Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rngvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T02:18:37.554Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring children’s use of domestic space in ancient Greece with material culture analyses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2026

Emma Gooch
Emma Gooch*
Affiliation:
School of History, Classics and Archaeology, Newcastle University, UK
*
Email: emma.gooch@newcastle.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Without a comprehensive awareness of their material culture, it is easy to overlook children in household archaeology. This is particularly problematic since juveniles spend much of their time in domestic environments and did so in many ancient and historical contexts. In ancient Greece, literary evidence demonstrates the ideal was for children to remain in the house with female caregivers, at least until they started schooling (if male) or were married (if female). Failing to investigate evidence of children’s activities in excavated houses thus misses a significant opportunity to understand the lives of ancient Greek juveniles. An improved awareness of children’s material culture facilitates investigation of their activities in domestic contexts, through distribution analyses of their material culture in excavated houses. This article applies analyses to Classical houses in Attica, as well as to case studies from the Classical settlement at Olynthus, to develop an improved understanding of children’s lives and significance within their families and society across the fifth and fourth centuries BC in Greece.

Keywords

household archaeologychildhoodartefact distribution analysesaccess analysis

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , First View , pp. 1 - 24
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies

I. Introduction

In ancient Greek contexts, children have been dismissed as ‘invisible’ or archaeologically ‘inaccessible’ in domestic spaces. Yet investigation of houses from historical periods confirms that children used domestic space differently from adults, leaving distinct material signatures in excavated houses.Footnote 1 This paper argues that the key to identifying evidence of children in any archaeological context, ancient or historical, is a comprehensive understanding of the material culture with which juveniles directly and regularly interacted.Footnote 2 I explore what the distribution of material culture indicates about how children used and experienced domestic space in Classical Attica and Olynthus across the fifth and fourth centuries BC. My recent analyses of Athenian pottery and marble gravestones showing children with objects and juvenile burials in which children were interred with a range of associated funerary objects, have illuminated the material cultures of children and of childhood in ancient Attica and perhaps Greece more widely.Footnote 3 Pottery, gravestones and burials establish links between children and an array of objects (fig. 3); some of which were almost exclusively associated with children and are found as signatures of their presence in archaeological (including domestic) contexts.

Households are the key arenas in which the enculturation and socialization of children take place cross-culturally.Footnote 4 Until they started their schooling or were married, children in ancient Greece passed most of their time in domestic spaces: literary sourcesFootnote 5 and iconographyFootnote 6 confirm this, so it is not ethnocentrically biased to suggest that juvenile experiences were primarily focused within oikoi. Thus, it stands to reason that children left signatures upon the archaeological records of Greek houses, which it should be possible to identify when excavated houses are analysed. Based on existing evidence, fully analysing children’s use of domestic space is problematic: this is likely one reason why children are typically overlooked in household archaeology.Footnote 7 Most ancient Greek houses are insufficiently preserved, inadequately recorded and too poorly understood to enable comprehensive analyses of the use of space within them.Footnote 8 However, artefact assemblages have been recovered and recorded in many houses and close evaluation of the distribution of certain artefacts associated with juveniles (fig. 3), and especially patterning across multiple case studies, identifies the spaces children frequented within houses. Consideration of other objects found in those spaces suggests how children interacted with other members of their household in domestic contexts. This is not an attempt to identify ‘playrooms’ or ‘nurseries’ in ancient Greek houses, not least because it is unlikely children occupied separate spaces to adults in premodern contexts,Footnote 9 but rather a concerted effort to understand how the use of domestic space impacted children’s lives and experiences in Classical Greece.

II. Investigating ancient Greek houses: artefact distribution and access analyses

Ancient Greek houses have been excavated since the 19th century,Footnote 10 though evidence of rural houses remains limitedFootnote 11 and well-contextualized evidence in urban centres like Athens is still constrained because of redevelopment over the centuries.Footnote 12 It was not until David Robinson’s pioneering work at Olynthus in the 1920s and 1930s that significant effort was put into recovering and recording small finds in domestic contexts,Footnote 13 despite finds being key to understanding the use of domestic space, since Greek houses incorporated few fixed features.Footnote 14 In recent decades, scholarship has focused on understanding houses as inhabited (social) spaces, a welcome development beyond considering them only as architectural features.Footnote 15 Research in this vein has confirmed the utility of artefact distribution and spatial analyses in aiding understandings of the social use of domestic spaces.Footnote 16 However, their full potential has yet to be realized. Analyses have assumed that space was used similarly by all household members sharing gender and status markers, failing to explore how individuals of different ages may have experienced domestic space differently. I argue that detailed analyses of certain small finds in houses enable a focus on the particular demographic of children,Footnote 17 who until now have been marginalized in the household archaeology of ancient Greece.Footnote 18

Some scholars have been sceptical of the merits of artefact distribution analyses,Footnote 19 and certain methodological issues must be considered when applying them to ancient Greek houses. The archaeological remains of houses are not typically representative of a single phase of use; rather they result from a multitude of formation processes and are palimpsests of domestic activity from throughout the house’s life cycle, which may extend across several generations of habitation.Footnote 20 The negative effects of this are mitigated by using case studies that almost certainly had only one period of use. Artefact distribution analyses are also complicated by the fact that assemblages may not be excavated in their original contexts of use, for example, because most items were removed when the house was abandoned, objects were used and stored in different locations and post-depositional factors have moved finds from their original places of deposition.Footnote 21 ‘Normal’ abandonments distort the archaeological record more than catastrophic abandonments,Footnote 22 for reasons including higher removal rates. Olynthus is a useful case study in this respect because the sacking of the city in 348 BC resulted in rapid desertion and subsequent reuse of the site has been minimal.Footnote 23 The most significant issues associated with artefact distribution analyses can be addressed using a holistic methodology, which consults other evidence, including literary sources and iconography, to critically evaluate deposits and validate the conclusions drawn. Evaluating patterning is also key: trends corroborated across multiple houses suggest cultural conventions and norms more securely.Footnote 24

For further corroboration, conclusions about the use of ancient Greek domestic space can be interrogated using architectural theory.Footnote 25 Bill Hillier and Julienne Hanson’sFootnote 26 access analysis,Footnote 27 which maps the movement of an undifferentiated ‘inhabitant’ through bounded space(s) to investigate the relative complexity of the activities focused in different areas, proves useful to elucidate how individuals used spaces in ancient Greek houses. Hillier and Hanson’s method is based on the principles that (a) boundaries are created when spaces are enclosed and separated from one another by architectural features like walls, and (b) human behaviour has a reflexive relationship with architecture in which (i) human behaviour is cued by the built environment and (ii) the organization of architecture is influenced by human behaviour.Footnote 28 The theory underpinning the method suggests the more boundaries (thresholds) that are crossed to enter a space, the more complex the social activities taking place within it.Footnote 29 It follows that more private activity takes place in more bounded spaces. Mapping the placement and relative accessibility of bounded spaces in a building generates its access analysis map (fig. 1), which demonstrates the routes and patterns of movement required to access each space using standardized symbols (fig. 2). Existing research has focused on the generalized use of domestic spaces by non-specific household members, but I suggest that using access analysis in conjunction with juvenile-focused artefact distribution analyses makes possible a concentrated evaluation of how children used domestic space.

Fig. 1.

Production of a justified access map, using the example of Olynthus House Avi8.

See Long Description.
Fig. 1. Long description

Top: house floorplan with each space labelled. Bottom left: unjustified access map, each space a labelled symbol placed as on the plan, the symbols connected by lines. Bottom right: justified map, the symbols placed according to how many boundaries are crossed to enter the spaces from outside.

Fig. 2.

Key to access analysis maps.

Seven different symbols used in access maps explained.
Fig. 2. Long description

Circle with cross inside representing the outside world. Solid line representing a threshold or doorway. Dashed line representing a possible threshold or doorway. Circle with no infill: a defined space, a so-called ‘room’. Circle infilled black: a transitional space, for example a courtyard. Circle infilled orange with a standard outline: a defined space with material culture of children. Circle infilled orange with a bold outline: a transitional space with material culture of children.

The utility of conducting access analyses on ancient housing has been questioned by some scholars,Footnote 30 and again some methodological issues must be addressed. Primarily, access analysis was developed in modern contexts, so it assumes that the spaces under investigation are well understood and the entry points are known.Footnote 31 Ancient Greek houses were typically mud-brick and so can be relatively ephemeral archaeologically: it is often difficult to judge their full extent, including whether they had upper floors and what upper-storey space was used for if they did.Footnote 32 Attic houses excavated to reveal full ground plans are few, and often have imprecisely recorded finds assemblages, making a comprehensive understanding of their use impossible. These issues are mitigated by using detailed case studies from Olynthus that demonstrate clear evidence of having been single-storey dwellings with stone socle foundations fully preserved. Where scholars have suggested that access analysis fails to illuminate the social use of space, I argue that the use of a holistic methodology, along with a focus on a specific demographic group, facilitates a more experience-directed analysis of ancient Greek domestic space that is inherently social. Such an analysis allows for judgement on the types of spaces children could access within houses and which members of their households they interacted with in them, besides evaluation of the likelihood that children interacted with outsiders. In addition, the standardized nature of access analysis results makes them particularly useful for comparative appraisal to identify patterns that indicate social norms.

III. Exploring evidence for children: material cultures of children and childhood

Sally Crawford recently argued that the level of proof regularly required to justify that artefacts could have been used by children is prohibitively high, and it is this, besides overly narrow definitions of what toys were historically, that often leads to the purported archaeological ‘absence’ of children in domestic contexts.Footnote 33 It is possible to identify objects associated with children in ancient Greece through material culture-focused analyses of juvenile burials, which include associated funerary objects, and iconography depicting children with things. Literary sources also mention items considered appropriate for children (fig. 3). These objects, made for children’s use and use in caring for juveniles, can be termed a material culture of childhood. Some, including diagnostic pottery like small Type III oinochoai (choes jugs), feeding cups, terracotta highchairs and rattles, were used most often, if not exclusively, by children, and provide archaeologically robust evidence: they can be found in stratified contexts in excavated houses, and their distribution can be mapped to understand children’s use of domestic space.

Fig. 3.

Material culture associated with children in ancient sources (AS), on Geometric pottery (GP), black-figure pottery (BF), red-figure pottery (RF), in burials (B), on gravestones (GS) and on white-ground pottery (WG).

Table listing each type of material culture associated with children and the evidence types they are attested in.
Fig. 3. Long description

Rollers and toy carts found and represented in ancient sources, on black-figure pottery, on red-figure pottery, on gravestones and on white-ground pottery. Terracotta figurines discussed in ancient sources, found in burials and represented on gravestones and white-ground pottery. Astragaloi (knucklebones) discussed in ancient sources, represented on red-figure pottery, found in burials and represented on gravestones. Balls represented on black-figure and red-figure pottery, found in burials and represented on gravestones. Rattles discussed in ancient sources and represented on red-figure pottery and gravestones. Hoops represented on red-figure and white-ground pottery. Yoyos represented on red-figure pottery. Choes (small oinochoe jugs) represented on black-figure and red-figure pottery, found in burials and represented on gravestones. Feeders (feeding cups) represented on red-figure pottery and found in burials. Miniature pots found in burials. Amulets represented on red-figure and white-ground pottery. Shells found in burials. Birds represented on black-figure and red-figure pottery, on gravestones and on white-ground pottery. Dogs represented on black-figure and red-figure pottery and on gravestones. Other animals represented on Geometric, black-figure and red-figure pottery and on gravestones. Highchairs represented on red-figure pottery. Furniture represented on black-figure and red-figure pottery, on gravestones and on white-ground pottery.

