The Neolithic Settlement at Makriyalos, Northern Greece: Preliminary Report On The 1993 - 1995 Excavations

Maney Publishing
The Neolithic Settlement at Makriyalos, Northern Greece: Preliminary Report on the 19931995 Excavations
Author(s): Maria Pappa and Manthos Besios
Source: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Summer, 1999), pp. 177-195
Published by: Maney Publishing
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/530661 .
Accessed: 01/08/2013 04:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Maney Publishing is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Field
Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 04:15:15 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
177
The Neolithic Settlement at Makriyalos,
Northern Greece: Preliminary Report on

the 1993-1995 Excavations
MariaPappa
ManthosBesios
Museumof Thessaloniki
Archaeological
Greece
Thessaloniki,
The discoveryand excavationof an extensiveNeolithicsite near the modernvillage of
Makriyalos,in Pieria, northernGreece,havegreatly enrichedour knowledgeof this distinctive,flat-lying, "non-tell"typeof settlement.Suchsites,spreadovera sizeableexpanseof
land, and not restrictedto a single, cumulativelocus,have beenrecentlyrecognizedas
dominant in NeolithicMacedonia.
Thesite at Makriyalosis locatedon thegentle slopesof a natural hill and coverssome50
ha. During two discretephases,bothsecurelydated to the Late NeolithicPeriod,the habitation area was encircledby large earthworks.The 6-ha area of excavationallowedthefirst
detailedexaminationof the internal organizationand evolutionof this typeof settlement.
Thispreliminaryreportpresentsthefirst resultsof continuinganalysisof the settlementand
its organization,and placesMakriyaloswithin the widerBalkan context.
Introduction
In 1992, prior to the construction of a new railwayand
the extension of the main national road, a rescue excavation project was undertaken in Pieria, northern Greece by
the Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of
Thessaloniki. The project investigated archaeological remains in the area, dating from the Late Neolithic to the
Late Roman period, that would be threatened by the construction work. One significant discovery, followed by excavations during 1993-1995, was the Neolithic site of
Makriyalos, near the modern village of that name. The site,
covering ca. 50 ha on a gentle hillslope, is dated to the Late
Neolithic.
Research on the Greek Neolithic period started early in
the 20th century with the major excavations of Sesklo and
Dimini in Thessaly (Tsountas 1908) (FIG. i). These projects were followed by the intensive investigation of Neolithic sites throughout the century in that specific area.
Sesklo and Dimini remain the type sites for the Greek Neolithic for settlement organization and chronology. Macedonia, as a link between the Balkansand the Near East, was
also a field of interest for prehistorians, though excavations
there were not, until recently, as extensive as those carried
out in Thessaly.
Early farming communities had been established in

Macedonia in the Early Neolithic period (TABLE
I), in organized permanent settlements, as the excavation at the
site of Nea Nikomedia demonstrated in the early 1960s
(Rodden 1965). Before today, the sites investigated
throughout the Neolithic period were mostly densely inhabited villages of long duration with an economy based
on farming and domesticated animals. Fine, decorated
pottery and other skillfully made artifacts characterizethe
period and are the basis for the chronological system still
used, supported now by radiocarbon dates (TABLE
I).
Excavations at the Neolithic site of Makriyalos demonstrate that, along with these tell-forming villages, longlived and restricted in extent, non-tell, extensive settlements also existed in northern Greece. The latter are already well known from other areas of Europe (Chapman
1981: 43-45; Whittle 1985: 102-105). The large-scaleexcavation at Makriyalos is expected to address questions
that arise from these differences in spatial patterning. For
example, does this differentiation reflect a different social
and economic organization, different farming and stock
breeding practices, or alternativesin manufacturingstrategies, and what are the main variables?
This report draws upon evaluations made during field-

178 NeolithicSettlementat Makriyalos,Greece/Pappa

and Besios
VVIA
YanitsaB
K
I
THSSALKO
S ..
"-
alo:::
Then
KAyps
Ynnis
NTERINI
SoAEhA
2,
BULGARA
LARISA
TATHRACE*
SsALBANIAlk
SAchilleio
Figure 1. Map of Pieria and Thessaly in Northern Greece, showing sites mentioned in the text
and modern cities.
work at Makriyalos and on the first results emerging from

processing of finds.
NeolithicSettlementPatternsin NorthernGreece
Makriyalosis situated in the coastal areaof Pieria, in the
southern nome of Macedonia (FIG. I). Very few Neolithic
sites areknownin this area,andthe excavationof Makriyalos is actuallythe firstprehistoricexcavationthathastaken

placehere, althoughnumeroussites to the south of Pieria
in Thessalyand to the northin the restof Macedoniahave
been investigated.Most of the sites appearas moundsor
tells (maghoules)
risingabovethe flatlandscapeandformed

26, 1999 179

JournalofFieldArchaeology/Vol.
Table 1. Archaeological phases and chronology for Northern

Greece during the Neolithic period (after Andreou, Fotiadis,
and Kotsakis 1996: 538).
Archaeologicalphases
YearsB.c., calendrical
EarlyNeolithic
MiddleNeolithic
LateNeolithic
FinalNeolithic
6700/6500-5800/5600
5800/5600-5400/5300
5400/5300-4700/4500
4700/4500-3300/3100
by the accumulation of successive prehistoric habitation

layers. The dwellings in these agrarian settlements are
densely packed, and habitation was year-round and longlasting, with houses rebuilt on the same spot. Their size
typically ranges from 0.5 to 5.5 ha (Halstead 1984: tables
6.1, 6.6; Demoule and Perles 1993: 370).
The recently recognized extensive, non-tell type of settlement, which had formerly gone unnoticed due to its inconspicuous form, existed along with the tell sites (Andreou and Kotsakis 1986: 83-84; Demoule and Perlks
1993: 388). The extent of these settlements ranges from 8
to 20 ha. Two such sites near Thessaloniki, Vasilika C and
Thermi B, were recently investigated during rescue excavations (Grammenos 1991: 30-31; Grammenos et al. 1990:
224-243; Grammenos et al. 1992: 381-393).
Based on the excavation of these sites and by analogy to
Neolithic sites in the central Balkans, these extensive, nontell settlements were thought to represent a type of habitation different from that of the tells. Certainly the settlement area was not as densely occupied as that of the tells;
instead, houses were separated by large empty spaces. This
means that the area of the site was a less direct reflection of
population size (Andreou and Kotsakis 1986: 83-84).
Horizontal shifting of the settlement during successive
habitation phases, as recognized at the site of Selevac in
Serbia (Tringham and Stevanovid 1990: 117-120), would
have further contributed to the extensive occupation area.
Recent survey work by the University of Thessaloniki in
the Langhadas Basin suggests that the empty spaces between the habitation areas were used for cultivation (Andreou and Kotsakis 1994: 17-25). A large-scaleexcavation
was required to explore questions about this alternativeoccupation pattern and its adaptations, and, indeed, whether
these differences could even be examined via excavation
(Kotsakis 1994: 129). The rescue excavation at Makriyalos
unexpectedly offered just such an opportunity.
Settingand Background
The region of Pieria lies in the southern part of Macedonia, separatedfrom Thessaly by Mt. Olympus, the highest mountain in Greece (FIG. i). The main route between
north and south has alwayspassed through Pieria and,

