As house structures changed from a linear perspective to a radial one (Lang 2005: 26), single entrance houses would have required a different access system as it was impossible to walk in a line to get to the desired room. A transitional room with a similar use like that of a modern day hallway was used to allow access to different parts of the building (Lang 2005: 26). This would have made the house less ‘private’ as visitors that were invited in would have been able to see into more rooms, yet as rooms now had separate access, they became more private as they were not on the walk-through path of linear houses. Linear houses made the visitor enter the ‘family sphere’ straight away, whereas this new transitional area was defined as ‘neutral’, such as a court (Lang 2005: 29). Lang also argues that houses without courtyards would have forced the inhabitants to do domestic shore outside and thus opening them up to public view (Lang 2005: 29), but what was stopping the inhabitants from doing these tasks – surely it depended on the nature of the task? Whatever the case, courtyards allowed the inhabitants to work in them and not come across ‘outsiders’ on the street. Who they came into contact with was controlled more and more.
Classical Greece was a time of varied experimentation with the lay-outs of the oikos. No where are our sources for sixth, fifth and fourth centuries BC housing more apparent than in Athens (in comparison with the rest of Greece). The general threat of being cuckolded might explain why Athenian men were keen to keep their female inhabitants away from ‘outsiders’ who could violate their sanctity (like Euphiletos - Lys. 1. 8). Violation of the marriage drew the public eye upon that household (Patterson 1998: 108). Some households may have had closer relations with their neighbours to the extent that neighbourly men might have been counted in the family (Similar the modern day concept of ‘Uncles’ in the loose sense - Small 1991: 339). The family was in constant flux, with new members being added, for example babies, in-laws and new slaves (Goldberg 2002: 157).
The situation regarding females crossing boundaries was perceived a lot differently in Sparta. The Spartan family existed solely to produces healthy babies for the state. All men were effectively brothers, as they had trained together in the agoge (Pomeroy 1998: 48). Every older man treated younger boys as if they were their own. The women however, exercised outdoors. Though marriage to a male was a secretive affair, there was no attempt to hide Spartan females in the confines of the oikos from ‘outsiders’ (Pomeroy 1998: 50). Because men were either away at the syssitia or on campaign and the boys were at the agoge, effectively the Spartan female ran the home. Drunken helots were also brought into the syssitia to be made fun of, hence showing a healthy disregard for ‘outsiders’ (Pomeroy 1998: 49).
Protection of one’s female assets was a demonstration to the community (Cohen 1989: 6). Athenian male paranoia was also reflected in drama with Aristophanes making husbands suspect their wives of cheating when they had exited the oikos (Thes. 414, 519, 783). Though the subject matter was undoubtedly mocked up, it must have reflected a certain amount of contemporary behaviour. Theoprastus rabidly insults a woman for talking to men, as if she has brought shame on her house (Characters, 28). In Aristophanes’ Lysistrata, the proboulos blames the men for allowing themselves to be cuckolded by tradesmen coming into their homes (404-419; Goldberg 2002: 155). In response, the women go on a sex strike and from there the females take over the Acropolis, shutting the males out. The women turn the public sphere into their own private home; the Acropolis becomes their house with which the males try to storm via spear and by phallus (Foley 1982: 7). Though the situation imagined by Aristophanes was ridiculous in its day, the irony of the situation might show the extent to which female influence outside the home was viewed, though there is no way to know how far reality matched dramatisation in this case (Cohen 1989: 7).
Athenian women became more visible to ‘outsiders’ during the festival of Adonia. Women engaged in revelry on their own rooftops (Aristophanes Lys. 387-96), but this was okay, since they were in their home and thus deemed safe, despite being visible to the surrounding community (Morgan 2010: 25-6). Houses that doubled up as shops, workshops and stores would have seen regular mingling of working females and ‘outsiders’; the ‘House of Simon’ saw customers coming into the house (Thompson and Wycherley 1972: 173-85). It is possible that women working in these environments may have gotten used to strangers coming in and thus ignored them (Goldberg 2002: 155-6). It seems that women of lower classes did not bother with shying away as they did not have any ‘status’ to protect.