A more expansive alternative to a material culture of childhood is a material culture of children; that is, all the objects children interact with, whether they were made to be used by juveniles or not.Footnote 34 Identifying evidence of this archaeologically is more challenging, and often, unfortunately, unfeasible.Footnote 35 That said, it is useful to approach evidence with an awareness of a material culture of children, mindful of the fact the meanings, values and users of objects often change throughout their life cycles.Footnote 36 Psychological investigation of cognitive development in modern contexts demonstrates that children as young as two to three start to use objects in pretend play scenarios, which often include the repurposing of objects and substitution of one for another, because from this age children understand that objects can be put to uses other than those for which they were made.Footnote 37 Ethnographic study demonstrates that play is a cross-cultural practice,Footnote 38 and patterns in exploratory play are also observable in primates,Footnote 39 so it is reasonable that conclusions drawn about children in modern contexts can also be applied to juveniles of similar ages in antiquity. Anthropological, ethnographic and sociological investigation in modern contexts also confirms the extent to which children repurpose and transform the uses of objects not made for them, that is objects not defined as ‘toys’ by adults.Footnote 40 Infants as young as six months old have been shown to mimic adults’ use of general objects, and this remains key to their use of objects until around the age of two years.Footnote 41 Further studies demonstrate that one- and two-year-old children do not necessarily privilege ‘toys’ in their home environments, but are just as likely to play with non-toys.Footnote 42 Additionally, play is only one of the ways in which children use toys, they also use objects for exploration, for construction and as tools.Footnote 43 In short, children have their own agendas when engaging with objects, and these are often different from adults’ agendas when engaging with the same things.Footnote 44 Thus a material culture of children can comprise a much wider range of objects than a material culture of childhood. In the context of ancient Greek houses, working with an awareness of a material culture of children suggests that even if a figurine, miniature pot or loom weight was not initially designed and made for children, it could easily be appropriated by them and can be considered as evidence of their presence if found in a suitable context;Footnote 45 for example, an odd loom weight alongside an otherwise matching set could easily be representative of a child’s play thing deposited alongside a signature of the activity of the adult woman who was the child’s primary caregiver.Footnote 46 Likewise, miniature vessels and figurines found in the absence of an altar or other signifier of household cult can arguably be taken as representative of a child’s presence,Footnote 47 especially if found amidst evidence of women’s other daily domestic tasks. Thus, some miniature vessels, as well as terracotta figurines of dolls and animals, and loom weights not clearly part of a set can also be sought in domestic assemblages, and their distributions can be mapped, alongside those of choes, feeders, highchairs and rattles, to explore children’s activities and social interactions in ancient Greek houses.

IV. Children in the Classical oikos: Attica

Greek houses changed markedly across the Geometric, Archaic and Classical periods, which undoubtedly impacted how children experienced domestic space.Footnote 48 But, whilst it is possible to make some observations about the representation of children’s objects in earlier houses (see Appendix), only the Classical evidence allows for robust comparative analysis towards understanding how children experienced ancient Greek domestic space.

In Athens, most Classical houses have been only partly excavated with imprecise find-spots recorded.Footnote 49 The Dema and Vari houses in Attica prove more useful for understanding activity at rural dwellings.Footnote 50 The recorded finds assemblages for both houses are sparse, suggesting normal abandonment with significant clearance beforehand.Footnote 51 The Dema House was inhabited, possibly seasonally,Footnote 52 for one phase, between 425 and 400 BC (fig. 4). Fragmentary choes represent potential diagnostic evidence of children, but precise find locations were not recorded. Nonetheless, they could indicate the presence of juveniles at the site. The Vari House was primarily occupied circa 350–275 BC, though previous fifth-century occupation is also likely (fig. 5). The occupation may have been seasonal, and associated with the nearby sanctuary of Pan, with the residents living in a neighbouring deme centre during the winter.Footnote 53 Two black-glaze choes found in a secondary waste deposit in Room II are most indicative of the presence of children, but they may predate the main occupation of the site.Footnote 54 At both the Dema and Vari houses, then, imprecise recording of finds limits how far patterns of activity can be reconstructed; the houses also demonstrate the greater difficulties apparent in working with houses that were deliberately cleared when abandoned. That said, consideration of rural houses is not uninformative. Objects typically left behind upon abandonment are those difficult to transport, easy to replace or approaching the end of their useful lives.Footnote 55 Personal possessions are usually removed when residents leave of their own accord. Given that most objects in the Dema and Vari houses were household waste, the fact that material diagnostic of children was not prevalent confirms that material culture of children was conceptualized as personal effects. Thus, the lack of children’s objects is not indicative of children’s absence, but of the fact that items children treasured were treated like adults’ possessions and not carelessly discarded. The Dema and Vari houses are also useful to highlight that there would have been significant differences, including in childcare strategies, across dwellings in urban centres and those in rural villages and deme centres. As ethnographic studies show, domestic activity typically extends beyond the domestic structure and the nucleus of the settlement in rural contexts, and this naturally extends to children’s activities being more dispersed.Footnote 56 At the Dema and Vari houses evidence of the residents’ activities may have been dispersed across the associated landholdings, rather than entirely focused within the structure of the house. Thus, evidence of children and their activities may also have been left unexcavated or unrecorded in the wider landscape surrounding the houses.

Fig. 4.

The Dema House. After Jones et al. (Reference Jones, Sackett and Graham1962) fig. 1, with permission of the British School at Athens.

Dema House floorplan, with north arrow and scale.
Fig. 4. Long description

Twelve internal spaces, rooms around a central courtyard (VIII). Spaces labelled in Roman numerals. I to V vertically adjoining to top. VI then VII beneath V to the right. XII far right. XI bottom right. IX bottom left. X between IX and I left.

Fig. 5.

The Vari House. After Jones et al. (Reference Jones, Sackett and Graham1973) fig. 2, with permission of the British School at Athens.

Vari House floorplan, with north arrow and scale.
Fig. 5. Long description

Ten internal spaces around a central courtyard (VIII). I to V vertically adjoining to top. X beneath IV and IX then VI beneath V to the right. VII bottom left. XI bottom right beside VI. XII (entrance) bottom centre and right, with XIV then XIII beyond.

There are therefore limits to what finds assemblages currently reveal about children’s use of domestic space in Classical Attica, but considering architecture as well is more informative. Most Classical single-family dwellings, including the Dema and Vari houses, conformed to the ‘single-entrance courtyard house’ model.Footnote 57 Thus their morphology suggests a strong desire to minimize and control interaction between the household and outsiders, a concern in contemporary sources.Footnote 58 Most spaces were observable from the courtyard,Footnote 59 but the household remained shielded from the outside world because access was restricted to one entrance, which was often off-set to break sight lines between entrances and courtyards.Footnote 60 Consequently, children could have freedom of access in Classical houses, whilst also being diligently supervised and permitted minimal contact with outsiders.

V. Children in the Classical oikos: Olynthus

The North Hill settlement at Olynthus, inhabited from 432 BC,Footnote 61 is well suited to exploring children’s use of domestic space in greater detail (fig. 6). The settlement had links with the Athenian Empire, and Olynthian and Athenian houses were likely used similarly.Footnote 62 Complete ground plans are available for many houses and the Macedonian sacking of the city in 348 BC resulted in almost total abandonment, which preserved relatively extensive finds assemblages within them (fig. 7).Footnote 63 Methodological issues arise because of a lack of precise stratigraphic recording, resulting in limited information about upper-floor accommodation.Footnote 64 These issues are addressed by the fact that object distribution patterns are comparable across single- and double-storey structures, indicating that upper floors do not significantly distort artefact distribution analyses.Footnote 65 Eighteen houses are considered for what they suggest about children’s activities, which spaces they frequented, the accessibility of those spaces and other activities taking place around them in domestic space at Olynthus. In each case, patterns of behaviour and access across the house’s use-life are analysed, rather than only the moment of abandonment.

Fig. 6.

Athens and Olynthus, within Greece. Mapswire© CC-BY 4.0; transparency and location annotations added by author.

Map showing locations of Athens and Olynthus within Greece, all labelled, with scale. Olynthus to north-west of Athens roughly central.

Fig. 7.

Olynthus, as excavated. After Cahill (Reference Cahill2002) fig. 6, reproduced with permission of N. Cahill and Yale University Press.

Plan of excavated elements at Olynthus, with gradient lines.
Fig. 7. Long description

North Cemetery left, with Riverside Cemetery and Resetnikia River below. North Hill settlement central with terraces of houses. Larger houses to centre and bottom right. All on grid plan. South Hill to centre bottom.

i. House A viii 4

House A viii 4, excavated in 1938, had a double entrance into space n and a smaller entrance into space l, which probably accessed a ‘shop’ in spaces g and k.Footnote 66 The house is typical of the Olynthian pastas type.Footnote 67 The ground floor comprised 15 spaces around a courtyard. The excavator noted at least 38 finds (SM fig. 1; SM = supplementary material). One, a miniature jug with strainer akin to a feeder (m), represents material culture of childhood. A further five, an animal-shaped plastic vase and female figurine (o), miniature saucers (n and o) and a small skyphos (k), are material culture of children (SM fig. 2). The cup was likely associated with non-domestic activity. Loom weights, normally representing women’s activity, were associated in space m, but the objects in space m were probably in storage, or refuse.Footnote 68 Thus, finds distribution suggests a restricted focus of juvenile activity around space o and its entrance from space n. Therefore children were active in a relatively accessible space, reached by crossing two of a possible five boundaries from the exterior (SM fig. 3). This may suggest that the childhoods experienced in House A viii 4 were relatively public but is arguably more representative of the house’s limited assemblage and can be better understood when compared to other houses and thus a baseline for the settlement.Footnote 69

ii. House B vi 7

House B vi 7, also excavated in 1938, was denoted the House of Asclepius because a statue of Asclepius was found in space f.Footnote 70 The house had one entrance, into space b. Its plan is atypical; many rooms were not accessed from the focal courtyard, and some may have been organized into suites. The ground floor was divided into three zones, comprising 11 spaces.Footnote 71 One hundred and thirteen finds were recorded in the house (SM fig. 4). One, a fragmentary strainer comparable to those integrated into feeders (k), possibly constitutes discarded material culture of childhood. A further ten, an animal terracotta, a dancing-girl figurine (e), three fragmentary terracottas and miniature oinochoai (g and i), and a small bowl and skyphos (a), are material culture of children (SM fig. 5).Footnote 72 An odd pyramidal loom weight found amongst others in space c could also constitute material culture of children.Footnote 73 The items in space a were associated with an altar, so were more likely cultic.Footnote 74 Finds distribution, analysed critically, therefore suggests foci of children’s domestic activity (alongside women’s) in spaces c, e, g and i. Children did not apparently access the andrōn (f), used to host symposia with outside guests and for other relatively public occasions regardless of the gender of the participants.Footnote 75 Overall, children were active in relatively private areas in the house; in spaces accessed by crossing at least two and up to four (the maximum) boundaries (SM fig. 6). Thus, childhoods experienced in House B vi 7 could have been largely private, unless children ventured outside the home or were deliberately exposed to visitors.

iii. Houses with material culture of children

Besides houses A viii 4 and B vi 7, full ground plans are available for 16 others with assemblages including material culture of children that is associated with evidence of women’s domestic activities, in the form of loom weights.Footnote 76 This makes it more likely that the objects represent signatures of children because women were children’s primary caregivers, according to iconography and literature.Footnote 77 TenFootnote 78 houses contained terracotta figurines and miniatures and an additional sixFootnote 79 contained figurines.Footnote 80

House A iv 5 (the House of Ariston) incorporated half of the neighbouring A iv 7 to constitute one dwelling, with two entrances into spaces a and n.Footnote 81 Flans found in spaces n and p suggest coin-minting (or counterfeiting) activity in the house.Footnote 82 Material culture of children was distributed across the house, associated with loom weights in spaces c, i, n and p (SM fig. 7): a terracotta bird (c), terracotta figurine head (d), another figurine (i), a plastic vase in the form of three children (l), more figurines and miniatures (n), an animal terracotta (p) and further figurines (o and q). Figurines and miniatures in space m were likely in storage. Thus, children’s activities could be identified at one boundary from the outside, but were more concentrated in spaces accessed by crossing two or more, up to five, boundaries in House A iv 5/7 (SM fig. 8). This is broadly consistent with houses A viii 4 and B vi 7.

House A iv 9 incorporated three independent shops facing on to Avenue B.Footnote 83 The house had one entrance, into space c, with an external staircase.Footnote 84 Loom weights evidence textile production within the house.Footnote 85 Material culture of children: a miniature skyphos (g), a plastic vase in the form of Silenus (h) and another skyphos and figurine (j), indicate children’s activity concentrated around a kitchen complex (h-j-k-m)Footnote 86 and women’s workroom with looms (g-i) (SM fig. 9). Thus, children were active in some of the most private areas, accessed by crossing three or four of a maximum of five boundaries, in House A iv 9 (SM fig. 10).

