms differencesfrom the pit dwellings in the composition of potteryis minimal.

The subterranean dwelling, Pit 24, is the only pitthat presents stratigraphic differences (Fig. 12). Thispit is unusual in its depth, its diameter, the entranceidentified by the excavators and the discovery ofthree holes marking the position of storage pots onthe floor, 2 m below the present surface. The sherdsof these storage pots were found in the floor depo-sit. The excavators suggest that the bottom of the pitcould have been used as a cellar. The pottery of thepit exhibits a clear stratigraphic sequence. ‘Classical

Fig. 5. Common shapes from Makriyalos II.

Fig. 6. Pottery from Makriyalos II.

Dimitrios Vlachos

124

Dimini’ pottery is dominant in the upper layersalong with many big storage pots. In the lower le-vels, the amount of ‘Classical Dimini’ pottery decrea-ses and other decorative motifs are present, albeit insmall quantities, while the frequency of storage potsincreases. Whether this difference in the composi-tion of the pottery from successive levels in this par-ticular pit reflects changes in the use of space, assuggested by the excavators, chronological differen-ces, or both, demands further examination in the fu-ture.

CONCLUSIONS

In recent years, pottery studies in archaeology havemoved beyond the traditional dichotomy betweentechnology-use and social-symbolic (Pritchard and

van der Leeuw 1984; Stark 1998). The technologyand use of pottery and the symbolic and social mea-ning the pot itself carries, are now regarded from amore anthropological perspective as parts of thesame sequence of actions that begin with the manu-facture and production of a pot and includes its va-rious uses and, ultimately, its discard (Lemonnier1993; Skibo 1999). Of course, people are the mainparticipants in these actions. They understand andeven change the social meaning of pottery throughtime, organising the production of a pot not only tomeet basic biological needs, but also to represent cer-tain perceptions of dietary traditions or as a meansof changing them.

As for Makriyalos II, the history of research in Ma-cedonia and Thessaly shows that, in the later LateNeolithic, stylistic regions are smaller and there is avariety of ‘wares’ and decorative motifs (Demouleand Perlès 1993.392–393; Perlès and Vitelli 1999.98). Certain wares are evident over very large geo-graphical areas, as in case of the ‘Classical Dimini’pottery, distribution of which reaches Albania, butseems uneven as is indicated by the absence of ‘Clas-sical Dimini’ pottery at Mandalo and Dispilio. In thecase of Makriyalos, the quantity and quality of thisparticular ceramic category is high. The origin of this

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

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


125

pottery is still unclear and whether pots were impor-ted and so represent products that were exchangedwidely, as in the case of obsidian, or were producedlocally, is still uncertain. On the other hand, Makri-yalos lacks the variety of ‘wares’ and decoration evi-dent elsewhere in Macedonia, as at Servia (Ridleyand Wardle 1979.213–217) or Giannitsa B (Chryso-stomou 1996.165), where ‘Classical Dimini’ potteryis only a part of the decorated pottery assemblage.Decorated pottery at Makriyalos II is dominated bythe ‘Classical Dimini’ styles and only a few other de-corative styles occur, such as the incised carinatedbowls and some incised pots, but the number of thesepots or sherds is limited. The possibility that this isa result of differences in chronological sequence, yetundetected, inside the settlement demands furtherexamination.

In the later Late Neolithic, coarse wares and potteryshapes that could be related to cooking and potterywith traces of repeated use on fire make up a largepart of the ceramic assemblage. This perhaps reflectsincreasing use of pottery in the domestic sphere(Perlès and Vitelli 1999.98). At Late Neolithic Makri-yalos II, the preparation of food in particular areas,where there is a concentration of hearths and cook-ing vessels, seems to be an activity that engaged se-veral individuals or more than one family. On theother hand, the consumption of that food may havebeen more individualised as the number of cups andsome undecorated shallow bowls inside the pitsshows. This dual pattern of collective productionand individual consumption might suggest that rela-tions between inhabitants were negotiated in every-day life through food. It has been previously beenargued that the consumption of food and drink, andof the tableware, played such a role in negotiatingsocial relations in neolithic Greece, particularly be-tween different ‘household’ groups (Halstead 1995;Andreou, Fotiadis and Kotsakis 1996). Makriyalos

Fig. 10. Incised carinated bowl with painted deco-ration at the lower part.

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

I thank Professor Miha Budja for inviting me to theseminar. Professor K. Kotsakis and my supervisor P.Halstead strongly encouraged me to participate andoffered valuable suggestions and corrections to thetext. I also thank the excavators, Maria Pappa andManthos Besios, for giving me the opportunity tostudy the material from Makriyalos II. Photographswere taken by Arturo Vargas and the photographsand plans were processed by Nikos Valasiadis.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

II offers the opportunity to explore this role in therather different social context of a site dominated ar-chitecturally by small pit dwellings, suitable for hou-sing only restricted numbers of people.

Finally, while the study of Late Neolithic ceramicshas begun in recent years to move beyond the mereconcern for chronology, it is clear that little progresshas been made in the basic source of the archaeolo-gical record, excavation. The extensive excavation atMakriyalos is rare, in terms of Greek archaeology,and more work on this scale is needed to clarify thespatial organization and possible symbolic uses ofceramics and ultimately to treat pottery as an anthro-pological phenomenon, as a product of human action.

ANDREOU S., FOTIADIS M., KOTSAKIS K. 1996. Re-view of Aegean Prehistory. The Neolithic and BronzeAge of Northern Greece. American Journal of Ar-chaeology 100: 537–597.

CHRYSOSTOMOU P. 1996. I Neolithiki Katoikisi stiVoreia Paraktia Zoni tou Allote Thermaikou Kolpou.To Arxaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki10: 159–172.

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

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

HAUPTMANN H. 1981. Die deutchen Ausgrabungenauf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien, III: Das späteNeolithikum und das Chalkolithikum. Bonn.

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

MILOJ∞I≥ V. 1960. Hauptergebnisse der deutschenAusgrabungen in Thessalien 1953–58. Bonn.

MILOJ∞I≥ V. et al. 1976. Die deutchen Ausgrabun-gen auf Magulen um Larisa in Thessalien, 1996:Agia Sofia-Magula, Karagyös-Magula, Bunar Ba-schi. Bonn.

PAPPA M. AND BESIOS M. 1999. The Neolithic Settle-ment at Makriyalos, Northern Greece: Preliminary

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

PERLÈS C. AND DEMOULE J. P. 1993. The Greek Neo-lithic: a New Review. Journal of World Prehistory 7:355–416.

PERLÈS C. AND VITELLI K. D. 1999. Craft Specializa-tion 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. InS. E. van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard (eds.), TheMany Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeo-logy and Anthropology: 1–23.

RIDLEY C. AND WARDLE K. A. 1979. Rescue Excava-tions at Servia 1971–1973: a Preliminary Report. An-nals of the The British School at Athens 74: 185–230.

SKIBO J. M. 1999. Pottery and People. In J. M. Skiboand G. M. Feinman (eds.), Pottery and People: a Dy-namic Interaction: 1–8.

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

THEOCHARIS D. 1973. Neolithiki Ellas. EthnikisTrapeza tis Ellados. Athens.

1993. Neolithikos Politismos. Morfotiko IdrymaEthnikis Trapezis. Athens.

TSOUNTAS Ch. 1908. Ai Proistorikai Akropoleis Di-miniou kai Sesklou. Vivliothiki Arxaiologikis Etaire-ias 14. Athens.

Dimitrios Vlachos

126

REFERENCES

go back to CONTENTS

changes in the production and use of pottery from the

Documents