¹ See I. A. Richmond, Roman Britain, 2nd ed. (1963), 76; F. Haverfield, Ancient Town Planning (1913), 131; R. G. Collingwood, The Archaeology of Roman Britain (1930), 107. The only detailed discussion is in K. M. Swoboda, Römische und Romanische Paläste (1924), 248 ff.

² See Fox, A., Antiquity xxii (1948), 172CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff.; Berry, C. A. F., JRS xli (1951), 25 ff.Google Scholar

³ R. E. M., and Wheeler, T. V., Verulamium: A Belgic and Two Roman Cities, Soc. Antiq. Res. Rpts. xi (1936), 78 ff.Google Scholar; Frere, S. S., Antiq. Journ., xxxvi (1956) to xlii (1962)Google Scholar; Verulamium Excavations, Vol. i, Soc. Antiq. Res. Rpts. xxviii (1972).Google Scholar

⁴ Id. and Williams, A., Arch. Cantiana lxi (1948), 1 ff.Google Scholar

⁵ Antiq. Journ. xli (1961) and following volumes.Google Scholar

⁶ JRS xlix (1959), 113.Google Scholar

⁷ I am grateful to Dr. G. C. Dunning for allowing me to see the unpublished report of his excavations of Sites xxvi and xxvii, N; see also Bull. Board Celtic Stud, xiii, I (1948), 56Google Scholar ff.; Arch. Cambrensis c (1948), 93 ff.Google Scholar

⁸ op. cit. (note 4), 8.

⁹ Wheeler, op. cit. (note 3), 89 ff. and fig. 7; 98 ff. and pl. xxxi; 112 and pl xxvi. On the fire, which probably affected the southern half of the town, see Frere, , Univ. London Inst. of Arch. Bulletin iv (1964), 67Google Scholar and Verulamium Excavations, Vol. i (1972), 256. Although no trace of burning was observed beneath the buildings in question, the fire does seem to have spread at least as far as Insula III: Wheeler, op. cit. 93 f.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Frere, , Antiq. Journ. xxxix (1959), 14 ff. and fig. 7.Google Scholar

¹¹ ibid. 13, 16 and fig. 6.

¹² Wheeler, op. cit. (note 3), 96 ff.; 108.

¹³ Lowther, A. W. G., Antiq. Journ. xvii (1937), 42 f. and pl. xxvi. The foundations cut into a burnt layer which Lowther dated not earlier than c. 120 and which it seems reasonable to attribute to the Antonine fire. Building xiii, I appears to have begun life as a corridor house lying end-on to the street, only achieving its L-shaped plan with the addition of a north wing running along the street-frontage, presumably at a date well into the second half of the second century.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Frere and Williams, op. cit. (note 4), 18 f.

¹⁵ Wheeler, op. cit. (note 3), 102 ff. and pl. XXXII. Though it should be noted that the dating of the house to c. 150–190 was based on the material recovered from one small area— the unfinished well in Room 5.

¹⁶ Frere, , Antiq. Journ. xxxvii (1957), 13.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Information from Dr. G. C. Dunning.

¹⁸ JRS xlix (1959), 113.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Information from Dr. G. C. Dunning.

²⁰ Wheeler, op. cit. (note 3), 93 ff.

²¹ Frere, op. cit. (note 10), 10 ff. and fig. 5.

²² Bushe-Fox, J. P., Third Report on the Excavations on the site of the Roman town at Wroxeter, Shropshire. Soc. Antiq. Res. Rpts. iv (1916), 7 ff. and pl. xxxi. Although no trace of burning was noticed beneath the house, the dating evidence makes this the likeliest context.Google Scholar

²³ Archaeologia lvii (1901), 302Google Scholar and pl. XL. Cf. the courtyard-house in Berrow's Field, west of the fortress: JRSS xlvi (1956), 122 and fig. 20. The respective sizes of the buildings are 27–5 by 29·5 m and 27 by 28·5 m; and their courtyards 7·6 by 10·6 m and 7·6 by 9 m. The plan of the main (west) wing at Caerwent closely resembles that of the south wing at Caerleon.Google Scholar

²⁴ The plan of xxvii, N may be compared with the central of the three centurions' houses on the north-west side of the via principalis, just inside the porta principalis dextra. These houses are now attributed to the period c. 125–60.