House A v 1 was accessed via an alleyway into space i, which connected it to A v 3. Material culture of children indicates children’s activity focused in outdoor space and adjacent areas (SM fig. 11): anthropomorphic and animal figurines and miniature vessels (c), further terracottas (d, e and i) and a female figurine (j).Footnote 87 Thus, childhoods experienced in House A v 1 could have been relatively public, with activity at only one remove from the outside,Footnote 88 or markedly private, in spaces three and four (the maximum) crossed boundaries from the exterior (SM fig. 12). Variation likely depended on factors including seasonality, scheduling and the activities in question.

House A v 9 demonstrated evidence of weaving and incorporated an independent shop (k).Footnote 89 The house was accessed by an alleyway into space m and a doorway into space g. Material culture of children was concentrated in outdoor, transitional space and the kitchen complex (a-b-c, SM fig. 13): a bone doll (c), miniature cup (e) and female figurine (m). Protomes in space b were likely in storage. Overall, juvenile activity was at least two, but more typically three to five, removes from the outside world in House A v 9 (SM fig. 14). Children likely frequented the more accessible space when women were outside weaving in favourable light.

Houses A viii 7 (the House of Loomweights) and A viii 9 were combined into one property. Almost 300 loom weights represent the remains of weaving activity on an larger scale than found elsewhere at Olynthus.Footnote 90 Material culture of children suggests children’s activity focused in the pastas and an adjoining room of House A viii 7 (SM fig. 15): a miniature jug (b) and another jug, lead astragaloi and female figurine (d). An odd pyramidal loom weight in space d may also have been a child’s object. Overall, children’s activity was concentrated in spaces accessed by crossing two or three boundaries in House A viii 7/9, which by now constitutes the Olynthian baseline (SM fig. 16).

Like A iv 9, House B vi 9 (the House of the Bronze Hoard) incorporated independent shops, to the east. The house probably had an entrance into space a.Footnote 91 Material culture of children was concentrated in the pastas (SM fig. 17): a satyr and male figure terracottas (e/f). Figurines and a skyphos are unlikely to constitute de facto signatures of children in the vestibule (a). Thus, children were again active in areas accessed by crossing two or three boundaries in House B vi 9 (SM fig. 18).

House C x 7 (the House of Paspalis) was subdivided into separate units, each constituting a relatively modest oikos. Footnote 92 The entrance was into space c, with an adjacent doorway leading into a ‘shop’ (d-h). Material culture of children was concentrated in a small four-room unit beside the entrance (SM fig. 19): a juglet (g). An odd pyramidal loom weight in space g may also have served as a child’s toy. A figurine of Artemis in space h was probably not associated with domestic activity. Thus, children’s lives in House C x 7 would have been relatively conspicuous within the property but still at two removes from the exterior (SM fig. 20).

House D v 6 (the House of Zoilos) was irregular in plan with an unusually small courtyard. The house was accessed by an entrance into space p, whilst integrated ‘shops’ had entrances into spaces m and n. Guttae in spaces a and d may represent material culture of childhood, because feeders are often reported as guttae, and they were found with loom weights. Material culture of children was found in space b (SM fig. 21): a juglet. Overall, children’s lives experienced in House D v 6 would have been secluded, focused in areas at five to seven (the maximum) removes from the outside world (SM fig. 22). This is atypical at Olynthus, but consistent with domestic seclusion idealized in contemporary literature.

In the Villa Section,Footnote 93 House F ii 9 (the House of Many Colours), named after its colourful decoration, demonstrates evidence of commercial and ritual besides residential activity.Footnote 94 The finds assemblage comprised almost 300 objects, including 98 complete vessels.Footnote 95 Material culture of children was concentrated in the women’s work room,Footnote 96 an adjoining secondary courtyard and a possible andrōn anteroom (SM fig. 23): an animal terracotta, miniature cups and bowls (a/b) and further miniatures (f). Miniatures in space e with altars were more likely cultic, and terracottas and miniatures in space i were in a flue, so probably refuse. Overall, children were active in spaces accessed by crossing at least two and more typically four (the maximum) boundaries from the outside, which suggests that children’s lives were relatively cloistered in a larger house like F ii 9 (SM fig. 24).

House F iii 9 (the House of the Tiled Prothyron) was possibly a priest’s residence; the assemblage, including multiple altars, presents significant evidence of cult practice.Footnote 97 The house was probably accessed via an entrance into space j. Material culture of children, including fragmentary figurines (e, h and l), a doll’s arm (f), and miniature cups (k), was concentrated in the pastas and an adjoining three-room unit (f-g-k). All items were associated with loom weights but not altars (SM fig. 25). Cups with altars in space g were more likely cultic. Overall, children’s activity was evidenced in areas two or more, up to five (the maximum), boundaries away from the outside world in House F iii 9, in keeping with the Olynthian norm (SM fig. 26).

In other houses, with only figurines, evidence was concentrated at least two and often three and four crossed boundaries from the outside. In House A 10 (the House of Polyxenus) figurines were found with loom weights in a women’s workroom at four to five removes from the exterior (SM figs 27, 28). In House A 11 (the House of Archidamus) anthropomorphic terracottas were found in a central space two removes from the exterior (SM figs 29, 30). In House A xi 10, figurines, one with a loom weight inside, were found in a kitchen complex three and four crossed boundaries from the outside (SM figs 31, 32). In House B vi 5, figurines were with evidence of a loom in situ in space h, as well as in the pastas and courtyard, all at two to four removes from the outside (SM figs 33, 34). In House ESH 4, a figurine and an odd squat loom weight were indicative of children in the kitchen complex, whilst figurines elsewhere were found with altars, so were more likely cultic (SM fig. 35). ESH 4’s oikos space was immediately accessible from the exterior through a secondary entrance (SM fig. 36). Finally, a jointed doll, miniature couch model and astragalos in House F v 2 (South Villa), one of the biggest houses at Olynthus,Footnote 98 again suggested evidence of children in the oikos, at three removes from the outside (SM figs 37, 38).

VI. Discussion

Dwelling is a social process, with the architecture of houses generating cues for social behaviours by compartmentalizing space and creating an ‘inside’ and ‘outside’.Footnote 99 Cross-cultural investigation demonstrates that the way in which domestic space is compartmentalized and used is moulded by patterns of domestic social behaviours, themselves configured by social norms.Footnote 100 Given that boys did not begin schooling until the age of seven and girls did not routinely leave the oikos before marriage in ancient Greece, children were predominantly socialized and introduced to social norms through intergenerational interaction in domestic contexts. Investigating children’s activities and interpersonal interactions in houses is thus key to understanding children’s social identities more broadly in ancient Greece.

In the literary sources, details about life in the oikos are typically throwaway comments which largely present an elitist, androcentric perspective, so archaeological evidence is key to understanding wider experiences, including those of children, in ancient Greek domestic space. Considered together, the archaeological and literary evidence reveal discrepancies which indicate that the use of domestic space in ancient Greece was fundamentally dynamic and could be negotiated and scheduled;Footnote 101 it was changeable in accordance with the season, time of day and presence/absence of outsiders.Footnote 102

The evidence from Olynthus indicates that children enjoyed more flexibility in their use of domestic space than has typically been imagined. Eighteen of the 70 houses excavated at Olynthus include material culture of children, objects with which children likely interacted with some frequency, and that have been preserved, excavated and recorded such that their distribution within them can be analysed. Clearly, this evidence is not wholly representative of children’s presence and activities. It stands to reason that children inhabited almost all of the houses across the settlement, but analyses of Olynthus as a sample does allow for fruitful discussion towards drawing some interesting conclusions. As noted above, patterns replicated across multiple houses are of particular importance. Thus key findings are that children’s activities were concentrated around women’s work, in oikos-complexes and women’s workrooms,Footnote 103 and they were not attested in what have traditionally been labelled ‘men’s rooms’, used when entertaining outsiders, when houses had dedicated andrōn spaces.Footnote 104 This reiterates that women, be they mothers, other female relatives or domestic slaves, were children’s predominant caregivers in domestic settings. Material culture of children was also often found in courtyards and the adjoining pastas;Footnote 105 it was then that children’s activities were in closest proximity to the world beyond the oikos, taking place at only one or two crossed boundaries from outside. Justified access maps for the 18 houses demonstrate that they typically incorporated four to six boundaries. Children’s activities were concentrated in spaces accessed by crossing two or three, but significant variability is apparent (fig. 8). The data therefore indicate that childhoods could be relatively secluded within the oikos at Olynthus, so children likely experienced minimal ‘unpoliced’ interactions with outsiders and had little in the way of a social identity beyond their family group as a consequence. That said, the variability apparent in the data also shows that children were active in multiple areas and were not necessarily always cloistered in the most private parts of the house: much likely depended on changeable factors like seasonality, scheduling and the nature of the activities that children, and their caregivers, were engaged in. One can easily imagine that another factor was variability in precisely which children were represented by the objects in each case: the activities of two genders and various ages are represented across the material culture of children, and a two-year-old boy would undoubtedly have used a terracotta figurine (found in most houses) very differently from a 12-year-old girl, not least with significantly more direct supervision and less autonomy! Hence, though it is beyond the scope of this article, the methodology developed here has clear potential to reveal an increasingly nuanced understanding of how different children experienced domestic space in future research: with the material culture of children subcategorized to link certain objects to certain age groups, it would become possible to achieve a distinct and detailed understanding of the experiences of those two- and 12-year-olds (and their fellow juveniles).

Fig. 8.

Access analysis summary.

Table summarising all houses analysed: the number of spaces in each house containing material culture of children, how many boundaries needed to be crossed to access those spaces and the maximum number of boundaries within the house.
Fig. 8. Long description

House Aviii4 with 1 space containing material culture of children, accessed by crossing 1 or 2 boundaries. The house with a maximum of 3 boundaries. House Bvi7 with 4 spaces containing material culture of children, accessed by crossing 2, 3 or 4 boundaries. The house with a maximum of 4 boundaries. House Aiv5/7 with 4 spaces containing material culture of children, accessed by crossing 1 or 2 boundaries or 4 or 5 boundaries using a secondary entrance. The house with a maximum of 6 boundaries. House Aiv9 with 3 spaces containing material culture of children, accessed by crossing 3 or 4 boundaries. The house with a maximum of 5 boundaries. House Av1 with 4 spaces containing material culture of children, accessed by crossing 1, 2, 3, or 4 boundaries. The house with a maximum of 4 boundaries. House Av9 with 3 spaces containing material culture of children, accessed by crossing 2, 4 or 5 boundaries or 3 boundaries using a secondary entrance. The house with a maximum of 6 boundaries. House Aviii7/9 with 2 spaces containing material culture of children, accessed by crossing 2 or 3 boundaries. The house with a maximum of 4 boundaries. House Bvi9 with 2 spaces containing material culture of children, accessed by crossing 2 or 3 boundaries. The house with a maximum of 5 boundaries. House Cx7 with 1 space containing material culture of children, accessed by crossing 2 boundaries. The house with a maximum of 4 boundaries. House Dv6 with 3 spaces containing material culture of children, accessed by crossing 5, 6 or 7 boundaries. The house with a maximum of 7 boundaries. House Fii9 with 3 spaces containing material culture of children, accessed by crossing 2 or 4 boundaries. The house with a maximum of 4 boundaries. House Fiii9 with 6 spaces containing material culture of children, accessed by crossing 2, 3, 4 or 5 boundaries. The house with a maximum of 5 boundaries. House A10 with 2 spaces containing material culture of children, accessed by crossing 4 or 5 boundaries. The house with a maximum of 6 boundaries. House A11 with 1 space containing material culture of children, accessed by crossing 2 boundaries. The house with a maximum of 5 boundaries. House Axi10 with 1 space containing material culture of children, accessed by crossing 3 boundaries. The house with a maximum of 4 boundaries. House Bvi5 with 2 spaces containing material culture of children, accessed by crossing 2 or 3 boundaries. The house with a maximum of 4 boundaries. House ESH4 with 1 space with material culture of children, accessed by crossing 2 boundaries. The house with a maximum of 5 boundaries. House Fv2 with 1 space with material culture of children, accessed by crossing 3 boundary or 1 boundary using a secondary entrance. The house with a maximum of 6 boundaries.

