Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T17:40:14.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dating of Romano-British Houses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

C. A. F. Berry
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In December, 1948, there appeared in Antiquity an article by Lady Fox in which she hoped that ‘it should not be long now before a sequence of dated Roman house types is established for Britain’. At that time, the writer was engaged on a study of the Roman villas of Britain and hoped that from the mass of data collected there would emerge such a sequence of types. But the facts would not fit. It became apparent not only that houses of all types existed at all periods but also that the early types continued long in existence and that houses of every type were being built at all periods.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 41 , Issue 1-2 , November 1951 , pp. 25 - 31
Copyright
Copyright ©C. A. F. Berry 1951. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The study was undertaken for a graduate thesis; two copies in typescript are to be found in the University of London Library (Ph.D. theses 1949, ‘Villas of Roman Britain’) and in the Haverfield Library, Oxford.

2 Cf. the plans of Hambleden (Archaeologia LXXI, 141) or Gayton Thorpe (Norfolk Archaeology XXIII, 165) with those of Brading (Proc. Isle of Wight Arch. Soc. III, 1944, 416) or Stroud (Arch. Journ. LXVI, 33). At Stroud it seems that the projecting wing rooms were of one build with the original barn-type house, before the aisles were partitioned.

3 As at Yeovil: Somerset Arch. Soc. Proc. LXXIV, 122.

4 Hambleden and Brading: l.c. note 2.

5 l.c. for Brading, p. 422.

6 Hants. Field Club Proc. X, 225, and JRS XXI, 242 f.

7 Newington, , Arch. Cantiana XV, 104Google Scholar; Darenth, ibid, XXII, 49, or VCH Kent III, 111.

8 Atworth, , Wilts. Arch. Mag. XLIX, 46Google Scholar; Wellow, , VCH Somerset I, 312Google Scholar.

9 Street, Park, Arch. Journ. CII, 21Google Scholar and JRS xxxv, 84 f.; Woodhouse, Mansfield, Arch. VIII, 363Google Scholar.

10 Brewood, Staffs. Record Soc. 1938, 267 and JRS XXVIII, 183, pl. XXXV; Welwyn, , Antiqs. Journ. XVIII, 339Google Scholar, and JRS XXVIII, 187.

11 Ditchley, , Oxoniensia I, 24Google Scholar and JRS XXVI, 256 f.; Brislington, , Bristol & Glos. Arch. Soc. Trans. XXIII, 289Google Scholar.

12 Mrs. Cotton, , in Archaeologia XCII, 1947, 127, 135 ffGoogle Scholar.

13 Ibid. LIX, 1905, 341 ff., 346.

14 Throughout the remainder of this article, houses at Calleva will be quoted by a Roman numeral for the number of the Insula and by an Arabic one for the number of the house, according to the numbering in the excavation reports published in Archaeologia from 1881 to 1910. Latest plan ibid, LXI, 1909, 486, pl. LXXXV which is reproduced in fig. 5 above.

15 The writer proposes to make a comparative survey of such towns in Roman Britain as have yielded intelligible and dateable examples of domestic dwellings in the hope of arriving at more definite conclusions.