partlyfor this reason,the port of the ancientkingdomof
Macedonwas located here at classicalPydna.The neighboringNeolithicsite, nearthe modern,eponymousvillage
of Makriyalos,was known to have prehistoricsherds,but
the size and form of the settlementwere revealedonly by
the recentexcavation.
The settlementextendsover a low, heavilyerodedhill,
that like the surroundingarea,consistsof a successionof
marlsand palaeosols.Two ravinespassnearthe site to the
NE and sw. The site lies amongrollingandextensivelycultivatedhillsbetweenthe sea,lessthan2 km to the east,and
the Pieriamountains,approximately15 km to the west.
The prehistoricsettlementcovers about 50 ha, based on
surfacefindsandon a geophysicalsurveyconductedby the
Universityof Thessalonikiin order to help locate buried
features(Tsokaset al. 1997: 130-136). About 6 ha, or
12% of the total site area,has been excavated(FIG. 2).
Makriyalosis, overall,one of the largestnon-tell sites in
Macedonia,althoughthe estimatecombinesthe adjacent,
and partiallyoverlapping,depositionsof two differentoccupationepisodes(termedMakriyalosI andII).
TheExcavation
Investigationsat Makriyalosrequireda 20-month period of intensive excavation (Besios and Pappa 1998:
13-14). The site had gone unnoticedin 1970 when road
buildingdestroyedabout 6 ha of the settlement.By 1992
the site was recordedby trialtrenchesand in the face of a
renewedthreatfromrailwayandroadconstruction,rescue
excavationswereorganizedin February1993. Trialtrenches were excavatedto locatethe limitsof the archaeological
deposits and a 700 x 300 m grid was set out over the
threatenedareasof the site (FIG.3).In someplaceslargeareas of topsoilnearly1 m thick,whichcoveredthe archaeologicalfeatures,were removedby heavyequipment.Each
trenchmeasured5 x 5 m, including1 m balks.Habitation
areaswithin the trencheswere completelyexcavated,in
contrastto the ditcheswherethe huge volume of the deposits forced us to choose what amountedto the most
undisturbed50%.
About 20%of MakriyalosI was destroyedin 1970 during the initial construction of the road; our work revealed
an additional 15% of the original size of that phase.
Though much smallerin area,the part ofMakriyalos II settlement that was investigated required equal time for excavation as it was more densely inhabited.
Chronology
Two main phases of occupation, Makriyalos I and II,
were clearlydistinguished. These two phases had little hor-

and Besios
.....
...
VX--\
Figure 2. Aerial view of the northern slope of the hill at Makriyalos during fiullexcavation of phase II.
izontal overlap since they were established on opposite

slopes of the hill. The fact that no sherds of the second
phase were found in the deposits of Makriyalos I indicates
that Makriyalos I had been completely abandoned and
covered with earth before Makriyalos II was established.
Two subphases of Makriyalos II were distinguished stratigraphically-an earlier one of round structures, followed
by a subphase of apsidal structures. It appears that the
abandonment of Makriyalos II marked the end of use of
the area until a vineyard was installed during the Classical
period. During Hellenistic and Roman times extensive
cemeteries were established along the roads that led to ancient Pydna.
The Neolithic occupation is dated primarily by pottery.
More than 150 radiocarbon samples were collected but
have not yet been processed. The present chronological estimate places Makriyalos I and II within the limits of the
Late Neolithic period, which lasted from ca. 5400/5300

to ca. 4700/4500 B.c. in calendricalyears (Andreou,
B.c.
Fotiadis, and Kotsakis 1996: 538). The pottery of
Makriyalos II indicates a very close relation to the so called
"classical"Dimini pottery style of Thessaly. For this reason
Makriyalos II is regarded as roughly contemporary with
that style, dating to the end of the Late Neolithic period
(Gallis 1996: 28-29). Makriyalos I predates the later
phase, but is no earlierthan 5400 B.c.
Makriyalos I
The settlement of Makriyalos I, situated on the south
and sw slope of the low hill, was surrounded by a double
ditch enclosing an area estimated at 28 ha (FIG. 3). The enclosure was sparsely occupied by groups of pit-dwellings
(FIG. 4.). Borrow pits created by large-scale earth removal
were evident at three different places within the excavated

26, 1999 181

"
wci
---
LIMITS
OF THEAREAUNDERRESEARCH
oom
MAKRIYALOS
I
II
MAKRrYALOS
S
SLOPESOF THENATIONAL
ROAD
ROUTEOF DITCHALPHAREVEALED
BYEXCAVATION
m
S-m
-
ROUTEOF DITCHALPHA
HYPOTHETICAL
ROUTEOF DITCHBETAREVEALED
BYEXCAVATION
HYPOTHETICAL
HYPOTHETICAL
ROUTROUTE
E
OFOF DIDITCH
TCH
BETBETA
A
Figure 3. The Neolithic settlement at Makriyalos. Layout of the area under research.
area. Part of a third ditch, in the middle of the enclosure,

was investigated; this ditch may have surrounded part of
the settlement.
TheDitches
Two curved, parallelditches were traced in total for 470
m by excavation and trial trenches, and nearly 230 m of the
identified ditches were systematically investigated. The inner ditch Alpha, which is the main deep construction, had
two separate phases. Originally, a chain of large, deep pits
was dug, which was continuously renewed either by cleaning out the old pits or by digging new pits in nearly the
same place and always along the same line (FIG.5). The dimensions of the ditch were uneven, measuring up to 3.5 m
in depth and up to 4.5 m in width. In places a second phase
can be clearly distinguished in which the partly-filled ditch
was re-dug as a continuous V-shaped trench.
Despite its depth, the ditch was surmounted in certain
areasby mud-brick walls built on its outeredge. Elsewhere
layers of large quantities of stones had fallen inside the
ditch. These may have come from walls built of similar
stones on the edge of the ditch; since stone is ratherrarein
the area and was not used in house building, its presence
here cannot be related to dumping of architecturaldebris.
No construction resembling an entrance was encountered