Reflection on the evidence from Attica, in light of the results from Olynthus, reiterates the point that though the visible archaeological record of children in houses is often limited, in part because objects associated with children have been discarded and/or gone unrecorded in excavations,Footnote 106 material cultures of children clearly did exist in ancient Greece, and they are usually represented in houses. At both the Dema and Vari houses, which were probably only occupied seasonally and have limited finds assemblages, objects that can be classified as ‘material culture of children’ were still recorded. The lack of more concrete ‘material culture of childhood’ in the houses can also be explained by their removal as personal possessions when the houses were abandoned (see Appendix, supplementary material). In addition, ethnographic evidence demonstrates that children’s activities are typically dispersed across the landscape surrounding a dwelling in rural contexts,Footnote 107 so that significant evidence of children has likely remained unrecovered in archaeological excavations that have focused on the built structures at the Dema and Vari sites. It stands to reason that children spent a greater proportion of their time out of doors in rural contexts, because it was safer and practicable for them to do so, compared to busy urban environments. Unfortunately no rural housing has yet been excavated and recorded to an extent sufficient to inform us of children’s use of the surrounding landscape, but this is undoubtedly something that will become feasible as more evidence for rural housing becomes available.

Ultimately, working with the evidence currently available, with the cases considered here I have conducted preliminary testing of a holistic methodology to open up a new avenue of research in household archaeology. These cases have confirmed that a juvenile-centric archaeology of domestic space is both feasible and worthwhile, but it is also clear that there remain further steps to take towards developing a fully nuanced understanding of children’s use of domestic space in ancient Greece. Moving forward, the keys to this are: (a) a positive approach that actively seeks out children in the material record of houses rather than ascribing adult-centric functions to objects by default (this can be achieved through sustained work with the concept of a material culture of children, which accounts for all of the objects juveniles could interact with frequently), whether or not children were their sole/primary users; and (b) an appreciation of the diversity of activities, experiences and individuals represented by that material culture of children, to critically explain its variegated dispersal across excavated houses. With the evidence currently available, a possible next step is to evaluate domestic assemblages with a view to identifying objects made by children. As material culture of childhood, these objects would more securely attest to the presence and activities of children within houses.Footnote 108 Close typological analyses of figurines and miniatures in child burials against those in houses could prove useful, to try to identify certain types specifically made for children, and possibly for children of distinct ages and gender. Beyond this, Lisa Nevett has recently argued for commonality in the use of domestic space across Greece,Footnote 109 so there is work to be done testing the hypotheses presented here in wider Greek contexts. As more evidence becomes available, exploring diachronic change in how children experienced domestic space will be key to understanding the changing significance of children in society. Initial analyses suggest an incongruent relationship between the real and the purported visibility of children in society beyond the house across the Geometric, Archaic and Classical periods. Whilst the morphology of Geometric houses suggests that children spent much of their time outside (see Appendix), the Classical evidence considered above indicates that later childhoods were more cloistered, with children spending much of their time in confined areas of already privacy-focused houses, only interacting with outsiders when desirable. This in spite of the fact that it was from the fifth century that children were particularly celebrated, included in iconography on painted pottery and public grave stelai, besides being given formal burial to an unprecedented degree. This indicates that the increasing visibility of children in iconography and the funerary landscape was primarily ideological, rather than reflective of a changing society in which children spent more time in public view,Footnote 110 but cognizance of the full significance of the changes requires further application of the methodology developed here as and when a more robust archaeological record of Greek housing becomes available, which includes highly detailed recording of all small finds.Footnote 111

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S0075426926100548

Acknowledgements

I extend my heartfelt thanks to my supervisors, Dr Sally Waite, Dr Matthew Haysom and Professor Chris Fowler, and my examiners Dr April Pudsey and Professor Mark Jackson, as well as the anonymous reviewers and Professor Lin Foxhall, for feedback and support received and enriching discussions that have made this piece better than it could otherwise have been.

Funding statement

This article is drawn from my Ph.D. research conducted at Newcastle University, which was funded, in part, by a Northern Bridge Consortium Doctoral Training Partnership studentship.

Abbreviations

AiGO Archaeology in Greece Online

Footnotes

1 Baxter (Reference Baxter2000); (Reference Baxter and Baxter2005); (Reference Baxter2008).

2 Following Baxter, especially (Reference Baxter2000); (Reference Baxter and Baxter2005).

3 Gooch (Reference Gooch2025).

4 Wilk and Netting (Reference Wilk, Netting, Netting, Wilk and Arnould1984).

5 For example, Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 8.1336b; Pl. Leg. 7.794–95; Xen. Oec. 7.21.

6 For household scenes including young children see: Athens, National Archaeological Museum 1623a; Cambridge (MA), Arthur M. Sackler Museum 1960.342; University of Manchester III.I.2; Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen SL476; Dallas (TX), Dallas Museum of Art 1968.28a-b.

7 For example, Morgan (Reference Morgan2010) 76 acknowledged ‘we may also see evidence that children resided [in houses] … through the presence of personal items such as a baby’s feeder bottle or children’s toys’, but failed to include childcare in her list of domestic activities represented in excavated houses.

8 Excavation of more than a few rooms is atypical. In built-up areas like Athens, pre-Hellenistic houses are usually obscured by later activity: Graham (Reference Graham1974) 46.

9 Wallace-Hadrill (Reference Wallace-Hadrill1988); (Reference Wallace-Hadrill1994).

10 Houses were long neglected in favour of public architecture (Tsakirgis (Reference Tsakirgis1996) 777; Lang (Reference Lang, Ault and Nevett2005) 13; Nevett (Reference Nevett, Ault and Nevett2005b) 1). Athenian sites published in detail: housing in the Agora (Burr (Reference Burr1933); Tsakirgis (Reference Tsakirgis, Ault and Nevett2005)); courtyard houses in industrial Athens and on the Areopagus: Young (Reference Young1951). See Nevett (Reference Nevett, Westgate, Fisher and Whitley2007); (Reference Nevett, Alcock and Osborne2012); (Reference Nevett2023b) 21–30 for summaries of key evidence.

11 Nevett (Reference Nevett, Ault and Nevett2005a) 84; Margaritis (Reference Margaritis, Harris, Lewis and Woolmer2016) 187. The Dema (Jones et al. (Reference Jones, Sackett and Graham1962)) and Vari (Jones et al. (Reference Jones, Sackett and Graham1973)) houses in Attica are exceptions.

12 For example, Burnouf (Reference Burnouf1856); (Reference Burnouf1878) provided minimal detail about finds in Athenian houses. Couvé’s (Reference Couvé1895) reports on Delian housing are more detailed.

13 Robinson (Reference Robinson1930); (Reference Robinson1933); (Reference Robinson1946); (Reference Robinson1950); Gude (Reference Gude1933); Robinson and Graham (Reference Robinson and Graham1938). The city remains the most comprehensively explored Greek settlement site. For ongoing work, see Nevett et al. (Reference Nevett, Tsigarida, Archibald, Stone, Horsley, Ault, Panti, Lynch, Pethen, Stallibrass, Salminen, Gaffney, Sparrow, Taylor, Manousakis and Zekkos2017); (Reference Nevett, Tsigarida, Archibald, Stone, Horsley, Ault, Panti, Lynch, Pethen, Stallibrass, Salminen, Gaffney, Sparrow, Taylor, Manousakis and Zekkos2020); Olynthos Project (2022).

14 Analyses indicate that space was used flexibly, probably changing seasonally and depending on time of day and presence or absence of visitors. Cahill (Reference Cahill2002) applied artefact distribution analyses to Olynthus, mapping find-spots of artefact types to explore the spatial concentration of activities within households. Ault (Reference Ault1994); (Reference Ault2005) applied similar analyses at Halieis, to understand how domestic space was zoned according to the activities taking place within it. Nevett has used distribution analyses to understand the functionality of space in Greek houses ((Reference Nevett1992); (Reference Nevett and Spencer1995b); (Reference Nevett1999)), how houses mediated in social relations (Reference Nevett, Westgate, Fisher and Whitley2007) and the materiality of households ((Reference Nevett2010); (Reference Nevett and Müller2015)).

15 On houses as social statements, see Métraux (Reference Métraux1999). Later 20th-century scholarship, including Graham (Reference Graham1974); Jones (Reference Jones and Mussche1975); Krause (Reference Krause1977); Hoepfner and Schwander (Reference Hoepfner and Schwander1986). Jameson (Reference Jameson and Kent1990) developed a fourfold architectural typology based on Vitruvius’ De architectura, but more recent work indicates houses were individually adapted to account for factors including the localized climate, available resources and the composition of households (Nevett (Reference Nevett1995a) 3; (Reference Nevett, Ault and Nevett2005a) 90; Ault (Reference Ault2000) 485).

16 They have been used to investigate houses of diverse types, from various periods. For example, see Sanders (Reference Sanders and Kent1990) on Bronze Age Crete. On evidence of household industry see Ault (Reference Ault, Westgate, Fisher and Whitley2007); Cahill (Reference Cahill2002); (Reference Cahill, Ault and Nevett2005); Tsakirgis (Reference Tsakirgis, Ault and Nevett2005). Key to my methodology here, some research has explored how architecture and mobile fittings besides household material culture afforded social interaction and thereby impacted how domestic spaces were experienced. See Parisinou (Reference Parisinou, Westgate, Fisher and Whitley2007) on the use of doorways, windows and natural light. See Lynch (Reference Lynch, Westgate, Fisher and Whitley2007) on characteristics of andrōnes; Tsakirgis (Reference Tsakirgis, Westgate, Fisher and Whitley2007) on hearths and portable braziers used for heat and cooking; Westgate (Reference Westgate2000) on decoration. See also Trümper (Reference Trümper, Westgate, Fisher and Whitley2007); (Reference Trümper and Rawson2011); Souvatzi (Reference Souvatzi2008).

17 See Foxhall (Reference Foxhall, Westgate, Fisher and Whitley2007) on exploring the distribution of specific material culture to understand domestic food preparation.

18 Considered only marginally, in attempts to identify women’s quarters: extensive scholarship has sought to locate the gunaikōnitis discussed in literature, including Walker (Reference Walker, Cameron and Kuhrt1983); Jameson (Reference Jameson and Kent1990); Goldberg (Reference Goldberg and Allison1999). Nevett (especially (Reference Nevett, Parker Pearson and Richards1994); (Reference Nevett1995a)) and Papayiannis (Reference Papayiannis2012) have ascertained, in part using artefact distribution analyses, that a distinct space to which women were confined did not usually exist, and most domestic space was (to different degrees) women’s space.

19 Allison (Reference Allison, Herring, Whitehouse and Wilkins1992); (Reference Allison and Allison1999) questions their robustness, arguing that problems with circumstances of deposition and post-depositional factors distort the evidence available for interpretation. But, following Ciolek-Torello (Reference Ciolek-Torello and Hietala1984) and Rapoport (Reference Rapoport and Kent1990), she does acknowledge that artefact distribution has greater potential to inform on room function than evaluation of architectural features. See Allison (Reference Allison2001) on using multidisciplinary approaches to strengthen artefact distribution methodologies. See also Wilk and Rathje (Reference Wilk and Rathje1982); Blanton (Reference Blanton1994).

20 Allison (Reference Allison and Allison1999) 12; Lang (Reference Lang, Ault and Nevett2005) 12; Nevett (Reference Nevett, Alcock and Osborne2012) 214. Assemblages comprise non- and de facto deposits; only the latter are found where they were deposited (Ault and Nevett (Reference Ault, Nevett and Allison1999) 48–49, following Schiffer (Reference Schiffer1996) 58). See Allison (Reference Allison, Herring, Whitehouse and Wilkins1992); (Reference Allison and Allison1999); LaMotta and Schiffer (Reference LaMotta, Schiffer and Allison1999). See Schiffer (Reference Schiffer1985) on the ‘Pompeii Premise’.

21 LaMotta and Schiffer (Reference LaMotta, Schiffer and Allison1999) 19–20; Nevett (Reference Nevett1999) 57; (Reference Nevett2023a) 20–21; Parisinou (Reference Parisinou, Westgate, Fisher and Whitley2007) 213. Allison (Reference Allison and Allison1999) 12; (Reference Allison2001) 185 argues that household assemblages therefore primarily inform on the abandonment of houses, rather than their use.

22 Fiedler (Reference Fiedler, Ault and Nevett2005) 99.

23 Jameson (Reference Jameson and Kent1990) 109; Nevett (Reference Nevett and Spencer1995b) 90; (Reference Nevett1999) 60–61; (Reference Nevett2023a) 109.

