MIDDLE CLASS HOUSES IN LATE ANTIQUITY Simon Ellis Abstract The concept of the “middle class” is a modern invention, but it can be applied in archaeology to identify housing between that of the aristocracy and the lowest level of domestic architecture in a settlement. Applying this concept suggests that late antique craftsmen and professionals aspired to an aristocratic lifestyle by adopting elements of aristocratic architecture. There are indications that the middle classes increased their influence in Late Antiquity and that they continued to aspire to an aristocratic lifestyle until the 7th c. A.D. Introduction: The Middle Class in Late Antiquity This paper revolves around two central problems of ancient history— the question of whether there was a middle class, and the question of the relationship between offices and houses. To a degree of course both of these ideas are modern concepts, and it can be argued that they are inappropriate to a study of the ancient or Early Medieval world. The ‘middle class’ as a concept, as a layer of society within a fairly defined boundary, can be seen as a professional or bureaucratic class that lies between the industrial working class of the 20th c. and those who are rich from land or trade. The office, a place where peo- ple go and work, and distinct from ‘home’ or a factory, is to some extent also a product of the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of service industries and state bureaucracy. The problems of the mid- dle class and the office are, however, also a real problem for Roman and Byzantine historians. For many historians Roman society was polarised between the land owning class, and those with no property and few if any civic rights. For P. Garnsey and R. Saller ‘[In] ancient Rome there was no pros- pect of the emergence of such a [middle] class’.1 They argue that 1 Garnsey and Saller (1987) 45. W. Bowden, A. Gutteridge, and C. Machado (edd.) Social and Political Life in Late Antiquity (Late Antique Archaeology 3.1 – 2005) (Leiden 2006), pp. 413–437 414 simon ellis the rewards of status associated with land ownership soon converted any potential wealth derived from trade into wealth in land. This prevented the rise of any significant ‘waged’ or trade-based assets. There is a further dimension to this problem in Late Antiquity. The historians of the first half of the 20th c. developed a picture of the colonate in which independent small farmers (and independent trades- men) became economically tied to rich landowners on specific estates following the Diocletianic reforms. Under this theory what was left of any independent ‘middle class’ from the high empire was slowly absorbed into tied tenancy and political dependency. The honestiores with rank and property had all the rights, and the humiliores could be subject to abuse and physical punishment at will. This distinction has clear merit in distinguishing two very clear social groups. However, more recent historical theory is moving away from these rigid dis- tinctions, and there is evidence that there were further groups that lay between the landed aristocracy and the landless peasant. This evidence includes: 1. That which relates to collective action on the part of trade guilds in Late Antiquity including the builders of Sardis and the bakers of Antioch.2 2. That which relates to the growth of the Byzantine civil service, appearing above all in the writings of John Lydus. It can be objected that the actions of the guilds were not political and were limited to certain specific disputes. It can also be objected that the Byzantine civil service, like its Late Roman predecessor, was run as a branch of the army. Nevertheless the guilds and the civil service represent classes of people who were defined as lying between the aristocracy and the peasants and who were recognised by con- temporaries as distinct social groups. It is arguable that by the time of John Lydus the civil service was a distinct career relished by people of varying intellectual ability, who did not see themselves as part of the military. It can also be argued that a new prominence of evidence for craftsmen reflects something of the changes that were underway in late antique society.3 2 See Sodini (2003). For builders at Sardis see Foss (1976) inscription 14, while for bakers at Antioch see Liebeschuetz (1972) 221–24. Van Nijf (1997) 12–18 asserts the economic role of craft associations in opposition to Finley. 3 Liebeschuetz (2001) 18. middle class houses in late antiquity 415 The civil service and the guilds were very much representative of urban society. However, this analysis of social distinctions must also consider rural society. I have made some comments on rural society in what follows but my comments are tempered by a lack of coherent archaeological evidence in several key regions—most notably North Africa and Anatolia—and the emerging historical understanding of the development of a village based society, especially in areas of Italy and the Balkans.4 Moreover, Sodini’s model for identifying different classes, based on a careful assessment of land tenure, economic power, and social status is very attractive. However, this may be more appro- priate for a rural setting where it is more difficult to differentiate economic and social roles based on the archaeology of houses alone. For example, J.