along the excavated part of the ditch.
The fill of ditch Alpha consisted of layers representing
successive periods of construction and use (FIG. 6), all of
which belong to the beginning of the Late Neolithic period since no later finds were encountered. Much of the
ditch fill came from the collapse of the sides of the pits and
contained few artifacts. By contrast, when the fill derived
from the settlement area,either by erosion or refuse, it contained a great number and variety of artifactsand detritus.
Thin layers of mud were often encountered between the
levels indicating the presence of water.
Ditch Beta, outside ditch Alpha, is much simpler in construction and consists of a narrow and shallow continuous
V-shaped channel. Ditch Beta seems to have been filled by
the collapse of its sides since very few objects were found
in the deposit. A third ditch, Gamma (FIG. 3), very similar
in construction to ditch Alpha, is poorly understood, but
may have served as a partition within the enclosure.
The ditch system was covered by a dark brown layer up
to 1.5 m thick derived from hilltop erosion. The lack of
finds dating to Makriyalos II in the ditch suggests that the
ditch was abandoned and filled up before the establishment
of the phase II settlement. The absence of MakriyalosI re-


and Besios
SECTOR
KAPPA
Ditch Alpha
Group of pit dwellings

,
Groupof pitdwellings 0
&
:0
SECTORLAMDA
AREAS OF DITCHALPHA
SEXCAVATED
5.0m
"Oak..
Figure 4. Makriyalos I, sector Kappa and Lamda. Part of intrasite area and ditch Alpha consisted of a
chain of pits.
mains on the outside the ditch system indicates that it

bounded the occupation of that phase.
The understanding and interpretation of the ditch system has been the most complicated part of our investigation. It was apparentlythe boundary of the habitation area,
and its size and the considerable effort required for its digging and maintenance reflects its importance for the prehistoric settlement. The ditch may also have been used as a
refuse area, as a burial place, or as a cistern for the storage
of water, all of which are partially supported by the finds.
IntrasiteOrganization
Inside the enclosed arealoose groups of pits (FIGS. 4, 7)
form the remains of semi-subterranean buildings used
mainly as houses. Any upper structureof the houses has totally eroded away, but post holes around some of the pits
belonged to outer walls. Similar but better preservedstructures found in Makriyalos II allow a hypothetical reconstruction of these buildings. Small hearths and ovens were
found outside the houses in separate small, shallow pits.
The empty areasbetween groups of structures suggest garden plots inside the settlement limits, as mentioned earlier.
Borrow pits, more or less round areas of earth removal
measuring up to 30 m in diameter, are present during both
Neolithic phases. These depressions were afterwards
pressed into service for habitation (FIG.7). Earth dug from
these areas was, presumably, used for activities such as
building.
Makriyalos
II
Makriyalos II seems to be smaller in overall extent than

Makriyalos I, but the layout of the structuresis much more

26, 1999 183

Journalof FieldArchaeology/Vol.
,",, , , I
I??,I.
X4.
WWI;
lk.
41
Figure 5. Makriyalos I, ditch Alpha, chain of pits.
dense. Despite a high degree of erosion, two habitation

subphases can be distinguished on stratigraphicevidence
(FIG. 8). Ditches were also present during Makriyalos II,
but their courses are difficult to determine, as they mostly
lie outside the excavated area. A ditch on the southern
edge of the excavated area seems to constitute an inner
partition, and another one on the northern edge might be
a settlement boundary.A large watercourse at the western
edge was channelized to form a third ditch. As noted
above, large borrow pits were present in this period.
IntrasiteOrganization
Because of erosion, thick archaeological deposits are
not preserved in Makriyalos II habitation areas, and only
the lower parts of buildings remain (FIG. 9). What is left
is effectively the underground part of the settlement, i.e.,
the pits of the semi-subterraneanhouses, the basements,
associated pits of specialized functions, and the deep foun-
dations of walls. No vacant areas now intervene between

the structures, in contrast to Makriyalos I, suggesting a
different pattern of habitation.
SUBPHASE OF PIT DWELLINGS
The earlier habitation subphase consists of large pit

dwellings, up to 5 m in diameter, encircled by postholes
that indicate the position of walls (FIG. io). A few pieces
of wattle and daub attest to wall construction; stone was
not used. The dwellings had vertical walls and subterranean or semi-subterranean floors. One of the deepest
dwelling pits excavated preserved its entrance. On the
floor, 2 m below the present surface of the ground, there
were three holes marking the position of storage pots
whose sherds were found in the floor deposit, suggesting
that this space might have been used as a cellar. In that
case, a wooden floor could be used on the ground level.
Fragments of plastered clay, decorated on one surface and


and Besios
w-pw
77,
"EmilE2m
AM:~
....
Figure 6. Makriyalos I, section through ditch Alpha showing two separate construction phases.
SECTOR
OMIKRON
SECTOR
PE
5O0m
.L .
T- - - ---Avg
Figure 7. Makriyalos I, sectors Omikron and Pi. Group of habitation pits to the left and borrow pit to
the right. This area yielded the highest concentration of finds.

26, 1999 185

p oBasement
sjidal
buildi
C)
01
6C'
00
SECTORit
dwellETA
o
o~j
SECTOR
ate
ors0 e
co
..
rse
Trial
trench
es0SECTOR
ET A
..
ae
00
OT
PS
.
TH?ETA
.A
Figure 8. Makriyalos II, sectors Eta and Theta. The two separate subphases can be distinguished in places.
The large watercourse mentioned in the text lies on the lowest part of the plan.
found in the fill of the basement, might derive from the superstructure of the basement, which has otherwise completely vanished (FIG.II).
Around the dwellings various subsidiary pits were
found that, depending on size, shape, and contents, were
identified as storage pits, refuse pits, and possible working
areas. A few remains preserved above floor level suggest
stone-paved yards while hearths and ovens were situated
outside the houses in specially formed shallow pits.
Though such structureswere also found singly, small clusters of three or four hearths or ovens suggest a communal
cooking area shared by groups of houses.
of these buildings became evident after the complete

ground plan of an apsidal building was exposed near the
northern edge of the excavation. It was set on a N-s axis
with its apsidal end towards the south; its length was 15
m, and it was divided into two rooms by an inner wall
SUBPHASE
Both phases provide information on burial practices. In