‘Outsiders’ were also deemed to be of the supernatural variety. The festival of Anthesteria required doors to be painted with pitch to ward off ghosts (Morgan 2010: 24). For the birth of a child, a nurse often invoked Artemis into the Athenian household to make sure of a safe birth (Euripides Hippolytus 166-8). In this case, supernatural ‘outsiders’ were welcomed in and then returned again to their temple. Occasions such as births and deaths when the oikos became polluted required it to shut itself off from the community (Theoprastus Characters 16.9). Though the oikos became more private in this period, it’s marking out mean that it became highly visible to the community (Morgan 2010: 27-8). After a baby was born, the household in which the birth took place needed an allotted period of separation until it became unpolluted and re-entered the community (Morgan 2010: 30-1).
The reliance on contemporary men’s writings upon gender ideals has led many archaeologists to assume that each house had its own female quarters and a ‘male-only’ room, the andron (Goldberg 2002: 142, also see Pomeroy 1998: 14). The purpose of the andron was to receive outsiders into the household and it was often placed near an entrance (Antonaccio 2000: 526). Because the receiving of guests for feasting, symposiums and for business was a special occasion, Antonaccio’s claim that it was a highly ritualised area makes sense (2000: 526-7), the andron was not often used – when an outsider was given the honour of being hosted in the oikos, the andron would seem to be the obvious room to use (much like the modern day dining room would be used); although on a more informal basis, we hear of storerooms being used to house visitors (Goldberg 2002: 144). Jameson claims that the room would have been used by house owners to talk about politics and forge deals in private (1990: 190). However, this is contradicted by Jameson’s previous statement that the windows into the andron were a lot larger than normal (Jameson 1990: 189), which would give the impression that the house owner wanted the room to be seen. In a dense urban city like Athens, rooms located near the street would have had smaller windows (Goldberg 2002: 144).
However private the andron was supposed to be, the symposion and banqueting was held in it (Informally, mean did eat elsewhere, such as in the courtyard or upstairs - Antonaccio 2000: 526-7). The guests were invited into home where they were privileged to have eaten amongst their social equals (Cooper and Morris 1990: 79). Indeed, the lavish Athenian symposion was probably the preserve of wealthier citizens, mainly aristocrats; art and literature related to the symposion indicates that it was wealthy citizens taking part. The prosperity that fifth century Athens enjoyed post Persian Wars must have reflected in the symposion (Vickers 1990: 106). Poorer citizens who had access to an andron may have used it receive guests and dine in moderation. Andrones in the classical period could have accommodated up to eleven guests, reclining at their couches; so the symposion was focused upon a tight-knit group (Bergquist 1990: 37).
In contrast with the masculine aspect of the room, there is evidence that females were present in the andron at the same time as the symposion (Nevett 1999: 19). Given that the symposion was an event where guests were entertained, the suggestion that these women were flute-players, courtesans and prostitutes seems to fit the bill (Nevett 1999: 19). So though the inhabitant females were not allowed in that room whilst males were present, ‘outsider’ women were. The only real explanation for this is that it was in keeping with the ritual and entertaining element of the symposion. Outside of the symposion, it seems that prostitutes were tolerated a lot less, especially given Hipparete’s reaction to leave Alcibiades for bringing prostitutes home on what we assume to be a non ritual basis (Foxhall 1989: 38)!
Not everything in Athens fits neatly together though. Not all citizens had an andron. Out of a group of three excavated houses upon the Areopagus hill in Athens from the fourth century BC, only one of the houses has a room which can be identified as an andron (Goldberg 2002: 152). In the ‘Industrial district’, houses C and D might not have had andrones (Nevett 1995: 14-5). It is equally feasible that a house may have had an andron at one point in time, but not at another. However, when it is said that certain houses did not have andrones, it is entirely possible that there may well have been an andron but not with the features we come to associate with it. Some men may well have had the exclusive use of another room in the house (Goldberg 2002: 152). The Flügelhofhaus, located on the Pnyx did have an andron yet the unusual arrangement of the house presented another oddity. It may indicate that the family was not of aristocratic class and they were not able to spend money on the adornments that rich Athenians could. Alternatively, they could have been metics who were not accustomed to Athenian cultural traditions (Goldberg 2002: 155).
Outside of Athens (but in Attica), we can see the type of housing in more rural areas. Thorikos, a fifth/fourth century BC mining community had a large slave population. Unlike Athens however, some houses had more than one street entrance (Nevett 2005: 85, Figs. 6.1d, f, g), thus limiting the control the household had on ‘outsiders’. Room sizes were larger as well (Nevett 2005: 88); this combined with the previous points suggests that households were more open to the community. Likewise, houses at Ano Voula (late fifth to mid fourth century BC) had two outside doors for more than one phase of occupation (Nevett 2005: 90). The positioning of these doorway allowed the maximum amount of light to enter (Nevett 2005: 92-3), thus benefitting outside to in viewing. Another difference was the apparent absence of the andron in deme settlements (Nevett 2005: 92-3), which suggests that formalised hosting of visitors was unpopular. If deme citizens were more open to the wider community, then perhaps they did not feel the need to make a fuss over an ‘outsider’ coming in.