²⁵ E.g. Caerwent iii, S; Leicester, Blue Boar Lane; Cirencester, Building xxv, 1 (Antiq. Journ. xlvi (1966), 244 f. and pl. XXXVIII. On the Rhineland see F. Fremersdorf, Das römische Haus mit dem Dionysos-Mosaik vor dem Südportal des Kölner Domes (1956), 90.Google Scholar

²⁶ Hurst, H., Antiq. Journ. lii (1972), 41 f.; fig. 10. The house was c. 28 m square and the courtyard c. 7·6 m. square.Google Scholar

²⁷ Ibid. 39 f. and figs. 7–8; 50.

²⁸ Cf. Tacitus, , Annals xii, 32.Google Scholar

²⁹ Trans. Essex Archaeol. Soc. n.ser. xvi (1921–1923), 26.Google Scholar

³⁰ By M. R. Hull, Roman Colchester (1958), 84.

³¹ B. Dunnett, R. K., Trans. Essex Archaeol. Soc. ser. 3, ii, 2 (1968), 137Google Scholar ff.; modified in Britannia iii (1972), 331.Google Scholar

³² Fox, Berry, opp. citt. (note 2).

³³ Cotton, M. A., Archaeologia xcii (1947), 127.Google Scholar

³⁴ Ibid, lv, 2 (1897), 418 ff. and pl. XXIII.

³⁵ E.g. G. C. Boon, Roman Silchester (1957), 139.

³⁶ Archaeologia lvii, 2 (1901), 232 ff. and pl. xxx. It is known that there were three major structural periods before the house was finally connected with the north-south street. South of the house is a small building (Block I), perhaps a shrine, of two periods. A coin of Marcus Aurelius lying on the Period I floor provides a terminus post quern for Period 2. On the basis of the alignment of this building with xxiii, 2 Boon uses the evidence of the coin to date the conformity of the house to the street. Unfortunately, the shrine is not on the same alignment as the corridor connecting the house with the street. Lady Fox's argument that the Period 1 shrine is on the alignment of the western (original) block of xxiii, 2, whilst the Period 2 building conforms to that of the north and east wings is equally invalid. The Period 1 shrine is not, in fact, aligned with any part of xxiii, 2; the Period 2 building is aligned only with the west wing. If the evidence of the coin is admissible at all in this respect (and it is highly doubtful), it is only relevant to the west wing of xxiii, 2.Google Scholar

³⁷ Archaeologia liv, 2 (1895), 444 ff. and pl. XLV.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibid, lx, 1 (1906), 156 ff. and pl. XXI.

³⁹ Ibid, lviii, 2 (1903), 417 and pl. XXXII.

⁴⁰ Frere, op. cit. (note 10), 3 ff.; Verulamium Excavations, Vol. i (1972), 5 ff.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Wacher, J. S., Antiq. Journ. xlii (1962), 9 ff. and fig. 3.Google Scholar

⁴² Wheeler, op. cit. (note 3), 93 f. and pl. XXVIII. The extensive timber building underlying Insula xxvii, 2 should be mentioned here: Frere, , Antiq. Journ. xxxvii (1957), 11 and pl. VII; xl (1960), 19. It appeared to post-date the Boudiccan fire and to have been destroyed in the fire of c. 155–60. The fact that it underwent a number of alterations would suggest that it was built some time before the latter date. But too little of its plan is known for identification as a townhouse to be certain.Google Scholar

⁴³ Cotton, op. cit. (note 33), 124 ff.

⁴⁴ Boon. op. cit. (note 35), 135.

⁴⁵ On Site vi see Bushe-Fox, op. cit. (note 22), 4 ff.; on Sites i-iv, id., Excavations on the Site of the Roman Town at Wroxeter, Shropshire in 1912, Soc. Antiq. Res. Rpts. i (1913), 5 ff. The traces of earlier buildings on these sites are likely to belong to the period of military occupation.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Kenyon, K. M., Excavations at the Jewry Wall Site, Leicester, Soc. Antiq. Res. Rpts. xv (1948), 11Google Scholar ff.; JRS liii (1963), 134; liv (1964), 162; M. Todd, The Coritani (1973), 63 ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ B. W. Cunliffe, Winchester Excavations 1949–60 (1964), 23; Biddle, M., Antiq. Journ. xlviii (1968), 281Google Scholar; Britannia iii (1972), 349.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ W. F. Grimes, The Excavation of Roman and Medieval London (1968), 11 f.; 118 ff.; Britannia iv (1973), 306.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Note, for example, the large quantity of iron slag in the front room of the western stripbuilding on Site xxvi, N. at Caerwent.