Makriyalos I skeletons were found in the lower layers of
the fill of ditch Alpha. In some cases the corpse was thrown
carelessly into the ditch without any special treatment.
Such casual discard of the corpse is not unknown during
the Neolithic (Pappa 1997: 304). In other cases, signs of
secondary burials were found in the ditch in which bones
OF APSIDAL
STRUCTURES
The pit dwellings described above were cut in places by

traces of rectilinear walls, all in the same alignment (FIG.
8). We believe these walls belong to a separate habitation
episode, as they were found all around the excavated area
of Makriyalos II. In some cases the straight walls form the
sides of rooms with a curved, apsidal end. The general plan
(FIG. 12).
The northernroom had four postholes in the
center, possibly for the support of the roof. In the apse

there was a deep storage pit containing flax seeds. The
building was preserved only below floor level and merely
the foundation of the walls and the postholes could be
traced.
Burials

186 NeolithicSettlementatMakriyalos,Greece/Pappa
and Besios
. . .
Arlow,
Il~sssPB
~ ----~--a~p~s~
'IPI
~al~414
. . ......
.
146., t
-4
Figure 9. Makriyalos II. General view of sectors Eta and Theta.
were gathered and covered with stones. Scattered human

bones were found throughout the deposits of the ditch,
possibly washed in. Fragmentary human bones were also
found in habitation areas, but are not sufficient enough to
support the presence of burials. Since meters of deposit are
known to have been removed by erosion, however, it is
possible other burialplaces, apartfrom the ditch, have vanished completely.
A different burial practice is attested at Makriyalos II.
An infant cremation was found in a small pot in one of the
round houses. No other signs of cremation were found in
either phase. The practices of the earlier period were not
completely forgotten, however, as one complete human
skeleton was found in the deep pit in the area of the large
earthworks. Further analysis of human skeletal remains is
ongoing.
Subsistence
The abundant paleoeconomic data is at the preliminary
stage of sorting and identification. Taking advantageof the

large scale of the excavation, Paul Halstead and Patricia
Collins have three principal aims for the faunal study: 1) to
clarify whether the marked divergence of spatial organization between "tell villages" and extended, non-tell settlements is related to different patterns of animal exploitation; 2) to investigate animal exploitation by individual social units within the Late Neolithic settlement; and 3) to
determine whether early finds of metal tools at Makriyalos
extended to the use of metal in animal butchery (Halstead
and Collins 1997: 268-270). The faunal "package"from
one of the borrow pits is standardfor the period (Halstead
1992: 22). Fish bones are present and marine shells are
abundant (Paul Halstead, personal communication 1997).
The most common of the various edible marine molluscs
encountered is Cerastodermaglaucum, as at other Greek
Neolithic settlements (Tsuneki 1989: 4-21). Apart from
food processing the presence of large numbers of shells
might also be related to pottery and other crafts. For ex-

26, 1999 187

2?jowiw
?--,
-
-?
3-P,
~~g~$~
WK
i ????-7
VTI::
4?1Y-:;~~
4--~I~,~
:~:--.
Figure 10. Makriyalos II. Remains of pit dwellings.
ample, Spondylusgaederopous,
present as large amounts of
was
waste,
manufacturing
mainly used in jewelry and was
collected
on
the
presumably
nearby shore.
the
of
erosion and non-preservaDespite
high degree
tion of floor levels, about 1300 useful samples of charred
plant remains have been found (Valamoti 1998: 270). The
species encountered are presented in Table 2. Most of the
plant remains were found around cooking areas, in occupation layers, and in specific parts of the ditch deposit.
Artifacts
The large number of artifactscollected during the excavation does not permit full publication of the material at
this time. Therefore the results presented for the most part
do not refer to the entire excavation, but to those sectors
that have alreadybeen studied by the various collaborators.
Pottery
The habitation levels of the two main chronological
phases scarcely overlap in space but the deposits of each
phase arevery easily distinguished by their different pottery
styles. Undisturbed pottery groups are the richest available
for the Greek Late Neolithic. As a result of the quantity,

pottery analysis is still at an initial stage.
Initial examination indicates that the most common ceramic shapes during Makriyalos I are biconical open bowls
and large storage vessels that frequently exhibit well
worked surfaces. Black burnished pottery was dominant
during this period, along with brown burnished and coarse
pottery. The presence of black-topped pottery was also evident in smaller quantities, while there are only few examples of red burnished pottery. The percentage of decorated
pottery is very low. Plastic decoration is more common and
appearsrippled, incised, channeled, and pattern burnished.
Painted decoration only displays a few examples of whiteon-black and white-on-red (Lachanidou 1997: 261).
The characteristicpottery of Makriyalos I is closely related to ceramic styles found in western Macedonia, in the
Late Neolithic phases of the site of Serviain Pieria (Riddley
and Wardle 1979: 213, 225). A close stylistic link is also
traced to the fine Thessalian black pottery (Demoule, Gallis, and Manolakakis 1988: 33-38). Actually, MakriyalosI
is part of the common black burnished pottery tradition
that is widespread throughout the whole of the Balkans.

and Besios
188 NeolithicSettlementatMlakriyalos,Greece/Pappa
R P m FIM
"
*Ott:
'k,
AL:~
4.
IAV
:::;:~:iI::
Figure 11. Makriyalos II. Basement structure preserving an entrance.
The link with the northern Balkan Vinia A tradition is

stressed in vases decorated with plastic depictions of the
human face and figure on the rim or the neck (Besios and
Pappa 1995: 29; Gimbutas 1972: 24).
The dominant painted pottery of Makriyalos II is closeto the "classical"Dimini pottery style of Thessaly,
related
ly
though signs of contact from elsewhere in the Balkans are
also present. The excavated area of Makriyalos II is much
more restricted than that of Makriyalos I and subsequently the quantity of pottery collected is smaller. Painted pottery of the Dimini brown-on-cream (FIG. 13) and Otzaki
black-on-red wares are the dominant decorated styles.
Bowls of all sizes, "fruitstands," and jars are common
shapes. The pots are burnished and covered with thick slips
that ensure the uniform color of the finished surface. The
incised pottery of the same period is also very close to
Thessalian wares (Alarm-Stern 1996: 137-140, 151;
Weisshaar 1989: pl. 1-5). Black-topped open bowls with
cylindrical bases and S-shaped profiles were found in the
same layers. Petrographic analysis of the various categories

is underway in order to identify the various fabrics and
their provenance (Hitsiou 1997: 263).
The percentage of painted pottery from MakriyalosII is
low compared to the coarse pottery. An uneven spatial distribution is suggested by initial analysis, as painted pottery
derives in large quantities mainly from the borrow pit in
the northern edge of the settlement and from other large
pits, while the rest of the pits contained hardly any decorated pottery.
Metal Objects
Very little is known about metallurgical techniques and
sources of raw materials during the Late Neolithic, mainly
because of the small number of artifacts found and analyzed from stratifieddeposits (McGeehan-Liritzisand Gale
1988: 199-225; Demoule and Perlks 1993: 394). The
copper artifactsfrom Makriyalos are among the earliest in
Greece. Sixty-five objects were found in the deposits of