24 Sanders (Reference Sanders and Kent1990) 47; Ault and Nevett (Reference Ault, Nevett and Allison1999) 51–52; LaMotta and Schiffer (Reference LaMotta, Schiffer and Allison1999) 21–25; Westgate (Reference Westgate2007) 424–26.

25 Systematic methods for analysing spatial patterns have been used in archaeology since the 1970s (for example, Hodder and Orton (Reference Hodder and Orton1976)), but classical archaeology has made relatively little use of them. Exceptions include Yiannouli and Mithen (Reference Yiannouli and Mithen1986); Lang (Reference Lang2002); (Reference Lang, Ault and Nevett2005), Westgate (Reference Westgate2007) and Bintliff (Reference Bintliff, Paliou, Lieberwirth and Polla2014), using access analysis in Greek contexts. On Roman domestic spaces see Laurence (Reference Laurence1994); Grahame (Reference Grahame, Laurence and Wallace-Hadrill1997); (Reference Grahame and Leslie1999); (Reference Grahame2000); von Stackelberg (Reference von Stackelberg2005). See Foster (Reference Foster1989) on housing in Iron Age Orkney. The methods draw on the theories of Bourdieu (Reference Bourdieu1984) and Lefebvre (Reference Lefebvre1991).

26 Hiller and Hanson (Reference Hillier and Hanson1984), also Hillier (Reference Hillier, Paliou, Lieberwirth and Polla2014). See also Scott (Reference Scott1989).

27 Also called ‘space syntax analysis’ and ‘gamma analysis’.

28 Blanton (Reference Blanton1994); Lawrence and Law (Reference Lawrence and Law1990); Sanders (Reference Sanders and Kent1990) 44; Lang (Reference Lang, Westgate, Fisher and Whitley2007) 192; Westgate (Reference Westgate2015) 49; contra Antonaccio (Reference Antonaccio2000) 529. Kent (Reference Kent1991) argues that habits and norms work in conjunction with the physical organization of space to influence behaviour in domestic contexts.

29 Foster (Reference Foster1989) 41; James and Kalisperis (Reference James, Kalisperis, Birdwell-Pheasant and Lawrence-Züniga1999); von Stackelberg (Reference von Stackelberg2005) 55. The methodology is based in structuration theory, for example, Giddens (Reference Giddens1984), which argues that the nature of spaces is moulded by social relations and architecture is meaningfully constituted, being influenced by those social relations and cultural norms (Foster (Reference Foster1989) 41).

30 Leach (Reference Leach, Green, Haselgrove and Spriggs1978) and Allison (Reference Allison and Allison1999); (Reference Allison2001) suggest that graphic representations of space like those produced by access analysis fail to understand space as lived in and experienced and thereby cannot properly inform on the social use of space. Some scholars have suggested that access analysis is not useful when room functions are unclear, for example Grahame (Reference Grahame2000). The lack of room function data is less detrimental in Greek contexts because most spaces were highly multifunctional, with fixtures like doors and furniture considered portable (Nevett (Reference Nevett1999) 37–39), thus labelling rooms functionally risks the introduction of unhelpful ethnocentric biases: Ciolek-Torello (Reference Ciolek-Torello and Hietala1984); Nevett (Reference Nevett1995a) 366; Allison (Reference Allison and Allison1999) 6; Mazarakis Ainian (Reference Mazarakis Ainian, Westgate, Fisher and Whitley2007) 157; Morgan (Reference Morgan2010) 58. Lynch (Reference Lynch, Westgate, Fisher and Whitley2007) 244 proposed thinking about ‘conceptual spaces’ rather than distinct ‘rooms’ in Greek houses.

31 Westgate (Reference Westgate2007) 426.

32 Graham (Reference Graham1974); Jameson (Reference Jameson and Kent1990). Tsakirgis (Reference Tsakirgis and Miles2016a) 285 suggests that few houses had upper storeys. Ault (Reference Ault2000) 487 suggests that upstairs space was only used for sleeping and light storage at Halieis.

33 Crawford (Reference Crawford2009) 58, 61. See Crawford (Reference Crawford2009) generally for further arguments as to why archaeologists fail to identify evidence of children’s activities in domestic contexts.

34 Crawford (Reference Crawford2009) 59 suggests a tripartite classification of objects: (a) those that are toys/objects made specifically for children, (b) those that could be toys in certain circumstances and (c) those not used by children. She highlights how (c) is the default in archaeology, but that category (b) is a more useful default in a juvenile-focused archaeology.

35 See Wardle and Wardle (Reference Wardle, Wardle, Crawford and Shepherd2007) on how many utilitarian objects must have been repurposed as children’s playthings in antiquity. See Hammond and Hammond (Reference Hammond and Hammond1981) on how evidence of child’s play is easily, and often, misinterpreted as a signature of ritual practice.

36 Foxhall (Reference Foxhall and Osborne2020a).

37 Gauvain and Greene (Reference Gauvain and Greene1994) 311; Pellegrini (Reference Pellegrini2013) 818; Lockman and Tamis-LeMonda (Reference Lockman and Tamis-LeMonda2021) 169.

38 Huizinga (Reference Huizinga1950); Schwartzman (Reference Schwartzman1978); Caillois (Reference Caillois2001); Karpatschof (Reference Karpatschof, Schousboe and Winther-Lindqvist2013). These studies also demonstrate how many children’s activities would leave no archaeological trace: see Sawyer (Reference Sawyer2002).

39 Lockman and Tamis-LeMonda (Reference Lockman and Tamis-LeMonda2021) 176.

40 Schwartzman (Reference Schwartzman1978); Pellegrini (Reference Pellegrini2013). See Bonnicshen (Reference Bonnischen1973) on the Millie’s Camp experiment, which demonstrates children’s deviation of objects from their purposes as defined by adults.

41 Rakoczy et al. (Reference Rakoczy, Tomasello and Striano2005); Pellegrini (Reference Pellegrini2013) 830.

42 Lockman and Tamis-LeMonda (Reference Lockman and Tamis-LeMonda2021) 178.

43 Pellegrini (Reference Pellegrini2013) table 1.

44 Wilkie (Reference Wilkie and Sofaer-Derevenski2000); Crawford (Reference Crawford2009) 57, with bibliography including ethnography and experimental archaeology.

45 Context is key to identifying toys as toys, especially in the cases of objects like terracotta figurines: Quirke (Reference Quirke and Quirke1998). Crawford (Reference Crawford2009) 61 suggests that a toy is ‘a fluid context-related concept, rather than an object’ (emphasis added). Close typological analyses, for example drawing comparisons to objects found in child burials, has proven useful at Middle Kingdom Lahun in Egypt (Quirke (Reference Quirke and Quirke1998)) and could certainly prove useful in Greek contexts as terracottas are prevalent in juvenile burials.

46 Evidence suggests that a full loom would require 70 to 100 weights (Lin Foxhall, personal communication): those excavated in a line are more likely to be the remains of looms in situ: Tsarkirgis (Reference Tsakirgis, Harris, Lewis and Woolmer2016b) 170, 179–80. Most excavated houses do not include sufficient loom weights to operate a loom: Foxhall (Reference Foxhall, Carter and Prieto2011); (Reference Foxhall and Osborne2020a). Evidence from Metaponto in southern Italy clearly demonstrates repurposing of loom weights: Foxhall (Reference Foxhall and Osborne2020a).

47 Foxhall (Reference Foxhall and Osborne2020a) recently suggested that if figurines and miniature pots were highly valued and ritually significant, they would likely have been removed from houses upon abandonment, thus their presence in excavated assemblages is indicative of their serving other functions. Their random distribution in houses supports this: Foxhall (Reference Foxhall and Kindt2025) 12. Another obvious function is that they served as children’s objects, given their durability and diminutive size.

48 Nevett (Reference Nevett, Ault and Nevett2005b) 4; (Reference Nevett, Alcock and Osborne2012) 216 identifies increasing specialization and segregation of domestic space between the eighth and fourth centuries.

49 For example, the House of Simon in the Agora, incompletely excavated, and the House of Mikion and Menon, not primarily domestic: Jones (Reference Jones and Mussche1975); Tsakirgis (Reference Tsakirgis, Ault and Nevett2005). There is no detailed find information for houses excavated on the Areopagus and in Athens’ industrial district: Young (Reference Young1951); Thompson (Reference Thompson1959); Jones (Reference Jones and Mussche1975); Tsakirgis (Reference Tsakirgis, Ault and Nevett2005). One room of an early fifth-century house excavated on Promachou 5 presented finds including lamps and pottery: Dimitriadou (Reference Dimitriadou2019) 477. Houses on Mavrokordatou and Salaminomachon in Piraeus have been partly excavated (AiGO 4908; 4983). Partial houses on Syggrou Avenue in Athens and Ypsilantou Street in Piraeus have been excavated with imprecise recording of finds (AiGO 5340; 5310). Ground plans for houses on Menander Street in Athens and in Moschato, Piraeus are incomplete: Graham (Reference Graham1974); AiGO 2454; 2450. Classical inhabitation is obscured by Hellenistic activity at Tsami Karatasou in Athens and on Zaimi Street in Piraeus (AiGO 5339; 4981).

50 Jones et al. (Reference Jones, Sackett and Graham1962); (Reference Jones, Sackett and Graham1973). See also Jones (Reference Jones and Mussche1975). They present rare opportunities to investigate rural life as few countryside farmsteads have been excavated: Nevett (Reference Nevett, Ault and Nevett2005a) 84; Margaritis (Reference Margaritis, Harris, Lewis and Woolmer2016) 188–89; Gerstel (Reference Gerstel2020).

51 Walker (Reference Walker, Cameron and Kuhrt1983) 85; Nevett (Reference Nevett2023a) 18.

52 Nevett (Reference Nevett2023a) 102–03.

53 Morgan (Reference Morgan2010) 1; Foxhall (Reference Foxhall2020b) 12–13.

54 Finds 4 and 5 in Jones’ report.

55 LaMotta and Schiffer (Reference LaMotta, Schiffer and Allison1999) 22.

56 Foxhall (Reference Foxhall2020b) 1–2; Gerstel (Reference Gerstel2020).

57 Nevett (Reference Nevett, Ault and Nevett2005a) 84, 95; (Reference Nevett, Alcock and Osborne2012) 216. Most Archaic housing was destroyed in the Persian sack of Athens, then rebuilt and remodelled (Dimitriadou (Reference Dimitriadou2019) 198).

58 Nevett (Reference Nevett, Ault and Nevett2005a) 84.

59 Nevett (Reference Nevett1999) 73; (Reference Nevett, Alcock and Osborne2012) 218.

60 Jameson (Reference Jameson and Kent1990) 97; Nevett (Reference Nevett and Spencer1995b) 91.

61 Following anoikismos (‘rebuilding’) after Olynthus’ break with Athens (Thuc. 1.58–59). Some excavation to the bedrock confirms a lack of previous residential activity (Cahill (Reference Cahill2002) 35–39).

62 Cahill (Reference Cahill2002) 24; Nevett (Reference Nevett2023a) 119.

63 Jameson (Reference Jameson and Kent1990) 109. Seventy houses were excavated completely, with 55 complete ground plans produced (Nevett (Reference Nevett1995a) 367). Preservation has been aided by minimal reuse of the site (Nevett (Reference Nevett1995a) 367; (Reference Nevett2023a) 109). For example, excavated pots are often whole, indicating they were de facto deposits abandoned in contexts of use (Nevett (Reference Nevett1999) 57–59).

64 Nevett (Reference Nevett and Müller2015) 112; (Reference Nevett2023a) 112; Nevett et al. (Reference Nevett, Tsigarida, Archibald, Stone, Horsley, Ault, Panti, Lynch, Pethen, Stallibrass, Salminen, Gaffney, Sparrow, Taylor, Manousakis and Zekkos2020).

65 Nevett (Reference Nevett1999) 71; (Reference Nevett2023a) 118.

66 Robinson (Reference Robinson1946) 25. ‘Shops’ could also be workshops or stables: Nevett (Reference Nevett2023a) 117.

67 Robinson (Reference Robinson1946) 21.

68 Robinson (Reference Robinson1946) 25 suggests the drain bisecting m indicates that it was a storeroom or latrine.

69 Olynthus average: three objects per room: Ault and Nevett (Reference Ault, Nevett and Allison1999) 46. At Halieis, one layer in House E contained 580 vessels: Ault and Nevett (Reference Ault, Nevett and Allison1999) 47.