⁵⁰ E.g. the cemetery between the town and the amphitheatre overlies the site of what appears to be an early Roman quarry: Britannia iv (1973), 307Google Scholar f.; Antiq. Journ. liii (1973), 197 and fig. 2.Google Scholar

⁵¹ J. S. Wacher, op. cit. (note 41), 9 ff.; figs. 3, 4.

⁵² Antiq. Journ. xlix (1969), 231Google Scholar ff. and fig. 6: Britannia iii (1972), 339 and fig. 14; iv (1973), 307 and fig. 11. Compare Gloucester, where stone seems to have been used on a limited scale in the domestic architecture of the early colonia: Hurst, op. cit. (note 26), 39 ff.Google Scholar

⁵³ Cunliffe, B., Excavations at Fishbourne, Soc. Antiq. Res. Rpts. xxvi (1971), i, 63 ff.; ii, 43 ff.; id.. The Regni (1973), 76 ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Angmering; Scott, L., Sussex Arch. Coll. lxxix (1938), 3Google Scholar ff.; A. E. Wilson, ibid., lxxxvi (1947), 1 ff.; Wiggonholt: S. E. Winbolt and R. G. Goodchild, ibid., lxxviii (1937), 13 ff.; lxxxi (1940), 54 ff.; Eastbourne: T. Sutton, ibid., xc (1952), 1 ff.

⁵⁵ Ross, T., Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scotland xxxvi (1902), 214Google Scholar ff. and fig. 11. It may also be significant that the size of the tepidarium and caldarium of the Red House baths, near Corbridge, is almost exactly twice that of the corresponding rooms at Wiggonholt: Daniels, C. M., Arch. Ael.⁴ xxxvii (1959), 85 ff. and fig. 24.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ G. Macdonald, ibid., viii (1931), 219 ff. and pl. LVII.

⁵⁷ E.g. by Cunliffe, The Regni, 50.

⁵⁸ Britannia iii (1972), 350; iv (1973), 320.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Cunliffe, The Regni, 62.

⁹⁰ Id. and Murray, K. M. E., Sussex Arch. Coll. c (1962), 99.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Detsicas, A. P., Arch. Cant, lxxxvi (1971), 25Google Scholar ff.; lxxxvii (1972), 101 ff. Desplte the excavator's arguments, it is hard to believe that the house ever faced other than south-west, the side on which the corridor ran. It is not inconceivable that Room 94, coated internally with opus signinum, was an ornamental pool on to which the house fronted.

⁶² Id., ibid., lxxx (1965), 89.

⁶³ Lowther, A. W. G., Surrey Arch. Coll. xxxvii (1927), 144 ff.; xxxviii (1930), 1 ff. and 132 ff. The Ashtead laconicum had an internal diameter of 5·2 m, that at Eccles 5·5 m.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Tester, P. J., Arch. Cant, lxxvi (1961), 88 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Meates, G. W., Arch. Cant, lxiii (1950), 1 ff.; lxv (1952), 41 ff.; Ixvi (1953), 15 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Arch. Cant, lxxxviii (1973), 1–21.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ The remarkable similarity between Ditchley and Houdeng-Goegnies (Building 1) in Belgium is well known: R. de Maeyer, De Romeinsche Villa's in Belgie (1937), 83, Afb. 19a. Cf. also Eccles with the undated house at Lébisey near Caen: Grenier, A., Manuel d'Archéologie Gallo-Romaine ii, 2 (1934), 800Google Scholar, fig. 277. It is surely also significant that the courtyard-villa at Southwick (Winbolt, S. E., Sussex Arch. Coll. lxxiii (1932), 13 ff.), which cannot be closely dated, seems to find its nearest parallels in the Norican villas of Katsch and Löffelbach: G. Alföldy, Noricum (1974), 120 f. and figs. 13–14.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Frere and Williams, op. cit. (note 4), 18 f.