26, 1999 189

Aili
pow,!i
I0I
...........
.
"i
............
......
...:
:!
i~ii,i!ii!
..
i~i~
.....
~!?'???.
Figure 12. Makriyalos II. The apsidal structure from the north. The apse is indicated by the arrow at the
southern end.
Makriyalos II of which nearly half are small cylindrical

beads made of curved sheet metal. There are also pins,
awls, pieces of thin wire, a small chisel, a sheet in the shape
of a "ring idol,"and other unidentified objects. Twenty-one
of these copper objects, selected on the criteria of stratigraphy and typology, have been analyzed at the Getty Conservation Institute using an advanced method of mass
spectrometry.The results indicate that Makriyalos marks a
transitional phase in the development of copper metallurgy, from the early exploitation of native copper sources, to
the smelting of copper from its ores (David Scott, personal communication 1997).
Figurines
The view that we are "still a long way from understanding prehistoric figurines" (Talalay1993: 81) has not been
radically changed by the Makriyalos excavation, though
the number of figurines found during the excavation ex-
ceeds any published group from the Greek mainland (Talalay 1993: 60, table 6; Marangou 1992: 337, 340, 343).
The figurines in both phases were found all over the excavated area. No special concentrations or specific associations with particular buildings were observed, although
further analysisof the spatial distribution of finds might alter this perception.
The Makriyalos figurines are mainly representations of
the human figure; very few zoomorphic figurines were
found. The figurines were stylisticallydiverse, emphasizing
different elements such as gender, a specific part of the
body, a facial characteristic,the decoration of clothes and
body, or even pregnancy and birth. Most of the figurines
are small, less than 10 cm high.
The total number of figurines is 280, distributed more
or less equally between Makriyalos I and II. This figure
does not include zoomorphic or anthropomorphic handles
of vases. The forms of the clay figurines varyfrom very sim-

and Besios
190 NeolithicSettlementatMakriyalos,Greece/Pappa
Table2. Listingof scientificand commonnamesof

plantremainsfound at Makriyalos.
Cereals
Triticummonococcum
Triticumdicoccum
Triticumaestivum/durum
Hordeumdistichon
Avena spp.
Pulses
Viciaervilia
Lensspp.
Lathyrussativus/cicera
Pisum sativum
Einkorn
Emmer
Bread/durum wheat
Two-rowbarley
Oat
Bittervetch
Lentil
Grass pea
Pea
Fiber / oil plants

Linum usitatissimum
Flax
Fruit / nuts
Quercussp.
Ficus carica
Rubusfruticosus
Pistacia cf terebinthus
Vitis vinifera
mas
Comrnus
Sambucuscf nzjna
Acorns
Fig
Blackberry
Terebinth
Grape
Cornelian cherry
Elderberry
ple to relatively complicated ones. Certain styles, such as

bird shaped figurines, are more common during the earlier phase, but there are no dramatic shifts analogous to the
changes in pottery style between the two phases. They generally have parallelexamples from the Vinea and Karanovo
cultures of the central and eastern Balkans (Gimbutas
1986).
One notable change between the two phases was the appearance of stone figurines, mainly of white marble, in
Makriaylos II. The human body is depicted in a very
schematic and abstractform (FIG. 14) in a type well known
from Thessalian sites of the Late and Final Neolithic
(Tsountas 1908: pl. 37-38).
ToolIndustry
More than 10,000 fragments of chipped stone debitage
were recovered. A considerable varietyof raw materialswas
used, including various qualities of quartz, chert, and obsidian. Petrographic analysis of the raw materials, along
with the chemical analysis of obsidian, will be conducted.
Quartz, low quality chert, and jasper show evidence of onsite tool production, while there are no such indications for
the remaining materials (Skourtopoulou 1997: 266).
Two major groups of ground stone tools were distinguished. The first includes elaborate polished axes, adzes,
and chisels of serpentine or jadeite. Other kinds of stone
were also used and were all probably found in the form of
pebbles in the ravines near the site. The tools are found in
various states, ranging from broken during manufacturing
to worn out by use. The second group contains querns,
hand-grinders, polishers, pounders, and whetstones made
of various local rocks of medium quality.This group is the
most numerous among 8000 specimens of ground stone
(Gerousi 1997: 267).
Implements of animal bone and antler comprise a third,
much smaller,group. Projectile points, awls, needles, spatulae, and polishers are the most common categories, while
there are other tools of unknown function. Among the
most interesting objects are antler or bone hafts for stone
tools.
Stamps
Stamps of this period usually date to the earlierstages of
the Neolithic and there are only few examples from stratified deposits of the Late Neolithic (Onasoglou 1996:
163-164). All the stamps from Makriyalos were made of
clay and belong to two different types, each corresponding
to a different phase of the settlement. All stamps from the
site were found in habitation areas. In Makriyalos I, three
identical stamps were found, all in nearly the same area.
They have a conical shape and a circular stamping surface
bearing an incised motif of concentric circles. The type is
common during the Neolithic, though there are earlierexamples (Pilali-Papasteriou1992: pl. 11, nos. 9-11). All the
specimens from Makriyalos II have a large oval-shaped
stamping surface bearing wide plastic linear shapes in
zigzag and round motifs; a handle is provided on the back.
The two types were obviously not used to mark the same
type of surface.
OtherFinds
Clay objects related to spinning and weaving-mainly
spindle whorls, loom weights, and spools - occur in much
lower frequencies than other categories, such as stone and
bone tools, even though most of the excavated area comprises habitation areas where these objects are normally
found.
Small "luxury"vases, usually made from marble pebbles,
were common. These, stone loom weights, stone figurines,
and jewelry show remarkableskill in stone working.
Makriyalos in European Prehistory
Macedonia and Thessaly were already densely populated by Neolithic communities at the time that Makriyalos
was established. These agrariansettlements had been mostly identified as nucleated, long-lasting sites that formed
low tells. The identification of a non-tell type of settlement
in northern Greece demonstrates the similarity to sites in-

26, 1999 191

:Aw"
4:::~_.
-'
Ao~-
:-
NT.-
IF-;~,::,-:
j
Oil : ?:
Al
Aki-W.-~:
Figure 13. Makriyalos II. Pottery decorated in the "classical"Dimini style.
vestigated elsewhere in the Balkans (Chapman 1981: 45).

