The concept of the single-entrance, courtyard house offers a means of exploring the relationship between cultural expectations about domestic life, and the physical form taken by the house itself. It re-focuses attention away from superficial aspects of the appearance of the buildings themselves and instead places the emphasis on how the spaces they created may have worked as lived environments. At the same time it also provides a frame for thinking beyond the space of the prosperous Classical urban-dweller, to encompass the houses – and the experiences – of other social groups and the residents of culturally Greek communities in other times and places. Broadening the perspective in this way while at the same time distinguishing between these different groups of evidence deomnstrates that although the Classical model is striking for its widespread use and for the variety of architectural forms through which it was materialised, it was actually a relatively socially-restricted and short-lived phenomenon.

Chapter 1 sketches out the nature and scope of the evidence available for Greek housing during the first millennium BCE. Drawing on textual sources (including Demosthenes, Lysias, Xenophon and Plato) the significance of the house in ancient Greek (mainly Classical Athenian) culture is investigated. At the same time the chapter outlines some of the basic structural and decorative features as represented in the archaeological remains of the buildings themselves. Some processes (both human and natural) which shape the material remains of houses are outlined. These include the social context of construction (as far as it can be understood), archaeological formation processes and potential biases introduced during excavation. Emphasis is placed on the need to interpret the archaeology within its own cultural context, setting aside (as far as possible) the urge to draw comparisons with modern, western housing.

Following the reinvention of terracotta roof tiles in the second quarter of the seventh century BC, most probably in Corinth, the technology spread to other regions of the Mediterranean world. During the third quarter of the seventh century, several local and regional workshops can be identified, at select sites in Greece and in Etruria. By the fourth quarter of the century, decorated roofs are found in other parts of Greece and Italy. The most prolific and highly decorative period is the first third of the sixth century BC, when local workshops actively copied elements from elsewhere and invention of new forms was at its peak. This discussion focuses on the interrelationship between the roofs of different regions, the sharing of technology and of décor, in order to show the special place of Etruscan terracotta roofs in the evolution of this distinctive architectural feature. Etruria not only followed trends in terracotta roofing found throughout the ancient Mediterranean world, but also can be shown to have contributed specific roof elements and types of roof decoration which had a wide impact on later generations of roofs.

The reigns of Nerva, Trajan, and Hadrian are notable both for the technical and aesthetic developments in architecture, as well as the significant amount of building work undertaken in Rome and across the empire. However, as far as can be determined, this activity was not accompanied by a surge of interest in architectural writing among Latin authors of the second century CE, who give little attention to such matters. This chapter aims to demonstrate that while there were shared frameworks for how Roman writers received and commented on buildings, the most important connection between them is what they do not say. This argument is developed through considering the apparent difference with Greek literature of the period, which includes conspicuously more complex discussions of buildings and attention to architectural detail. The case is made that this contrast is not due to a lack of interaction, but is rather a deliberate opposition between how Latin and Greek authors handle the subject. Arguably, this disconnection that is observable in literature also reflects the differing perceptions of architecture in the respective societies more widely.