⁶⁹ Branigan, K., Arch. Journ. cxxiv (1967), 145 f.; Town and Country: The Archaeology ofGoogle Scholar

⁷⁰ Neal, D. S., Britannia i (1970), 156 ff. and fig. 3; 289. Verulamium and the Roman Chilterns, (1973), 44 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷¹ JRS lvi (1966), 209Google Scholar and fig. 13; lvii (1967), 188 and fig. 9; Current Archaeology No. 18 (1970), 198Google Scholar ff.; Neal, D. S., Soc. Ant. Res. Repts. xxxi (1974).Google Scholar

⁷² K. Branigan, Latimer (1971), 169.

⁷³ Perkins, J. B. Ward, Antiq. Journ. xviii (1938), 339CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff. For criticisms of the dating see G. Webster in A. L. F.Rivet (ed.), The Roman Villa in Britain (1969), 243 ff. His scepticism about the proposed second Belgic house is probably well-founded. But there seems little reason for dating the first Roman-style house as late as c. 300. There was a reasonable amount of immediately post-Conquest pottery on the site (Ward Perkins, 344) and it may be significant that ‘stratigraphically there was no trace of any break between the second Belgic level and the building of the first Roman house’ (ibid., 345).

⁷⁴ Saunders, A. D., Arch. Journ. cxviii (1961), 115 f. and fig. 6.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ O'Neil, H., Arch. Journ. cii (1945), 25.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Cocker, A. H., Archaeologia lxxi (1921), 141 ff.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ JRS li (1961), 180Google Scholar ff.; I. Anthony, Trans. St. Albans and Herts. Architect, and Arch. Soc. 1961, 21 ff.; Archaeol. News Letter Sept. 1961, 66 ff.; Britannia iv (1973), 299.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Frere, , Univ. London Inst. of Arch. Bulletin iv (1964), 67; Wheeler, op. cit. (note 3), 140.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ V.C.H. Essex iii (1963), 171Google Scholar f.; W. J., and Rodwell, K., Britannia iv (1973), 115 ff.; 305.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Native ownership of the villa seems improbable in a post-Boudiccan context; the Trinovantes had, after all, played a leading part in the rebellion: Tacitus, , Annals xiv, 31, 2.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Dunnett, B. R. K., Trans. Essex Archaeol. Soc. ser. 3, iii (i) (1971), 4.Google Scholar

⁸² Ibid., 67; Arch. Journ. cxxiii (1967), 36 ff.Google Scholar

⁸³ Compare similar rooms in the Period 2 building at Boxmoor (note 70).

⁸⁴ The local popularity of certain house-plans is a phenomenon also observed on the Continent and may reflect the pattern-books of local architects. Compare, for example, the ‘Carnuntum house’, with two ranges of rooms running back from the front of the building, separated by a longitudinal hall down the centre and with a portico across the rear, apparently found only in Pannonia at Carnuntum, Aquincum and the villa of Winden-am-See—an interesting example of the same house-plan occurring in both town and country: E. Swoboda, Carnuntum: Seine Geschichte und seine Denkmäler, 4th ed. (1964), 158 ff., and Abb. 10, 13, 14.

⁸⁵ On viii, 2 see Archaeologia liv, 1 (1894), 218Google Scholar f. and pl. XVII; on ix, 3 see note 37; on xv, 2 see Archaeologia lv, 2 (1897), 410 f., and pl. XXIII.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Ditchley: Radford, C. A. R., Oxoniensia i (1936), 24Google Scholar ff. and fig. 9. Farningham: Meates, G. W., Arch. Cant, lxxxviii (1973), 4, fig. I.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ On Silchester xxii, 1 see Archaeologia lvii, 1 (1900), 98Google Scholar f. and pl. ix; on xxiv, 1 ibid., lvii, 2 (1901), 237 f. and pl. xxx.

⁸⁸ A point I hope to develop in a future paper.

⁸⁹ E.g. Canterbury, Butchery Lane; Verulamium xxi, 2; Silchester xvi, 1 and xxvii, 1: Archaeologia lv, 2 (1897), 415 ff. and pl. XXIII; lviii, 1 (1902), 18 ff. and pl. 11.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ S. E. Winbolt, Roman Folkestone (1925), III ff. Whilst the total lack of stratified material makes Winbolt's first-century dating clearly unacceptable, it is worth observing that a sestertius of Hadrian lay on a Period 2 floor in Room 50 and that the occupation-material contained samian of the second half of the second century (stamps of Borillus and Criciro).

⁹¹ Archaeologia lvi, 1 (1898), III f. and pl. VII.Google Scholar

⁹² Ibid., lxii, 2 (1911), 405 ff. and pl. LVII.