The Makriyalos excavation has revealed the intrasite organization of one such settlement and, because of the large
scale of work, analysis of the site has the potential to answer major problems in Greek prehistoric research.
The boundary ditches place Makriyalos among a large
group of sites with clearly defined limits. The manipulation of space through earthmoving is a practice widely
used in Neolithic Europe. In Britain, for example, large enclosures surrounded by complicated ditch systems were
mostly not habitation sites but reflect instead ritual aspects
of, for instance, the trade of axes at the sites of Cam Brea
in Cornwall and Hembury in Devon (Bewley 1994:
49-56; Edmonds 1995: 68-73). A group of Neolithic settlements in Apulia, Italy, employed a complicated system
of ditches with monumental entranceways (Tine 1983:
23-25; Jones 1987: 191-195); individual areas were distinguished there by smaller circularditches organizing the
area of habitation. The eastern Balkans and the CucuteniTripolye areain Romania also contain settlements that emphasize boundaries defined by earthworks, often resulting
in complicated systems consisting of palisades, banks, and
ditches. Boundaries produced by earthmoving occur in

both nucleated and non-nucleated sites (Whittle 1985:
146-148).
In the Greek mainland evidence for boundary ditches is
sparse, although they were in wide use during the Late Neolithic elsewhere in Europe. Only a few, and fragmentary,
examples are known from Macedonia, at the site of Yiannitsa B (Chrysostomou 1997: 138) and Nea Nikomedia
(Pyke 1996: 51-52). In Thessaly, a region that has been
more intensively investigated, ditches have been found in
numerous settlements, such as Achilleion, Soufli Magoula,
Argissa, Otzaki, and Ayia Sophia (Demoule and Perlks
1993: 370, 390; Andreou, Fotiadis, and Kotsakis 1996:
552).
Built walls were used in other Thessalian sites to define,
organize, or differentiate intrasite space. A symbolic function for these limits has recently been adduced for Middle
Neolithic Sesklo (Kotsakis in press). Late Neolithic Dimini contains an impressive system of concentric walls that
precisely organize the nucleated settlement (Chourmouziadis 1979: 62; Whittle 1985: 148). Both Dimini
and Makriyalos II are roughly contemporary, have clear


and Besios
%
. .......
k4.
n",
..
;k,
R?
zz,,
.------------. ..........
AI
ponnese (Protonotariou-Deilaki 1992: 106), at Early Neolithic Achilleion in Thessaly (Winn and Shimabuku 1989:
33-34), and at Nea Makri in Attica (Pantelidou-Gofa
1991: 12-36). Additionally, a non-tell settlement of the
Early Neolithic was recently discovered at Kato Hagios
Yiannis, 20 km to the south of Makriyalos and consists of
pit dwellings (Pappa in press). That site is not excavated,
but modern earthmoving work has exposed the pits in the
ground. This new find might suggest the origins of a local
architecturaltradition.
The shape of the round house has traditionally been related to discussions of primitive forms of architectureand
social complexity (Saidel 1993: 94-96), and not without
reason, as it is associated with earliest stages of many settlements. Ethnographic evidence relates round houses to
seasonal habitation (Gilman 1997: 83), a circumstance
that may be the case at Makriyalos, given the lack of successive habitation deposits. Paleoeconomic data for cultivation and stock-breeding practices, both involving seasonality, remain to be evaluated.
The artifactsfrom the excavation, in contrast to the architecture, are generally comparable with those from contemporary settlements in Northern Greece. A close resemblance to Makriyalos I pottery wares and figurines can easily be traced with the central Balkans, while Makriyalos II
is surprisingly close to the Thessalian ceramic tradition.
Conclusions
Figure 14. Makriyalos II. Marble figurine.
boundaries, and possess very close similarities in pottery.

While Dimini is nucleated, MakriyalosII is extended along
the slope of a hill, bounded by large earthworks, ditches,
and a watercourse. In both cases, the settlement space is defined through communal works, while the distinction between areas internal and external to the settlement is emphasized. Chourmouziadis (1979: 65-66) has argued that
the Dimini walls were not defensive, but in fact served to
organize the structureof the settlement. Likewise, the large
dimensions of the habitation area of Makriyalos renders
unlikely a defensive role for the ditches.
The round pit-dwellings used in both phases at
Makriyalos are in contrast to the single-roomed, fourwalled building common to other Balkan sites (Whittle
1985: 50). Pit dwellings are normally found in early stages
of Neolithic settlements and are not widely used in the
Greek mainland. The few examples encountered before
now all predate Makriyalos. The best preserved examples
were found at the Aceramic site of Dendra, in the Pelo-
The excavations at Makriyalos revealed two main occupation phases of this non-tell settlement dated to the Late
Neolithic period. The ditch system that bounded Makriyalos I was traced along nearly half its circuit. For the first
time on the Greek mainland, it is possible to more fully
record the phases and the construction of such a site. The
loose layout of Makriyalos I was revealed and a fairly complete view of the whole settlement was achieved. The layout of Makriyalos II is not so clear, as the area excavated
was more restrictedand it was not possible to delineate the
complete plan of the settlement.
A considerable amount of the site had been eroded
away, destroying the upper part of the structures, leaving
only remains below floor level. But enough is left to reconstruct basic aspects of the settlement. There are problems in the definition of households, mainly during
Makriyalos II, which is densely inhabited, but further
analysis of the finds will define the main units.
Cataloguing of finds is ongoing; most artifactsand other samples are being studied by specialists for final publication. The end result should be most significant for reconstructing social and economic life in the Neolithic nontell settlements.

26, 1999 193

Acknowledgments
The excavation was strongly supported and made possible by the late ephor of the Museum of Thessaloniki, Joulia Vokotopoulou, to whose memory this report is dedicated. The following archaeologists participated in the excavation: F. Adaktylou, A. Almatji, K. Almatji, E. Alvanou,
Z. Billi, P. Elefanti, S. Gerousi, A. Hatjoudi, E. Hitsiou, J.
Imamidis, K. Ioannidis, G. Karaiskou, J. Karliambas, A.
Karnava, K. Koutroumbakis, D.-A. Lahanidou, Ch.
Michelaki, K. Peleidou, A. Tjoni, A. Touliopoulou, S.
Vrahionidou, and S. Zambetas. The operation of the watersieve was undertaken by S.-M. Valamoti, who is also responsible for the study and publication of the archaeobotanical remains. Sampling of geophysical layers was undertaken by A. Krachtopoulou who is studying the geophysical formation of the site. The drawings of the excavation and artifactswere made by G. Goulas, M. Kargoglou,
and H. Sionidis. The surveyor E. Papadimitriou was responsible for mapping the site. The geophysical survey was
conducted by the University of Thessaloniki under the direction of G. Tsokas and was funded by the Ministry of
Macedonia and Thrace. Conservation of the objects is done
by D. Karolidis and on site conservation by A. Moditsis. A.
Vargas and F. Adaktylou worked with the excavation database. Computerized drawings and maps were made by D.
Papoudas. Of invaluable help in all fields was the continuous presence and support of the guard of the Archaeological Service, P. Miaouras, assisted by N. Kalitsios. Help in
all fields from Ch. Karanikas,T. Avramidis, Ch. Avramidis,
and K. Athanasiades makes the study of the material possible.
We are grateful to all our colleagues who encouraged us
during the difficult, extended excavation project. Among
them, Kostas Kotsakis and Paul Halstead contributed with
frequent visits and long discussions. We would also like to
thank the archaeologists who commented on the manuscript for their helpful suggestions.
The study of the material is sponsored by the Greek Archaeological Service, the Institute for Aegean Prehistory,
the University of Sheffield, the British Academy, and the
Greek Railways Company.
Maria Pappa, a curatorat the ThessalonikiMuseum since

