In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The domestic architecture on the Cycladic island of Delos is often cited as an example of the increased luxury in Late Hellenistic housing compared with its Classical predecessors (Nevett 1999, 164–166). Indeed, evidence found in some of the houses supports the thesis that lifestyles became more lavish in the Hellenistic period. Characteristic of these houses are elaborate architectural features including peristyles, statuary, and rich decoration of walls and Xoors with painted frescoes and tessellated mosaic pavements. However, an extensive overview of all living units revealed in the French excavation since 1873 offers a more differentiated picture: the spectrum of living units ranging from simple lodgings above shops to extended lavish peristyle-houses is much broader in the cosmopolitan trade port of Delos than in “Hippodamian” Classical cities with their standardized plots and houses. Within this spectrum the majority of the Delian living units are not only smaller in size but also less well equipped than the average Classical house in cities like Olynthus , Priene, Piraeus, and Miletus. This can best be demonstrated by comparing Classical houses with the prevailing house-type in Delos which comprises a central courtyard with service room(s), a vestibule opening off to the front, and a group of two or three “living” rooms to the rear (the Delian “normal-house”; Trümper 1998, 107–108). In these examples , which have an average ground Xoor area of 120 m2 , no space was reserved for an andron or another room for the reception of outsiders as in Classical houses. The fact that Delian domestic architecture offers quite a number of living units ranging even below the small “normalhouse ” is little known because these have rarely attracted archaeologists’ attention. Whereas the different house types, even modest examples, have been thoroughly studied (Chamonard 1922/24; Trümper 1998), a vast number of unidentiWable, unappealing structures (multifunctional complexes with shops, workshops, magazines, humble dwellings, etc.) remain unpublished or largely unexcavated, probably because they failed to yield rich Wnds or reWned architecture.1 Chapter 8 Modest Housing in Late Hellenistic Delos Monika Trümper This chapter does not claim to offer a complete picture of modest housing in Delos; rather, it intends simply to call attention to the existence of humble dwellings and to provide some initial remarks on their interesting features. These preliminary results are based on my own research in Delos and have proWted much from references to other sites and studies. Among the latter the Vesuvian cities have to be mentioned Wrst because their well-preserved domestic architecture includes many modest dwellings that are the focus of several recent studies (WallaceHadrill 1994, 91–117; Pirson 1999) In what follows, the “types” of modest living units in Delos will be presented brieXy before discussion of their architectural and urban context. My concluding observations will address the socio-historical aspects of these buildings, above all whether the different types of modest housing in Delos can be associated with speciWc social strata, and assess whether the social structure of Late Hellenistic Delos is reXected in its domestic architecture. The Range and Character of Modest Living Units The kinds of structures that could serve as temporary or even permanent lodgings at the bottom level of the vast range of residential space vary, depending on cultural habits and social norms. Since these norms are difWcult to grasp, especially for the lowest social strata, the identiWcation of habitable structures apart from clearly deWned houses is difWcult and open to speculation. Epigraphy, literary sources, and legal texts help to a certain extent by providing some information on habitable units. Thus, it is known that Roman tabernae not only functioned as shops, workshops , or taverns, but also offered simple accommodation, for example, on the pergula or mezzanine level (Pirson 1999, 19–20).2 For Delos, inscriptions offer detailed information on the rented property of the sanctuary of Apollo: between 314 and 167 the temple let separate workshops, integrated into buildings or forming independent complexes. Some of these workshops possessed upper storeys that could either be rented together with the ground Xoor rooms or else let separately from them. Whereas the inscriptions in some cases deliberately use different terms for shops, workshops, and living units, thus suggesting a clear functional differentiation between working and living, other rented units seem to have been conceived as multifunctional, serving both needs (Hellmann 1992, 48–51, 99–100, 138–140, 423–426). These various sources, together with the extensive archaeological record from Pompeii, provide a Wrm basis for the identiWcation...

Share