⁹³ Hartley, B. R., Records of Bucks, xvi (1953–1960), 227 ff. and fig. 2.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Dated by its excavator to c. 150 or shortly thereafter: Atkinson, D., Norfolk Arch, xxiii (1927), 166 ff. and pl. III.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Caerwent, viii, N. 31·8 m by 22·7 m; Ickleton (Cambs.) 30·3 m by 20·6 m; High Wycombe 31·5 m by 21·5 m; Hambleden (Bucks.) 29·1 by 24·8 m; Gayton Thorpe 40m by 21·5 m. The close correspondence of these dimensions tempts one to speculate whether the pattern-book of the same architect may not have been used.

⁹⁶ The same might be said of House iii, N., an ‘L-shaped’ building with outbuildings to northwest and north-east: Archaeologia lix, 1 (1904), 101 ff. and pl. IX.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ See note 36.

⁹⁸ Archaeologia liv, 1 (1894), 211 ff. and pl. XVIII.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Ibid., lviii, 1 (1902), 18 ff. and pl. 11.

¹⁰⁰ Cunliffe, op. cit. (note 53), Vol. i, figs. 34, 44.

¹⁰¹ On Little Milton and North Leigh see I. A. Richmond in Rivet, op. cit. (note 73), 54, fig. 2.1(c) and 61, fig. 2.4.

¹⁰² As also in the Period 2 house at Boxmoor, if the wall between Rooms 3 and 4 existed in this phase: Neal, op. cit. (note 70), fig. 3.

¹⁰³ Cf. also the south-west wing of the courtyard-house Caerleon, Berrow's Field, Building vii (note 23).

¹⁰⁴ Though in Caerwent iii, S and Silchester xxvii, 1, the positions of the doorways do seem to have been fixed reliably enough to link the flanking chambers closely with the central rooms in the respective ranges.

¹⁰⁵ Notice the relationship of the small chambers 7 and 8 to the central room containing a mosaic in the north-west wing of Building xxviii, 3 at Verulamium: Frere, op. cit. (note 10), fig. 6; or the relationship of the subdivided corridors N.6 and N.8 to the room housing the Dolphin mosaic in the north wing at Fishbourne: Cunliffe, op. cit. (note 53), Vol. i, fig. 44.

¹⁰⁶ G. W. Meates, Lullingstone Roman Villa (1955), 49, fig. 3. It is worth observing that the floor of one such room (Room H) in the west wing of the Insula 30 courtyard-house at Augst was covered with thousands of animal bones: L. Berger in Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms: Vorträge Des 6. Internationalen Limeskongresses in Süddeutschland, Beihefte Der Bonner Jahrbücher 19 (1967), 98 ff. and Beilage.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ E.g. in Rooms N.6 and N.8 at Fishbourne, where hypocaust heating was installed in Period 3; for similarly placed hypocausts compare Silchester, Building xix, 2, Room 9 (Archaeologia lvi 2 (1899), 232 and pls. XI-XIII) and xxiii, 2, north wing, Room 16. The possibility that these chambers served as winter dining-rooms is worth considering.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ I. A. Richmond in Rivet, op. cit. (note 73), 53 and fig. 2.1; A. L. Rivet, Town and Country in Roman Britain, 2nd ed. (1964), in.

¹⁰⁹ Radford, op. cit. (note 86), 40. Cf. also Farningham, Period I (note 86).

¹¹⁰ For the mosaic see J. M. C. Toynbee, Art in Roman Britain, 2nd ed. (1963) pl. 208; on the painted plaster Frere, op. cit. (note 10), 17 f. and pl. 1.

¹¹¹ J. Price and F. G. Hilton Price, A Guide to the Roman Villa at Morton near Brading (1880), 18 ff.

¹¹² Archaeologia lviii, 1 (1902), 18 ff.; 26 ff. and pl. 11. For an early example of this roomdivision compare Verulamium, Building iv, 2, Room 29, possibly of the second half of the second century: Wheeler, op. cit. (note 3), 98 ff. and pl. XXXI.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Archaeologia xl, 2 (1866), 407 ff. and pl. XXIV; lvii, 2 (1901), 230 ff. and pl. xxx.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Nash-Williams, V. E., Arch. Cambrensis cii (1953), 89Google Scholar ff.; Britannia iii (1972), 300; v. 225 ff.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Oelmann, Fr., Bonner Jahrb. 128 (1923), 77 ff. and Abb. 4–5.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ A. Rolling, ibid. 172 (1972), 238 ff. and Bilder 3 and 6.