1987, has done workmainly in Chalkidiki,Pieria, and Thessaloniki.Her researchinterestsfocus on the spatial organization of Neolithicand Early Bronzeage sitesin mainland
Greece.Mailing address:ArchaeologicalMuseum of Thessaloniki, 6, M. AndronikosStreet,54621, Thessaloniki,Greece.
Manthos Besios,a curatorat the ThessalonikiMuseum
since 1981, is directingthe archaeologicalteam workingat the

excavationofAncient Pydna in Pieria. His researchinterests
focus on thefunerarypracticesof theArchaic, Classical,and
HellenisticperiodsofMacedonia.Mailing address:ArchaeologicalMuseum of Thessaloniki,6, M. AndronikosStreet,
54621, Thessaloniki,Greece.
Alarm-Stern,Eva
1996 Die AgiiischeFriihzeit.Das Neolithikumin Greichenland1.
Band. Wien: Verlag der OsterreichischenAkademie der
Wissenschaften.
Andreou, S., and K. Kotsakis
1986 "Diastaseistou chorou stin KentrikiMakedonia:Apotyposi tis endokoinotikiskai diakoinotikischoroorganosis,"
inAmitos.Thessaloniki:Universityof Thessaloniki,56-88.
1994 "PrehistoricRural Communities in Perspective:The Langadas Survey Project,"in P. N. Doukelis and L. G. Mendoni, eds., Structuresruraleset societesantiques,Actesdu cold'Hisloquede Corfu,14-16 Mai 1992, CentredeRecherches
toireAncienneVol. 126, Bensangon:Annales Littirairesde
l'Universiti de Bensangon,17-25.
Andreou, S., M. Fotiadis,and K. Kotsakis
1996 "Review of Aegean Prehistory V: The Neolithic and
Bronze Age of Northern Greece,"AmericanJournalofArchaeology100: 537-597.
Besios, Manthos, and MariaPappa
1995 Pydna.Thessaloniki:PierikiAnaptixiaki.
1998 "O neolithikos oikismos sto MakriyaloPierias"ArchaeologikaAnalektaexAthinon23-28 (1990-1995): 13-30.
Bewley, Robert
London: B. T. BatsfordLtd/English
Settlements.
1994 Prehistoric
Heritage.
Chapman,John
1981 The Vinia Cultureof South-EastEurope.BAR International
Series117. Oxford:B.A.R.
Chourmouziadis,G. Ch.
1979 ToNeolithikoDimini. Volos: EtaireiaThessalikonErevnon.
Chrysostomou,P.
1997 "O neolithicosoikismos GiannitsonB '. Nea anaskafikadedomena,"To archaeologico
ergosti Makedoniakai Thraki7
(1993): 135-146.
Demoule, J. P., K. Gallis,and L. Manolakakis
1988 "Transitionentre les culturesNiolithiques, de Sesklo et de
Dimini: Les CategoriesCiramiques"Bulletinde CorrespondanceHelldnique112: 1-58.
Demoule, J. P., and C. Perls
1993 "The Greek Neolithic: A New Review,"Journal of World
Prehistory7 (4): 355-416.
Edmonds, Mark
1995 StoneToolsand Society.WorkingStonein Neolithicand Bronze
Age Britain. London: B. T. BatsfordLtd.
Kostantinos
Gallis,
1996 "0 Neolithikos kosmos" in PapathanasopoulosGeorge,
ed., O neolithikospolitismosstin Ellada. Athens: N. P.
GoulandriFoundation,Mouseio KykladikisTechnis.
Gerousi, Soultana
1997 "Liasmenakai triptaergaleiaapo to neolithico oikismo sti

194
Neolithic Settlement at Makriyalos, Greece/Pappaand Besios
thesi AgiasmaMariyalou,"in M. Pappa,"Neolithikosoikismos MakriyalouPierias.Prota apotelesmatatis meletis4"'

