This paper focuses on plain, stylistically unvaried pottery from three Late Neolithic sites from the Mondego Plateau, Portugal, and investigates ceramic production and exchange among small-scale prehistoric societies by means of thin-section petrography and chemical analysis (INAA). The results show that the majority of the pottery was made with widely available, granite-derived sedimentary clays, but petrographic differences between fabrics indicate collection at multiple locations within these deposits. Variation in chemical composition is consistent with site-specific sourcing areas, while comparison with data from earlier sites in the Mondego and surrounding mountains suggests that such sources were geographically restricted within the plateau. In contrast, the small percentage of vessels produced with residual clays of metamorphic and intermediate igneous origin, which outcrop over 10 km and 30 km from the archaeological sites, demonstrates that plain pottery did circulate during the Neolithic beyond the funerary sphere. This is the product of the routines of mobility and social networks of Neolithic groups across the wider landscape, which involved the exchange of 'mundane'vessels. Finally, the study demonstrates that micro-regional provenance studies can provide significant insights into prehistoric social landscapes if the data are interrogated beyond simplistic classifications of local and non-local. of prevailing theoretical perspectives, both in archaeology more generally and ceramic analytical studies in particular, rather than essentially an issue of limitation of the methods.A long-standing assumption governing the way in which this pottery continues to be perceived in such contexts is that it is 'mundane', utilitarian and locally produced for a group's own consumption. Its production is assumed to be largely self-evident, guided by the requirements of expedience, 'low cost', functionality and culture. In the absence of discrete stylistic categories, the relevance of prehistoric pottery is often reduced to a limited range of questions, particularly chronology, cultural identity and aspects of subsistence economy (e.g., storage). Crucially, its contribution to more complex social interpretations has been seen as negligible for two main reasons. First, 'mundane' pottery is not expected to have circulated through exchange. Given its common appearance, wide availability and use, and lack of special labour investment, it is thought unlikely to have participated in wealth or prestige economies. Second, this class of materials is considered not to provide information about social distinctions. Issues of access, status and other meanings become difficult or impossible to address when ceramic categories with different geographical distributions (wide/restricted, regional/local) and different perceived production costs or skill (plain/decorated, coarse/fine) cannot be distinguished. 'Mundane' pottery is equated with domestic production and use, and is therefore viewed as removed from political concerns and so...