¹¹⁷ In Insulae vii and xxx: Berger, op. cit. (note 106), 98 ff.

¹¹⁸ Hinz, H., Gymnasium, Beiheft I (1960), 43Google Scholar; Bonner Jahrb. 163 (1963), 394.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Fremersdorf, op. cit. (note 25).

¹²⁰ Reusch, W., Trierer Zeitschrift 25 (1966), 187 ff.Google Scholar

¹²¹ E.g. in Insula XXiv; Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gessellschaft für Urgeschichte xlix (1962), 56 ff.Google Scholar

¹²² Germania Romana, Ein Bilder-Atlas² ii (1924), Taf. XI, 4.Google Scholar

¹²³ Lehner, H., Bonner Jahrb. 103 (1898), 234Google Scholar ff.; Trierer Zeitschrift 24/26 (1956–1958), 467; 487 ff.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ It is true that some Trier houses do have small projecting corner rooms (‘Eckrisaliten’), e.g. at Weberbachstrasse 25 (Trierer Zeitschrift, ibid.) and at Olewiger Strasse 23 (ibid. 467) but the resemblance to the winged-corridor villa seems superficial.

¹²⁵ De Maeyer, op. cit. (note 67), 50 ff.; Oelmann, , Bonner Jahrb. 133 (1928), 125Google Scholar ff. and Abb. 55–8; id., Germania v (1921), 64 ff. and Abb. 1–8; F. Staehelin, Die Schweiz in Römischer Zeit 3rd ed. (1948), 392 ff. and Abb. 79–83.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Frere, , Verulamium Excavations Vol. i (1972), 12Google Scholar. There are grounds for thinking that strip-buildings at Caerwent may have been owned in blocks: note the common party-walls of Buildings xv, S, central and eastern blocks, and xxvii, S; and the simultaneous advancement of frontages on Sites xv, S, xvi, S, and xviii, N: Archaeologia lxii, 1 (1910), 7Google Scholar ff. and pl. 1; lxii, 2 421 ff. and pl. LX; 427 ff. and fig. 13; V. E. Nash-Williams, ibid., lxxx (1930), 230 f. and pl. LXXVII.

¹²⁷ Cf. Applebaum, S. in Thomas, C. (Ed.), Rural Settlement in Roman Britain, C. B. A. Research Rpt. 7(1966), 99.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Cassius Dio lxii, 2. Cf. Applebaum, Agricultural Hist. Rev. vi (1958), 79.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ It is difficult to account for the designs of the bath-houses at Eccles, Ashtead, and, perhaps, Wiggonholt in any other way

¹³⁰ Tacitus, Agricola 21, 1.

¹³¹ On the significance of the term domus under the Empire see R. Meiggs, Roman Ostia (1960), 237 f.

¹³² On the ‘boom’ in urban mosaics c. 160–190 see D. J. Smith in Rivet, op. cit. (note 73), 77; for the laying of mosaics in houses at Leicester, possibly in the latter half of the second century, see M. Todd, The Coritani (1973), 64 f.

¹³³ On the small number of sizeable town houses at Silchester and Caerwent see Frere, Britannia (1967), 258.

¹³⁴ As suggested in the case of Wroxeter by I. A. Richmond in I. LI. Foster and L. Alcock (Eds,.) Culture and Environment (1963), 260 ff.

¹³⁵ It is by no means inconceivable that some of the tribal capltals achieved higher status in the second century. On the desire for promotion at this period see Aulus Gellius, Nodes Atticae xvi, 13.

¹³⁶ It is interesting that Vitruvius, De Architecture vi, 5.3 makes no great distinction between the planning of town- and country-houses.

¹³⁷ Applebaum, op. cit. (note 128), 76.

¹³⁸ As illustrated by the incorporation of strip-buildings in substantial town-houses at Caerwent (xv, S; xvi, S; xviii, N; xxvi, N) and Wroxeter (Site vi).

¹³⁹ E.g. Verulamium, Building xxviii, 1: Frere, op. cit. (note 10), 12 and the Augst, Insula xxx courtyard-house in its (probably) late second-century state: Berger, op. cit. (note 106), 101.