ToArchaeologiko
ergosti Makedoniakai Thraki10 (1996):
267-268.
Marangou,C.
1992 Idolia, Figurineset miniaturesdu NdolithiqueRe'centet du
BronzeAncien en Grace.BAR InternationalSeries576. Oxford: B.A.R.
McGeehan-Liritzis,
V, and N. H. Gale
Patricia
A.
Gilman,
1988 "Chemicaland Lead Isotope Analysesof Greek Late Ne1997 WanderingVillagers:Pit structures,
MobilityandAgriculture
olithic and Early Bronze Age Metals,"Archaeometry30:
Arizona.Anthropological
Research
in Southeastern
PapersNo.
199-225.
49. Tempe:ArizonaState University.
Onasoglou, Artemis
Gimbutas,Marija
1996 "Sfragides,"in G. Papathanasopoulos, ed., Neolithikos
1972 "The Neolithic Cultures of the BalkanPeninsula,"in H.
politismosstin Ellada.Athens: N. P. GoulandriFoundation,
Birmbaumand S. Vryonis, eds., Aspectsof the Balkans,InMouseio KykladikisTechnis,163-164.
ternationalBalkanConference
1969. Los Angeles:UniversiMaria
of
8-49.
Pantelidou-Gofa,
ty California,
1991 I neolithikiNeaMakri. Taoikodomika.
Athens:Archaeologi1986 "MythicalImageryof Sitagroi Society,"in C. Renfrew,M.
ki Etaireia.
Gimbutas,and E. S. Elster,eds., Excavationsat Sitagroi.A
PrehistoricVillagein NortheastGreece.Vol. 1. Monumenta
Pappa,Maria
1997 "Neolithiki engatastasisto choro tis Diethnous Ekthesis
Archaeologica13. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology,
ToArchaeologiko
Thessalonikis,"
ergostiMakedoniakai ThraUniversityof California,225-301.
ki 7 (1993): 303-310.
Demetrios
Grammenos,
in press "I organosi tou chorou stous proistorikousoikismous tis
1991 Neolithikeserevnesstin Kentriki kai Anatoliki Makedonia.
AncientMacedonia.5th InternationalSymVoreiasPierias,"
Athens:TameioArchaeologikonPoron.
Thessaloniki
1996. Thessaloniki:Institutefor Balkan
posium,
Grammenos,D., M. Pappa,D. Urem-Kotsos,K. Skourtopoulou,E.
Studies.
Giannouli, and B. Tsigarida
A.
Pilali-Papasteriou,
neolithikouoikismouThermis.Anaskafikiperiodos
1990 "Anaskafi
1992
"Oi
sfragidesapo to Sesklokai ta provlimatatis Thessalikis
27: 223-288.
1987,"Makedonika
neolithikis sfragidoglyfias,"in InternationalSymposiumon
Grammenos,D., M. Pappa,D. Urem-Kotsou,K. Skourtopoulou,E.
Ancient Thessaly,in Memoryof D. R. Theocharis.
Athens:
Giannouli,Ch. Marangou,S. M. Valamoti,G. Syridis,E. Marki,and
TameioArchaeologikonPoron, 83-89.
R. Christidou
Protonotariou-Deilaki,E.
1992 "Anaskafineolithikou oikismou Thermis B kai Vyzantinis
in InternationalSymposium
1992 "Paratiriseisstin Prokeramiki,"
A.
Thermi
ton
proistoriko oikismo
engatastasis para
D. R. Theocharis.
onAncientThessaly,
Athens:
in
Memory
of
Anaskafikiperiodos 1989,"Makedonika28: 381-501.
TameioArchaeologikonPoron, 97-119.
Halstead,Paul
Pyke, Gillian
1984 "Strategiesof Survival:An EcologicalApproachto Social
1996 "Structuresand Architecture,"in R. J. Rodden and K. A.
and Economic Changein the EarlyFarmingCommunities
Wardle, eds., Nea NikomedeiaI. London: The British
of Thessaly,N. Greece,"unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
School at Athens, 39-53.
Universityof Cambridge,Cambridge.
and K. A. Wardle
Cressida,
Riddley,
1992 "From Reciprocityto Redistribution:Modelling the ex1979 "RescueExcavationsat Servia 1971-1973: A Preliminary
change of Livestockin Neolithic Greece,"AnthropozoologiReport,"AnnualoftheBritishSchoolatAthens74: 187-230.
ca 16: 19-30.
Rodden, R. J.
Halstead, Paul, and PatriciaCollins
1965 "AnEarlyNeolithic Village in Greece,"ScientificAmerican
1997 "LN Makriyalos:Preliminaryresultsof the study of animal
212 (4): 83-91.
bones,"ToArchaeologiko
ergosti Makedoniakai Thraki10
Saidel,
BenjaminAdam
(1996): 268-270.
1993 "RoundHouse or Square?ArchitecturalForm and SocioHitsiou, Elli
Economic Organizationin the PPNB,"JournalofMediter1997 "I keramikitis phasis II tou Makriyalou,"ToArchaeologiko
6: 65-108.
raneanArchaeology
ergostiMakedoniakai Thraki10 (1996): 263-264.
Skourtopoulou,Katerina
Jones, G. D. B.
1997 "Oi lithotechnies apolepismenou lithou sto neolithico
London:
1987 Apulia.Vol. 1: NeolithicSettlementin theTavoliere.
Makriyalo.Ta prota stoicheia4" To Archaeologikoergo sti
Society of Antiquariesof London.
Makedoniakai Thraki10 (1996): 259-277.
Kotsakis,Kostas
Talalay,L.
1993 Deities,Dollsand Devices.NeolithicFigurinesfrom Franchthi
1994 "TheUse of HabitationalSpacein Neolithic Sesklo,"in La
Cave,Greece.Bloomington and Indianapolis:IndianaUniThessalie, Quinze anne'es de recherche archeologiques,
Actesdu colloqueinterna1975-1990, Bilans et perspectives,
versityPress.
tional,Lyon,17-22 Avril 1990. Vol. A. Athens, 125-130.
Tine, Santo
neoliticadel Tavoliere.Genova:
1983 Passodi Corvoe la
kai
I stromatografia
in press Sesklo.Oi anaskafestouD. R. Theochari.
civiltt
periodou.Athens.
i architechtoniki
tis mesisneolithikis
Sagep Editrice.
Tringham,Ruth, and MirjianaStevanovid
Lachanidou,Anna-Despoina
1990 "Fieldresearch,"in R. Tringhamand D. Krsti6Selevac.A
1997 "Keramiki/PhasiI," ToArchaeologiko
ergosti Makedoniakai
15.
NeolithicVillagein Yugoslavia.
MonumentaArchaeologica
Thraki10 (1996): 261-262.

26, 1999 195

Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology,Universityof California, 57-156.

Tsokas,G., A. Sarris,M. Pappa,M. Bessios, C. Papazachos,P.Tsourlos, and A. Giannopoulos
1997 "A Large Scale Magnetic Survey in Makriyalos (Pieria),
4: 123-137.
Prospection
Greece,"Archaeological
Tsountas,Christos
1908 Ai proistorikaiakropoleis
Diminiou kai Sesklou.Athens: ArchaeologikiEtaireia.
Tsuneki,Akira
1989 "The Manufactureof SpondylusShell Objects at Neolithic
Dimini, Greece,"Orient25: 4-21.
Valamoti,Soultana
1998 "Archaeovotanikes erevnes ston proistoriko oikismo
ergostiMakedoniakai Thraki
Makriyalou,"ToArchaeologiko
10 (1996): 270-272.
Weisshaar,H.-J.
in Thes1989 Die DeutchenAusgrabungauf derPevkakia-Magula
salien I. Das Spate Neolithikumund das Chalkolithikum.
BAM 28. Bonn: Dr. Rudolph Habelt GMBH.
Alasdair
Whittle,
1985 NeolithicEurope:A Survey.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Winn, Shan, and Daniel Shimabuku
and Sequenceof BuildingRemains,"in Winn
1989 "Architecture
Gimbutas and D. Shimabuku,eds., Achilleion.A Neolithic
Settlementin Thessaly,Greece,6.400-5.600 B.C.Monumenta
Archaeologica14. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology,
Universityof California,32-68.


The Neolithic Settlement at Makriyalos, Northern Greece: Preliminary Report On The 1993 - 1995 Excavations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Neolithic Settlement at Makriyalos, Northern Greece: Preliminary Report On The 1993 - 1995 Excavations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maney Publishing

This content downloaded from 84.205.227.38 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 04:15:15 AM