70 Robinson (Reference Robinson1946) 125–42; Nevett (Reference Nevett and Müller2015) 105.

71 No evidence suggests the house was two-storey: Nevett (Reference Nevett and Müller2015) 111.

72 Miniatures are typically related to cult: Ault (Reference Ault2000); Lynch (Reference Lynch, Westgate, Fisher and Whitley2007); Mazarakis Ainian (Reference Mazarakis Ainian, Westgate, Fisher and Whitley2007). Forty-one child burials dated 425–350 BC contained cups up to 4.9cm tall and up to 9.6cm in diameter, and/or bowls up to 3.4cm tall (all recorded as ‘miniatures’) and up to 9.2cm in diameter (all ‘miniatures’). Thus, cups <4.9cm tall and <9.6cm in diameter and bowls <3.4cm tall and <9.2cm in diameter are categorized ‘material culture of children’. See Park (Reference Park1998) on miniatures produced specifically for children in Inuit societies.

73 Morgan (Reference Morgan2010) 134–35 suggests that loom weights may indicate the presence of slaves, rather than citizen women, but this does not preclude the presence of children alongside them; in households with slaves to do weaving, the latter would presumably also have undertaken childcare.

74 Including a protome: Morgan (Reference Morgan2010) 83. Morgan suggests that the house was possibly part shrine (p. 85).

75 Jameson (Reference Jameson and Kent1990); Nevett (Reference Nevett and Spencer1995b).

76 Scholars debate whether weaving and childcare were mutually exclusive: Nixon (Reference Nixon1999); Tsakirgis (Reference Tsakirgis, Harris, Lewis and Woolmer2016b); contra Barber (Reference Barber1994). Foxhall (Reference Foxhall, Marincola, Llewellyn-Jones and Mciver2012) 197–99 suggests that girls did not actively engage in weaving until they were around 11, because of the physicality required, but undertook associated tasks from early childhood.

77 See nn.5 and 6 above.

78 A iv 5/7, A iv 9, A v 1, A v 9, A viii 7/9, B vi 9, C x 7, D v 6, F ii 9 and F iii 9.

79 A 10, A 11, A xi 10, B vi 5, ESH 4 and F v 2.

80 Ammerman (Reference Ammerman and Uhlenbrock1990) 38, 41 suggests there is little evidence to securely tie domestic terracottas to household cult, and clearly identifiable deities are not among the most common types. In Olynthian houses, figurines did not represent specific venerated individuals and were not clearly associated with offerings: Morgan (Reference Morgan2010) 159. When found apart from altars, I classify them as material culture of children, given their frequent inclusion in children’s graves.

81 An inscription records the 2,000-drachma sale: Cahill (Reference Cahill2002) 278.

82 Possible counterfeiting: Cahill (Reference Cahill2002) 260.

83 Olynthus’ main shopping street: Morgan (Reference Morgan2010) 110–11.

84 The upstairs was probably a separate dwelling: Cahill (Reference Cahill2002) 109.

85 Cahill (Reference Cahill2002) 274. See Foxhall (Reference Foxhall, Pirenne-Delforge and Węcowski2023) for arguments against this being evidence of commercial weaving in a non-domestic environment.

86 Many kitchens adjoined bathrooms, with waterproof plaster, in oikos complexes: Vitr. De arch. 6.7.2; Ault (Reference Ault2000) 489; Nevett (Reference Nevett and Spencer1995b) 92; (Reference Nevett, Ault and Nevett2005b) 4; Foxhall (Reference Foxhall, Westgate, Fisher and Whitley2007) 233. Mylonas (Reference Mylonas1940) and Hoepfner and Schwander (Reference Hoepfner and Schwander1986) argue that the kitchens were ‘hearth-rooms’, foci of female activity.

87 With weaving equipment: all except e.

88 Possibly given the house’s relationship with A v 3.

89 Cahill (Reference Cahill2002) 118–21.

90 Morgan (Reference Morgan2010) 109; see nn.46 and 89 above.

91 Robinson (Reference Robinson1946) 147.

92 Nevett (Reference Nevett2023a) 118. Oikos is understood here as ‘household’ rather than ‘house’, given that multiple households probably lived in the house.

93 The Olynthos Project’s ‘Lower City’: Nevett et al. (Reference Nevett, Tsigarida, Archibald, Stone, Horsley, Ault, Panti, Lynch, Pethen, Stallibrass, Salminen, Gaffney, Sparrow, Taylor, Manousakis and Zekkos2020).

94 Robinson (Reference Robinson1946); Cahill (Reference Cahill2002) 85. Morgan (Reference Morgan2010) 85–86 suggests that habitation was concentrated in the north rooms.

95 Cahill (Reference Cahill2002) 85.

96 With loom weights, an epinētron and spindle whorl.

97 Cahill (Reference Cahill2002) 33, 147.

98 Robinson (Reference Robinson1946) 259; Cahill (Reference Cahill2002) 30, 327.

99 Sanders (Reference Sanders and Kent1990) 45–46; Allison (Reference Allison and Allison1999) 2–3; Nevett (Reference Nevett and Müller2015) 105. Jameson (Reference Jameson and Kent1990) argues that inside/outside was a more important consideration in structuring domestic space than male/female. See also Ingold (Reference Ingold1993); Locock (Reference Locock1994); Parker Pearson and Richards (Reference Parker Pearson and Richards1994); Smith (Reference Smith, Glazebrook and Tsakirgis2016).

100 Kent (Reference Kent and Kent1990) 2–5; Rapoport (Reference Rapoport and Kent1990); Nevett (Reference Nevett1999) 29; (Reference Nevett, Westgate, Fisher and Whitley2007) 7; Dolfini (Reference Dolfini2013) 132. Hoepfner and Schwander (Reference Hoepfner and Schwander1994) link changes in the organization and use of domestic spaces to broader socio-political developments. Ault (Reference Ault2000) argues that the oikos was a microcosm of the polis. See also Osborne (Reference Osborne, Westgate, Fisher and Whitley2007).

101 For an early suggestion of this, see Mylonas (Reference Mylonas1940). More recently, see Nevett (Reference Nevett, Parker Pearson and Richards1994); Goldberg (Reference Goldberg and Allison1999); Ault and Nevett (Reference Ault, Nevett, Ault and Nevett2005); Morgan (Reference Morgan2010); Davidson (Reference Davidson2011); Trümper (Reference Trümper and Rawson2011). For earlier arguments against, favouring stricter segregation of the sexes, see Walker (Reference Walker, Cameron and Kuhrt1983). Lysias 1 tells of a new mother moving downstairs temporarily for easy access to water in order to wash her infant.

102 Antonaccio (Reference Antonaccio2000) 529; Morgan (Reference Morgan2010) 167–71; Westgate (Reference Westgate2015) 68; Tsakirgis (Reference Tsakirgis and Miles2016a) 283, 285; Nevett (Reference Nevett2023a) 118–19. This is demonstrated at Olynthus in the varied use of space in different houses with the same footprints (Mylonas (Reference Mylonas1940) 399), and the varied distribution of objects like loom weights across houses.

103 Material culture of children was found in kitchen complexes at least six times and in workrooms at least four times.

104 No material culture of children was found within any andrōn.

105 Transitional spaces: these were typically foci for domestic activity and highly multifunctional areas: Sanders (Reference Sanders and Kent1990) 63. Courtyards may have been neutral spaces used to control movement around the house and regulate social relations between the household and outsiders: Nevett (Reference Nevett and Spencer1995b) 92, 107; (Reference Nevett, Ault and Nevett2005b) 4; Lang (Reference Lang, Ault and Nevett2005) 29; (Reference Lang, Westgate, Fisher and Whitley2007) 188; Morgan (Reference Morgan2010) 50. Children’s activity in courtyards is also attested in literature: Dem. 47.

106 Recent investigations by the Olynthos Project have shown that Robinson’s excavations probably discarded significant quantities of coarse- and plain-ware pottery and fragmentary ceramics, objects likely associated with children by virtue of practicality: Nevett et al. (Reference Nevett, Tsigarida, Archibald, Stone, Horsley, Ault, Panti, Lynch, Pethen, Stallibrass, Salminen, Gaffney, Sparrow, Taylor, Manousakis and Zekkos2017).

107 In modern rural contexts, women take children into the fields around settlements when they work: Buck Sutton (Reference Buck Sutton1986); Stahl (Reference Stahl1986).

108 Anthropological and psychological studies have demonstrated that infants as young as 30 months can imitate their elders to make things, and that children are more attached to objects they have made: Pellegrini (Reference Pellegrini2013) 822; Gelman and Echelbarger (Reference Gelman and Echelbarger2019).

109 Nevett (Reference Nevett2023a) 145.

110 Gooch (Reference Gooch2025).

111 This is no easy task given that recent investigations of House B ix 6 at Olynthus recovered 520kg of pottery, but it is only through very careful analysis of all finds that evidence of feeders, for example, will be identified and contextualized: a feeder noted in the Olynthos Project’s interim report (Nevett et al. Reference Nevett, Tsigarida, Archibald, Stone, Horsley, Ault, Panti, Lynch, Pethen, Stallibrass, Salminen, Gaffney, Sparrow, Taylor, Manousakis and Zekkos2017) was not mentioned in a subsequent record of the site (Nevett et al. Reference Nevett, Tsigarida, Archibald, Stone, Horsley, Ault, Panti, Lynch, Pethen, Stallibrass, Salminen, Gaffney, Sparrow, Taylor, Manousakis and Zekkos2020). Miniatures and feeders can be usefully compared to distributions of the same discussed here when full data are available, to understand how far Robinson’s selective retention and recording of artefacts distorted evidence of children’s activities in houses.