What can we say about housing from other classical Greek towns? There seems to have been some variation, yet also some similarities with Athenian oikos. Most houses at Halieis (NE Peloponnese) had a classical prothyron entry which ‘sunk’ into the entrance, providing s sheltered entry (Ault 2000: 485-6) and thus limiting visual contact from outside to in. Some houses in Hellenistic Crete had large living rooms which opened up onto the street directly (Westgate 2007: 447), thus potentially allowing easy access in to ‘outsiders’.
The town of Olynthus in northern Greece had some differences with Athenian household practices. The Olynthian andron was entered via an anteroom, unlike the Athenian version which could be accessed via the courtyard; it also had much larger windows, allowing great visual access, but it was located next to the street (Cahill 2002: 80, 192). Richly decorated houses appeared to have more open room plans with rooms accessible from most places (see Fig. 1). On the contrary, less decorated houses (A11, A13) had more restricted access (Cahill 2002: 191 despite Nevett 1999: 72). Kitchens, however, were located on the sides furthest away from the street (Cahill 2002: 192, plates 1, 2).
Hellenistic Delos seems to have not favoured the andron. Seventy-seven per cent of the housing, including some of the wealthiest, did not have andrones, but preferred multi-use rooms (Trümper 2007: 330). Simple houses had their most lavish rooms tucked away at the back of the house, while ‘richer’ houses had their most lavish rooms connecting to the court (Trümper 2007: 331). Thus the priority in Delos seems to have been immediate access to the most decorated rooms. There is also evidence for upper floors in Delos (Trümper 2007: 334). From the upper floor of a neighbouring house, this may well have allowed neighbours being able to look upon the courtyards of their neighbours. Latrines, which were common in Delos households, were placed next to entrances where they could have been used by visitors and inhabitants (Trümper 2007: 334).
Trying to analyse how ancient Greeks viewed outsiders requires us to consider mostly the time period and the circumstances of the house inhabitants, but we need to be careful about categorising different social practices as common place in ancient Greece. In the Greece of the early first millennia BC, there seems to have been a lot less focus on deterring outsiders from property. Rather, elite citizens appeared to have been keen to attract fellow aristocrats to their residences to gain their favour. In archaic Greece, there appears to have been a move to make homes more private; spatial changes occurred as families grew and needed to house more members. Wealthy classical Athenians were keen to keep adulterers out but welcome in divine aid whereas poorer Athenians relied on outsiders for business. Members of rural demes were more receptive of outsiders as they lived in a smaller, intimate community whilst other Aegean settlements displayed different mentalities: Spartans were keen to promote their superiority to outsiders whilst wealthy Delians were keen to show off their lavish rooms. We can count ourselves as outsiders looking in on another culture (Foxhall 1989: 22)!
Bibliography:
Ancient Authors:
Aristophanes, Women at the Thesmophoria: The Complete Greek Drama, vol. 2, translated by Eugene, O. and Neill, Jr. New York: Random House. 1938.
————, Lysistrata /The Acharnians/The Clouds (Lysistrata), translated by Sommerstein, A. H. (Penguin Classics). London: Penguin Books. 1973 (rev. ed. 2002).
Euripides, Children of Heracles, Hippolytus, Andromache, Hecuba (Hippolytus), translated by Kovacs, D. (Loeb Classical Library). London: Heinemann / Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1995
Theoprastus, Characters, translated by Diggle, J. (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2004.
Modern Authors:
Antonaccio, C. M. 2000. ‘Architecture and Behaviour: Building Gender into Greek Houses’, The Classical World, Vol. 93, No. 5, 517-533. (22/11/10)
Ault, B. A. 2000. ‘Living in the Classical Polis: The Greek House as a Microcosm’, The Classical World, Vol. 93, No. 5, 483-496. (22/11/10)
Bergquist, B. 1990. ‘Sympotic Space: A Functional Aspect of Greek Dining Rooms’, in Murray, O. (ed), Sympotica: A symposium on the Symposion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 37-65.
Cahill, N. 2002. Household and City Organisation at Olynthus. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Cambitoglou, A. et al. 1988. Zagora 2. Athens: Archaeological Society of Athens.
