Some questions about the depopulation of Rome

by kitchensink108

I have some questions about what the city of Rome was like during its period of rapid depopulation (around the 5th or 6th century, I suppose). I don't know how much these can actually be answered, but I'm curious about what we know.

  • Did the population tend to decrease the same throughout the city, or did the population consolidate itself (some areas maintain their population while others were completely deserted)? Did the remaining population tend to stay near important public works and the like, while deserting areas further away from them?
  • Were old or disused buildings (especially insulae and other buildings made from cheaper materials) demolished regularly, or were there just abandoned buildings everywhere throughout the city?
  • Do we know if this had an effect on housing costs? Was there a shift from wealthier insulae inhabitants suddenly being able to afford their own houses?
  • There were a lot of people dying or abandoning the city around this time. Say someone with their own house fled or died and didn't have any known family still in the city. Would the house just be abandoned, taken over by squatters, auctioned off by the government, seized by the government and demolished, or what?

Thanks!

bitparity

I actually talk about this a lot in the below post if you want more detail.

http://my.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1m5gfc/what_was_the_city_of_rome_like_in_the_dark_ages/

However in the interest of giving you some quick answers:

  1. Archaeologically, it seems that the population decrease was more uniform from 5th-7th centuries (even during the drastic descent of the Gothic Wars), and from 8th onward as the population grew again, it grew non-uniformly around the Campus Martius and near the Vatican.
  2. Abandoned buildings were everywhere, and would be quarried for new structures (if you're rich) or still-standing brick/stone walls and foundations would be incorporated as aspects of wooden structures built over them (if you weren't rich).
  3. To the best of my knowledge, we don't really have any firm knowledge of housing prices or the housing market in this era. However I believe Theodoric issued some laws regarding the clearance of dangerous ruins throughout large parts of the city.
  4. Likely the residential buildings were abandoned, and if still structurally sound, reoccupied by "squatters" although that word implies the existence of laws that suggests that the original ownership rights to an abandoned property were still worth something. The new reality of post-Gothic War Rome would suggest otherwise. It would definitely not be auctioned off or seized or demolished by the government. Any demolition or reuse would likely be privately done.