References

Allison, P.M. (1992) ‘Artefact assemblages: not the “Pompeii Premise”’, in Herring, E., Whitehouse, R. and Wilkins, J.B. (eds), Papers of the Fourth Conference of Italian Archaeology (London) 49–56 Google Scholar
Allison, P.M. (1999) ‘Introduction’, in Allison, P.M. (ed.), The Archaeology of Household Activities (London) 1–18 Google Scholar
Allison, P.M. (2001) ‘Using material and written sources: turn of the millennium approaches to Roman domestic space’, AJA 105.2, 181–208 10.2307/507270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammerman, R. (1990) ‘The religious context of Hellenistic terracotta figurines’, in Uhlenbrock, J.P. (ed.), The Coroplast’s Art: Greek Terracottas of the Hellenistic World (New Paltz NY) 37–46 Google Scholar
Antonaccio, C.M. (2000) ‘Architecture and behaviour: building gender into Greek houses’, CW 93.5, 517–33Google Scholar
Ault, B.A. (1994) Classical Houses and Households: An Architectural and Artifactual Case Study from Halieis, Greece (Ph.D. Diss. Indiana)Google Scholar
Ault, B.A. (2000) ‘Living in the Classical polis: the Greek house as microcosm’, CW 93.5, 483–96Google Scholar
Ault, B.A. (2005) The Excavations at Ancient Halieis, Volume 2: The Houses, the Organisation and the Use of Space (Bloomington)10.2979/3548.0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ault, B.A. (2007) ‘ Oikos and oikonomia: Greek houses, households and the domestic economy’, in Westgate, R., Fisher, N. and Whitley, J. (eds), Building Communities: House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond (London) 259–65Google Scholar
Ault, B.A. and Nevett, L.C. (1999) ‘Digging houses: archaeologies of Classical and Hellenistic Greek domestic assemblages’, in Allison, P.M. (ed.), The Archaeology of Household Activities (London) 43–56 Google Scholar
Ault, B.A. and Nevett, L.C. (2005) ‘Summing up: whither the archaeology of the Greek household?’, in Ault, B.A. and Nevett, L.C. (eds), Ancient Greek Houses and Households: Chronological, Regional and Social Diversity (Philadelphia) 160–7610.9783/9780812204438.160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, E.W. (1994) Women’s Work: The First 20,000 Years. Women, Cloth, and Society in Early Times (New York)Google Scholar
Baxter, J.E. (2000) An Archaeological Childhood: Children and Material Culture in 19th Century America (Ph.D. Diss. Michigan)Google Scholar
Baxter, J.E. (2005) ‘Making space for children in archaeological interpretations’, in Baxter, J.E. (ed.), Children in Action: Perspectives on the Archaeology of Childhood (Berkeley) 77–88 10.5040/9798216418276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, J.E. (2008) ‘The archaeology of childhood’, Annual Review of Anthropology 37, 159–7510.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bintliff, J. (2014) ‘Spatial analysis of past built environments: houses and society in the Aegean from the Early Iron Age till the impact of Rome’, in Paliou, E., Lieberwirth, U. and Polla, S. (eds), Spatial Analysis and Social Spaces: Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Interpretation of Prehistoric and Historic Built Environments (Berlin) 263–76Google Scholar
Blanton, R.E. (1994) Houses and Households: A Comparative Study. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology (London and New York)10.1007/978-1-4899-0990-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnischen, R. (1973) ‘Millie’s Camp: an experiment in archaeology’, World Archaeology 4, 277–9110.1080/00438243.1973.9979539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (Cambridge MA)Google Scholar
Buck Sutton, S. (1986) ‘Family and work: new patterns for village women in Athens’, Journal of Modern Greek Studies 4.1, 33–49 10.1353/mgs.2010.0064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnouf, E. (1856) ‘Notice sur le plan d’Athènes’, Archives des missions scientifiques et littéraires 5, 64–88 Google Scholar
Burnouf, E. (1878) ‘Maisons privées de l’ancienne Athènes’, Revue générale de l’architecture et des travaux publics, 129–34Google Scholar
Burr, D. (1933) ‘A Geometric house and a Proto-Attic votive deposit’, Hesperia 2, 542–640 10.2307/146657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahill, N. (2002) Household and City Organization at Olynthus (London)10.12987/yale/9780300084955.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahill, N. (2005) ‘Household industry in Anatolia and Greece’, in Ault, B.A. and Nevett, L.C. (eds), Ancient Greek Houses and Households: Chronological, Regional and Social Diversity (Philadelphia) 54–66 Google Scholar
Caillois, R. (2001) Man, Play and Games (Chicago)Google Scholar
Ciolek-Torello, R. (1984) ‘An alternative model of room function from Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona’, in Hietala, H. (ed.), Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology (Cambridge) 127–53Google Scholar
Couvé, L. (1895) ‘Fouilles à Délos’, BCH 19.1, 460–516 10.3406/bch.1895.3651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, S. (2009) ‘The archaeology of play things: theorising a toy stage in the “biography” of objects’, Childhood in the Past 2, 55–70 10.1179/cip.2009.2.1.55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J. (2011) ‘Bodymaps: sexing space and zoning gender in ancient Athens’, Gender & History 23.3, 597–614 10.1111/j.1468-0424.2011.01659.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimitriadou, E.M. (2019) Early Athens: Settlements and Cemeteries in the Submycenaean, Geometric, and Archaic Periods (Los Angeles)10.2307/j.ctvxrpzmdCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolfini, A. (2013) ‘The gendered house: exploring domestic space in later Italian prehistory’, JMA 26.2, 131–5710.1558/jmea.v26i2.131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, M. (2005) ‘Houses at Leukas in Acarnania: a case study in ancient household organization’, in Ault, B.A. and Nevett, L.C. (eds), Ancient Greek Houses and Households: Chronological, Regional and Social Diversity (Philadelphia) 99–118 Google Scholar
Foster, S.M. (1989) ‘Analysis of spatial patterns in buildings (access analysis) as an insight into social structure: examples from the Scottish Atlantic Iron Age’, Antiquity 63, 40–50 10.1017/S0003598X00075566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foxhall, L. (2007) ‘House clearance: unpacking the “kitchen” in Classical Greece’, in Westgate, R., Fisher, N. and Whitley, J. (eds), Building Communities: House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond (London) 233–42Google Scholar
Foxhall, L. (2011) ‘Loom weights’, in Carter, J.C. and Prieto, A. (eds), The Chora of Metaponto 3: The Survey I. Bradano to Basento (Austin) 539–54Google Scholar
Foxhall, L. (2012) ‘Family time: temporality, gender and materiality in ancient Greece’, in Marincola, J., Llewellyn-Jones, L. and Mciver, C. (eds), Greek Notions of the Past in the Archaic and Classical Eras: History without Historians (Edinburgh) 183–206 10.1515/9780748643974-014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foxhall, L. (2020a) ‘Everyday objects’, in Osborne, R. (ed.), A Cultural History of Objects in Antiquity (London) 85–114 Google Scholar
Foxhall, L. (2020b) ‘The village beyond the village: communities in rural landscapes in ancient Greek countrysides’, Journal of Modern Greek Studies 38.1, 1–20 10.1353/mgs.2020.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foxhall, L. (2023) ‘Women’s work? Who made textiles in the ancient Greek world?’, in Pirenne-Delforge, V. and Węcowski, M. (eds), Politeia and Koinōnia: Studies in Ancient Greek History in Honour of Josine Blok (Leiden and Boston) 253–7710.1163/9789004539914_016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foxhall, L. (2025) ‘Personal religion and the religion of the oikos ’, in Kindt, J. (ed.), Personal Religion in the Ancient Greek World (Cambridge) 17–79 Google Scholar
Gauvain, M. and Greene, J.K. (1994) ‘What do young children know about objects?’, Cognitive Development 9.3, 311–2910.1016/0885-2014(94)90009-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, S.A. and Echelbarger, M.E. (2019) ‘Children, object value, and persuasion’, Journal of Consumer Psychology 29.2, 309–2710.1002/jcpy.1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerstel, S.E.J. (2020) ‘Perspectives on the Greek village’, Journal of Modern Greek Studies 38.1, vii–x 10.1353/mgs.2020.0000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Los Angeles)Google Scholar
Goldberg, M.Y. (1999) ‘Spatial and behavioural negotiation in Classical Athenian city houses’, in Allison, P.M. (ed.), The Archaeology of Household Activities (London) 142–61Google Scholar
Gooch, E. (2025) Experiencing Childhood in Ancient Athens: Material Culture, Iconography, Burials and Social Identity in the 9th to 4th centuries BC (Oxford)10.1093/9780198949152.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J.W. (1974) ‘Houses of Classical Athens’, Phoenix 28, 45–54 10.2307/1087230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grahame, M. (1997) ‘Public and private in the Roman house: the spatial order of the Casa del Fauno’, in Laurence, R. and Wallace-Hadrill, A. (eds), Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond (Portsmouth) 137–64Google Scholar
Grahame, M. (1999) ‘Reading the Roman house: the social interpretation of social order’, in Leslie, A. (ed.), Theoretical Roman Archaeology and Architecture: The Third Conference Proceedings (Glasgow) 48–74 Google Scholar
Grahame, M. (2000) Reading Space: Social Interaction and Identity in the Houses of Roman Pompeii (Oxford)Google Scholar
Gude, M. (1933) A History of Olynthus with Prosographia and Testimonia (Baltimore)Google Scholar
Hammond, G. and Hammond, N. (1981) ‘Child’s play: a distorting factor in archaeological distribution’, American Antiquity 46.3, 634–3610.2307/280608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillier, B. (2014) ‘Spatial analysis and cultural information: the need for theory as well as method in space syntax analysis’, in Paliou, E., Lieberwirth, U. and Polla, S. (eds), Spatial Analysis and Social Spaces: Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Interpretation of Prehistoric and Historic Built Environments (Berlin) 19–47 Google Scholar
Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. (1984) The Social Logic of Space (Cambridge)10.1017/CBO9780511597237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. and Orton, C. (1976) Spatial Analysis in Archaeology (Cambridge)Google Scholar
Hoepfner, W. and Schwander, E.-L. (1986) Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland (Munich)Google Scholar
Hoepfner, W. and Schwander, E.-L. (1994) Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland (revised edition) MunichGoogle Scholar
Huizinga, J.H. (1950) Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture (London)Google Scholar
Ingold, T. (1993) ‘The temporality of the landscape’, World Archaeology 25.2, 152–7510.1080/00438243.1993.9980235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, A.V. and Kalisperis, L. (1999) ‘Use of house and space: public and private family interaction on Chios, Greece’, in Birdwell-Pheasant, D. and Lawrence-Züniga, D. (eds), House Life: Space, Place and Family in Europe (London) 205–20Google Scholar
Jameson, M.H. (1990) ‘Domestic space in the Greek city-state’, in Kent, S. (ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary, Cross-Cultural Study (Cambridge) 92–113 Google Scholar
Jones, J.E. (1975) ‘Town and country houses of Attica in Classical times’, in Mussche, H. (ed.), Thorikos and the Laurion in Archaic and Classical Times (Ghent) 63–140 Google Scholar
Jones, J.E., Sackett, L.H. and Graham, A.J. (1962) ‘The Dema House in Attica’, ABSA 57, 75–114 Google Scholar
Jones, J.E., Sackett, L.H. and Graham, A.J. (1973) ‘An Attic country house below the Cave of Pan at Vari’, ABSA 68, 355–452 Google Scholar
Karpatschof, B. (2013) ‘Play, but not simply play: the anthropology of play’, in Schousboe, I. and Winther-Lindqvist, D. (eds), Children’s Play and Development: Cultural-Historical Perspectives (Dordrecht) 251–6510.1007/978-94-007-6579-5_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, S. (ed.) (1990) ‘Activity areas and architecture: an interdisciplinary view of the relationship between use of space and domestic built environments’, in Kent, S. (ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary, Cross-Cultural Study (Cambridge) 1–8 Google Scholar
Kent, S. (1991) ‘Partitioning space: cross-cultural factors influencing domestic spatial segmentation’, Environment and Behaviour 23.4, 438–7310.1177/0013916591234003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, C. (1977) ‘Grundformen des Griechischen Pastashauses’, AA, 164–79Google Scholar
LaMotta, V.M. and Schiffer, M.B. (1999) ‘Formation processes of house floor assemblages’, in Allison, P.M. (ed.), The Archaeology of Household Activities (London) 19–29 Google Scholar
Lang, F. (2002) ‘Housing and settlement in archaic Greece’, Pallas 58, 13–32 Google Scholar
Lang, F. (2005) ‘Structural change in Archaic Greek housing’, in Ault, B.A. and Nevett, L.C. (eds), Ancient Greek Houses and Households: Chronological, Regional and Social Diversity (Philadelphia) 12–35 Google Scholar
Lang, F. (2007) ‘House – community – settlement: the new concept of living in Archaic Greece’, in Westgate, R., Fisher, N. and Whitley, J. (eds), Building Communities: House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond (London) 183–93Google Scholar
Laurence, R. (1994) Roman Pompeii: Space and Society (London)10.4324/9780203283158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, D. and Law, S.M. (1990) ‘The built environment and spatial form’, Annual Review of Anthropology 19, 453–505 10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.002321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, E.R. (1978) ‘Does space syntax really “constitute the social”?’, in Green, D.R., Haselgrove, C. and Spriggs, M. (eds), Social Organisation and Settlement: Contributions from Anthropology, Archaeology and Geography (Oxford) 385–401 Google Scholar
Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space (London)Google Scholar