Cohen, D. 1989. ‘Seclusion, Separation and the Status of Women in Classical Athens’, Greece and Rome Vol. 36, No. 1, 1-15. (22/11/10)
Cooper, F. and Morris, S. 1990. ‘Dining in Round Buildings’, in Murray, O. (ed), Sympotica: A symposium on the Symposion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 66-85.
Coucouzeli, A. 2007. ‘From Megaron to Oikos at Zagora’, in Westgate, R., Fisher, N. and Whitley, J. (eds) Building communities: House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond. London: British School at Athens, 183-194.
Foley, H.P. 1982. ‘The ‘female intruder’ reconsidered: women in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata and Ecclesiazusae’. Classical Philology Vol. 77, No. 1, 1-21. (22/11/10)
Foxhall, L. 1989. ‘Household, Gender and Property in Classical Athens’. Classical Quarterly New Series, Vol. 39, No. 1, 22-44. (22/11/10)
Goldberg, M. 1999. ‘Spatial and Behavioural Negotiation in Classical Athenian Houses’, in Allison, P. M. (ed.) The Archaeology of Household Activities. London: Routledge, 142-161.
Jameson, M. 1990. ‘Private space and the Greek city’, in Murray, O. and Price, S. (eds) The Greek city from Homer to Alexander. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 171-195.
Lang, F. 2005. ‘Structural Change in Archaic Greek Housing’, in Ault, B.A. & Nevett, L.C. (eds), Ancient Greek Houses and Households: Chronological, Regional and Social Diversity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 12-35.
McDonald, W. et al. 1975. ‘Excavations at Nichoria in Messenia: 1972-73’. Hesperia 44: 69-141.
————, Coulson, W. and Rosser, J. (eds) 1983. Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece. Vol. 3, Dark Age and Byzantine occupation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Mazarakis Ainian, A. 1998. ‘Oropos in the Early Iron Age’, in Bats, M. and d’Agostino, B. (eds) Euboica. L’Eubea e la presenza euboica in Calcidica e in Occidente. Naples: Centre Jean Bérard, 179-215.
———— 2007. ‘Architecture and Social Structure in Early Iron Age Greece’, in Westgate, R., Fisher, N. and Whitley, J. (eds) Building communities. House, settlement and society in the Aegean and beyond. London: British School at Athens, 157-68.
Morgan, J. 2010. The Classical Greek House. Exeter : Bristol Phoenix Press.
Morris, I. 1999. ‘Archaeology and Gender Ideologies in Early Archaic Greece’, Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974- ), 305-317. (22/11/10)
Nevett, L. C. 1995. ‘Gender relations in the Classical Greek household: the Archaeological Evidence’. Annual of the British School at Athens 91, 1995. 363-381.
———— 1999. House and Society in the Ancient Greek World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———— 2005. ‘Between Urban and Rural: House-Form and Social Relations in Attic Villages and Deme Centres’, in Ault, B. A. and Nevett, L.C. (eds), Ancient Greek Houses and Households: Chronological, Regional and Social Diversity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 83-98.
Patterson, C. B. 1998. The Family in Greek History. Cambridge MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Pomeroy, S.B., 1998. Families in Classical and Hellenistic Greece. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Small, D. (1991) ‘Initial Study of the Structure of Women’s Seclusion in the Archaeological Past’, in Walde, D. and Willows, D. (eds) The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Chacmool Conference, Calgary: University of Calgary: 336– 42.
Thompson, H. and Wycherley, R. 1972. The Athenian Agora 14, The Agora of Athens. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Trümper, M. 2007. ‘Differentiation in the Hellenistic Houses of Delos: the Question of Functional Areas’, in Westgate, R., Fisher, N. and Whitley, J. (eds) Building communities. House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond. London: British School at Athens, 323-334.
Vickers, M. 1990. ‘Attic Symposia after the Persian Wars’, in Murray, O. and Price, S. (eds) The Greek city from Homer to Alexander. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 105-121.
Westgate, R. 2007. ‘House and Society in Classical and Hellenistic Crete: A Case Study in Regional Variation’. American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 111, No. 3, 423-457
Whitley, J. 1991. ‘Social Diversity in Dark Age Greece’. The Annual of the British School at Athens Vol. 86, 341-365. (22/11/10)
List of Illustrations:
(Figure 1: A plan of an Olynthian house, based upon House A vii 4, taken from: Cahill, N. 2002. Household and City Organisation at Olynthus. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Page 76.)