During the late roman era and the early Byzantine period, the rural life doesn’t change much to what it had been. The exceptionally well-preserved houses in a region of central Syria, evacuated by their inhabitants in the face of the Arab invasion and never repopulated, have remained intact. They are often dated by Greek inscriptions following the Seleucid era. Their construction is remarkable: with ashlar masonry, featuring galleries, covered balconies, terraces, underground kitchens, and spacious stables, they testify to a broad and opulent lifestyle. However, they are inward-facing and centered around an inner courtyard, bordered by multi-story apartments. On the street side, they have thick walls, few windows, and a single door, preceded by a small porch flanked on one side by a tower serving as the porter’s lodging, and on the other by accommodation reserved for guests. The streets are lined with porticos. However, these villages are certainly not representative of all rural communities of the time, which were often still organized around large estates inherited from the Roman period.

The Byzantine countryside, like the rest of Byzantine society, underwent a transformation after the severe crisis of the 6th and 7th centuries. The Justinian Plague was a devastating demographic blow, significantly depopulating cities and villages. The numerous raids and invasions experienced by the empire thereafter often compelled the population to seek refuge in more defensible locations. This phenomenon is evident in Greece, where Slavic attacks prompted locals to seek refuge in hard-to-reach coastal areas, such as the upper town of Monemvasia or the Tingani peninsula.

The Byzantine territory can likely be imagined as a discontinuous terrain: in Macedonia, in the 10th century, it probably consisted of wooded and largely undeveloped lands, punctuated every five or six kilometers by a village clearing. In these areas, different plots or properties were demarcated by boundary markers. Farms were typically clustered at the center of the territory, where the main church was also located. Depending on natural conditions, they were either perched on a defensive site, situated at the foothills of hills, or located near rivers in arid areas. Gardens were cultivated next to the houses and protected from animals by a fence, as were orchards and vineyards. Surrounding this central area were open-field crops. Finally, the peripheral zone consisted of fallow land and woods. It was not unproductive: animals grazed there, under the guidance of a cowherd or shepherd. The wood was exploited for heating or construction purposes, depending on the type of trees.

These villages and hamlets constitute the basic fiscal unit for the Byzantine fiscal administration. They are referred to as “choria” (a term still frequently used in Greece for village names, as in Patmos) or “proastia” when they belong to large landowners. They are of modest size and rarely exceed a hundred households. Hamlets are also considered differently depending on whether they belong to laypeople (“ktema” or “ktesis”) or depend on monasteries (in which case they are called “metochia”).