-P. Sodini and G. Tate have questioned the iden- tification of specialised shops and workshops by G. Tchalenko in the rural Massif Calcaire to the east of Antioch.5 In this paper, however, I will limit myself to the contribution that archaeology and the study of housing can make to this debate. Almost every class, except itin- erants, had some form of house owned or rented. It should be pos- sible to chart for any particular epoch the distinct forms of housing ranging from the richest to the poorest. Identifying Middle Class Housing In a previous work I have linked the richest provincial houses of the 5th and 6th centuries A.D. with the illustris, a specific rank at court.6 The illustris tended to retire from court to the provinces where, like Libanius at Antioch, he was able to outrank the local governor and use his direct influence at Constantinople to become an extremely- powerful patron. These aristocrats continued to live in traditional ‘classical’ peristyle houses. Other residences which might be legitimately classified as belonging to the upper classes are governors’ praetoria and bishops’ palaces.7 It is important to note that these developments 4 As best revealed in the papers presented at the World Byzantine Congress in Paris in 2001. 5 Sodini (2003). 6 Ellis (1988). 7 For praetoria see Lavan (2001). Larger bishops’ palaces include Side (Mansel (1978)) and Porec. See also Liebeschuetz (2001) 110–16, especially on the lack of clear nomenclature for the class in power over provincial cities. 416 simon ellis can be linked to the introduction into domestic architecture of specific architectural attributes—apses, audience halls, grand dining rooms, monumental fountains—as well as to the emergence of a new expres- sion of power and heroism in domestic mosaics and sculpture. Social developments amongst the aristocracy can thus be linked to very spe- cific changes in domestic buildings. Earlier aristocratic houses (such as those at Apamea and Ephesus) continued to be used, but they can be set alongside late 3rd and 4th c. houses built in a very distinc- tive style. This style, as will be seen below, also had an impact on housing of the middle classes. I have also argued that the poorest class of housing recognisable on a consistent basis in archaeology may be the shop.8 It is well known that many shopkeepers lived in their shops. This is evident- from bed niches at Pompeii, and in Late Antiquity from sites such as Sardis.9 At the latter site shops destroyed in the mid 7th c. pre- served a considerable quantity of furniture that suggested living quar- ters in an upper floor above the shop itself which had more of an artisanal function. Although most shops at Sardis preserved some signs of commercial activity—piles of the same metal item, tools etc.— some only produced evidence of domestic articles. These could be houses, rented because of their location in the centre of town or simply because they were solid dwellings. They may also be shops of services such as scribes, notaries etc. Here we begin to touch the potential middle class. In between the house of the illustris and the shop there is a mass of other types of housing, which must include the residences of lesser aristocrats, merchants, civil servants, tradesmen and others. This is the area in which we need to place any potential ‘middle class’ cit- izens of the late antique world. It is also a mass of archaeological evidence which desperately requires systematic organisation and inter- pretation so that it may contribute to historical analysis. It is possible to make some suggestions based on the range of known domestic architecture, taking into account the provincial context of many dis- coveries. The most extensive range of housing is probably that from North Africa. Here we can find many small houses of the later empire tucked into corners of the urban fabric, without peristyles, or mosaics, and sometimes arranged around a corridor rather than 8 Ellis (2000) 78–80. 9 For Sardis see Crawford (1990). middle class houses in late antiquity 417 a central court. However, we need to establish some more objective criteria on which to hang a potential classification of housing and social rank (as I have previously established for the illustris).10 An archaeology of housing should establish whether the hypothesised increasing prominence of ‘middle class’ groups such as the civil ser- vice and craftsmen is manifested in the material evidence.