Lockman, J.J. and Tamis-LeMonda, C.S. (2021) ‘Young children’s interactions with objects: play as practice and practice as play’, Annual Review of Developmental Psychology 3, 165–8610.1146/annurev-devpsych-050720-102538CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Locock, M. (ed.) (1994) Meaningful Architecture: Social Interpretations of Buildings (Avebury)Google Scholar
Lynch, K.M. (2007) ‘More thoughts on the space of the symposium’, in Westgate, R., Fisher, N. and Whitley, J. (eds), Building Communities: House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond (London) 243–49Google Scholar
Margaritis, E. (2016) ‘Agricultural production and domestic activities in rural Hellenistic Greece’, in Harris, E.M., Lewis, D.M. and Woolmer, M. (eds), The Ancient Greek Economy: Markets, Households and City-States (Cambridge) 187–203 Google Scholar
Mazarakis Ainian, A. (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) 157–68Google Scholar
Métraux, G.P.R. (1999) ‘Ancient housing: oikos and domus in Greece and Rome’, JSAH 58.3, 392–405 Google Scholar
Morgan, J. (2010) The Classical Greek House (Exeter)Google Scholar
Mylonas, G.E. (1940) ‘The Olynthian house of the Classical period’, CJ 35.7, 389–402 Google Scholar
Nevett, L.C. (1992) Variation in the Form and Use of Domestic Space in the Greek World in the Classical and Hellenistic Periods (Ph.D. Diss. Cambridge)Google Scholar
Nevett, L.C. (1994) ‘Separation or seclusion? Towards an archaeological approach to investigating women and the Greek household in the fifth to third centuries BC’, in Parker Pearson, M. and Richards, C. (eds), Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space (London) 89–101 Google Scholar
Nevett, L.C. (1995a) ‘Gender relations in the Classical Greek household: the archaeological evidence’, ABSA 90, 363–81Google Scholar
Nevett, L.C. (1995b) ‘The organisation of space in Classical and Hellenistic houses from mainland Greece and the western colonies’, in Spencer, N. (ed.), Time, Tradition and Society in Greek Archaeology: Bridging the ‘Great Divide’ (London) 89–108 Google Scholar
Nevett, L.C. (1999) House and Society in the Ancient Greek World (Cambridge)Google Scholar
Nevett, L.C. (2005a) ‘Between urban and rural: house-form and social relations in Attic villages and deme centers’, in Ault, B.A. and Nevett, L.C. (eds), Ancient Greek Houses and Households: Chronological, Regional and Social Diversity (Philadelphia) 83–98 Google Scholar
Nevett, L.C. (2005b) ‘Introduction’, in Ault, B.A. and Nevett, L.C. (eds), Ancient Greek Houses and Households: Chronological, Regional and Social Diversity (Philadelphia) 1–11 Google Scholar
Nevett, L.C. (2007) ‘Greek houses as a source of evidence for social relations’, in Westgate, R., Fisher, N. and Whitley, J. (eds), Building Communities: House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond (London) 5–10 Google Scholar
Nevett, L.C. (2010) Domestic Space in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge)10.1017/CBO9780511780103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevett, L.C. (2011) ‘Towards a female topography of the ancient Greek city: case studies from late Archaic and early Classical Athens (c. 520–400 BCE)’, Gender and History 23.3, 576–9610.1111/j.1468-0424.2011.01658.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevett, L.C. (2012) ‘Housing and households in ancient Greece’, in Alcock, S. and Osborne, R. (eds), Classical Archaeology (Oxford) 209–27Google Scholar
Nevett, L.C. (2015) ‘Artifact assemblages in Classical Greek domestic contexts: towards a new approach’, in Müller, M. (ed.), Household Studies in Complex Societies: (Micro) Archaeological and Textual Approaches, Papers from the Oriental Institute Seminar Household Studies in Complex Societies Held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 15–16 March 2013 (Chicago) 101–16Google Scholar
Nevett, L.C. (2023a) Ancient Greek Housing (Cambridge)10.1017/9780511979262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevett, L.C. (2023b) ‘Towards a more dynamic modelling of ancient domestic space: an example from first-millennium BCE Greece’, AJA 127.1, 5–23 10.1086/722108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevett, L.C., Tsigarida, E.B., Archibald, Z.A., Stone, D.L., Horsley, T.J., Ault, B.A., Panti, A., Lynch, K.M., Pethen, H., Stallibrass, S.M., Salminen, E., Gaffney, C., Sparrow, T.J., Taylor, S., Manousakis, J., Zekkos, D. (2017) ‘Towards a multi-scalar, multidisciplinary approach to the Classical Greek city: the Olynthos Project’, ABSA 112, 155–206 Google Scholar
Nevett, L.C., Tsigarida, E.B., Archibald, Z.A., Stone, D.L., Horsley, T.J., Ault, B.A., Panti, A., Lynch, K.M., Pethen, H., Stallibrass, S.M., Salminen, E., Gaffney, C., Sparrow, T.J., Taylor, S., Manousakis, J., Zekkos, D. (2020) ‘Constructing the “urban profile” of an ancient Greek city: evidence from the Olynthos Project’, ABSA 115, 329–78Google Scholar
Nixon, L. (1999) ‘Women, children, and weaving’, Aegeum 20, 561–67Google Scholar
Olynthos Project (2022) https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/olynthos-project/ Google Scholar
Osborne, R. (2007) ‘Did democracy transform Athenian space?’, in Westgate, R., Fisher, N. and Whitley, J. (eds), Building Communities: House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond (London) 195–99Google Scholar
Papayiannis, J. (2012) The Gynaikonitis: The (Un)Gendered Greek House (Ph.D. Diss. Princeton)Google Scholar
Parisinou, E. (2007) ‘Lighting dark rooms: some thoughts about the use of space in early Greek domestic architecture’, in Westgate, R., Fisher, N. and Whitley, J. (eds), Building Communities: House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond (London) 213–23Google Scholar
Park, R.W. (1998) ‘Size counts: the miniature archaeology of childhood in Inuit societies’, Antiquity 72, 269–8110.1017/S0003598X00086567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker Pearson, M. and Richards, C. (eds) (1994) Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space (London)10.4324/9780203401484_chapter_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellegrini, A.D. (2013) ‘Object use in childhood: development and possible functions’, Behaviour 150.8, 813–4310.1163/1568539X-00003086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirke, S. (1998) ‘Figures of clay: toys or ritual figurines’, in Quirke, S. (ed.), Lahun Studies (Reigate) 141–51Google Scholar
Rakoczy, H., Tomasello, M. and Striano, T. (2005) ‘On tools and toys: how children learn to act and pretend with “virgin objects”’, Developmental Science 8.1, 57–73 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00393.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, A. (1990) ‘Systems of activities and systems of settings’, in Kent, S. (ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary, Cross-Cultural Study (Cambridge) 9–20 Google Scholar
Robinson, D.M. (1930) Excavations at Olynthus, Part II: Architecture and Sculpture: Houses and Other Buildings (Baltimore)Google Scholar
Robinson, D.M. (1933) Excavations at Olynthus, Part V: Mosaics, Vases and Lamps Found in 1928 and 1931 (Baltimore)Google Scholar
Robinson, D.M. (1946) Excavations at Olynthus, Part XII: Domestic and Public Architecture (Baltimore)Google Scholar
Robinson, D.M. (1950) Excavations at Olynthus, Part XIII: Vases Found in 1934 and 1938 (Baltimore)Google Scholar
Robinson, D.M. and Graham, J.W. (1938) Excavations at Olynthus, Part VIII: The Hellenic House (Baltimore)Google Scholar
Sanders, D. (1990) ‘Behavioural conventions and archaeology: methods for the analysis of ancient architecture’, in Kent, S. (ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary, Cross-Cultural Study (Cambridge) 43–72 Google Scholar
Sawyer, R.K. (2002) ‘The new anthropology of children, play and games’, Reviews in Anthropology 31, 147–6410.1080/00988150212940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, M.B. (1985) ‘Is there a “Pompeii Premise” in archaeology?’, Journal of Archaeological Research 41.1, 18–41 Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B. (1996) Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record (Salt Lake City)Google Scholar
Schwartzman, H.B. (1978) Transformations: The Anthropology of Child’s Play (London and New York)Google Scholar
Scott, S. (1989) ‘Architecture and society: interactive approaches to architectural design and use’, Habitat 5, 38–40 Google Scholar
Smith, A.C. (2016) ‘Looking inside on the outside of a pot’, in Glazebrook, A. and Tsakirgis, B. (eds), Houses of Ill Repute: The Archaeology of Brothels, Houses, and Taverns in the Greek World (Philadelphia) 143–68Google Scholar
Souvatzi, S.G. (2008) A Social Archaeology of Households in Neolithic Greece: An Anthropological Approach (Cambridge)Google Scholar
Stahl, P.H. (1986) Household, Village and Village Confederation in South Eastern Europe (New York)Google Scholar
Thompson, H.A. (1959) ‘Activities in the Athenian Agora: 1958’, Hesperia 28.1, 91–108 10.2307/147341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trümper, M. (2007) ‘Differentiation in the Hellenistic houses in 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) 323–34Google Scholar
Trümper, M. (2011) ‘Space and social relationships in the Greek oikos of the Classical and Hellenistic periods’, in Rawson, B. (ed.), A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Malden) 207–10Google Scholar
Tsakirgis, B. (1996) ‘Review article: houses and households’, AJA 100.4, 777–8110.2307/506679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsakirgis, B. (2005) ‘Living and working around the Athenian Agora: a preliminary case study of three houses’, in Ault, B.A. and Nevett, L.C. (eds), Ancient Greek Houses and Households: Chronological, Regional and Social Diversity (Philadelphia) 67–82 Google Scholar
Tsakirgis, B. (2007) ‘Fire and smoke: hearths, braziers and chimneys in the Greek house’, in Westgate, R., Fisher, N. and Whitley, J. (eds), Building Communities: House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond (London) 225–31Google Scholar
Tsakirgis, B. (2016a) ‘The architecture of Greek houses’, in Miles, M.M. (ed.), A Companion to Greek Architecture (Chichester) 273–8710.1002/9781118327586.ch19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsakirgis, B. (2016b) ‘Whole cloth: exploring the question of self-sufficiency through evidence for textile manufacture and purchase in Greek houses’, in Harris, E.M., Lewis, D.M. and Woolmer, M. (eds), The Ancient Greek Economy: Markets, Households and City-States (Cambridge) 166–86Google Scholar
von Stackelberg, K.T. (2005) The Roman Garden: Space, Sense and Society (London)Google Scholar
Walker, S. (1983) ‘Women and housing in Classical Greece: the archaeological evidence’, in Cameron, A. and Kuhrt, A. (eds), Images of Women in Antiquity (London) 81–91 Google Scholar
Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1988) ‘The social structure of the Roman house’, BSR 56: 43–97 Google Scholar
Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1994) Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum (Princeton)10.1515/9780691244150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardle, D. and Wardle, K. (2007) ‘The child’s cache at Assiros Toumba, Macedonia’, in Crawford, S. and Shepherd, G. (eds), Children, Childhood, and Society (Oxford) 29–44 Google Scholar
Westgate, R. (2000) ‘Space and decoration in the Hellenistic house’, ABSA 95, 51–66 Google Scholar
Westgate, R. (2007) ‘House and society in Classical and Hellenistic Crete: a study in regional variation’, AJA 111.3, 423–5710.3764/aja.111.3.423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westgate, R. (2015) ‘Space and social complexity in Greece from the early Iron Age to the Classical period’, Hesperia 84.1, 47–95 10.2972/hesperia.84.1.0047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilk, R.R. and Netting, R.M. (1984) ‘Households: changing forms and functions’, in Netting, R.M., Wilk, R.R. and Arnould, E.J. (eds), Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group (Oakland) 1–28 Google Scholar
Wilk, R.R. and Rathje, W.L. (eds) (1982) ‘Archaeology of the household: building a prehistory of domestic life’, American Behavioral Scientist 25.6, 611–725Google Scholar
Wilkie, L. (2000) ‘Not merely child’s play: creating a historical archaeology of children and childhood’, in Sofaer-Derevenski, J. (ed.), Children and Material Culture (London) 100–13Google Scholar
Yiannouli, E. and Mithen, S.J. (1986) ‘The real and random architecture of Siphnos: analysing house plans using simulations’, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 5.2, 167–80Google Scholar
Young, R.S. (1951) ‘An industrial district of ancient Athens’, Hesperia 20.3, 135–288 10.2307/146745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Figure 1 long description.Production of a justified access map, using the example of Olynthus House Avi8.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Figure 2 long description.Key to access analysis maps.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Figure 3 long description.Material culture associated with children in ancient sources (AS), on Geometric pottery (GP), black-figure pottery (BF), red-figure pottery (RF), in burials (B), on gravestones (GS) and on white-ground pottery (WG).

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Figure 4 long description.The Dema House. After Jones et al. (1962) fig. 1, with permission of the British School at Athens.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Figure 5 long description.The Vari House. After Jones et al. (1973) fig. 2, with permission of the British School at Athens.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Athens and Olynthus, within Greece. Mapswire© CC-BY 4.0; transparency and location annotations added by author.

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Figure 7 long description.Olynthus, as excavated. After Cahill (2002) fig. 6, reproduced with permission of N. Cahill and Yale University Press.

Figure 7

Fig. 8. Figure 8 long description.Access analysis summary.

Supplementary material: File

Gooch supplementary material 1

Gooch supplementary material
Download Gooch supplementary material 1(File)
File 35.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Gooch supplementary material 2

Gooch supplementary material
Download Gooch supplementary material 2(File)
File 19.4 KB