!"#$%#&' &)' "#*+#,$' +-.

#/& 01 &)' 20-#3 /034%'5& 03

&*#6+&+03#$ *%*#$ 50/+'&+'57 8#5 /%$&%*#$ /)#39' #3 %*,#3:'$+&'
.)'30-'303; <+5/%55 %5+39 !=#-.$'5

>3&*06%/&+03
The aichaeological inteipietation of the "Roman" countiysiue has gone thiough
seveial phases thioughout the last centuiy oi so. The inciease of fielu suivey anu
aeiial photogiaphy has moveu focus away fiom inuiviuual gianu villa excavation
anu focuseu moie on smallei settlements spieau thioughout the lanuscape.
Though this has gieatly impioveu oui view of the countiysiue as a whole, we
can't ignoie the impact that elites likely hau in the countiysiue. 0iban powei was
mostly maintaineu by wealth ueiiveu fiom agiicultuie in the countiysiue, anu
contiol of that agiicultuie was a high piioiity of the elite (Byson S. L., 2uuS).

!"# %& Nap showing Italy, uaul, Spain anu Biitain (Bamen, 2u1S)




In this essay, I ieview the impact of the Roman conquest on iuial societies. I will
be coveiing thiee bioau topics; the economy, ait anu aichitectuie, anu ieligion.
Fuithei, I will be ieviewing these topics anu theii uiffeiing levels of impact on
thiee key geogiaphical locations; Italy (Reu), Spain anu uaul (Puiple) anu Biitain
(uieen), see Figuie 1.

By "tiauitional iuial societies," I incluue peoples that weie in the aiea befoie
Roman inteivention. This incluues colonies establisheu by othei cities anu states.
It is also woith noting that when consiueiing the extent of cultuial change as an
elite phenomenon, it is impoitant to consiuei that the majoiity of excavation has
taken place on elite iesiuences. Theie is simply moie uata anu moie known of
fiom these locations, though with the impiovements in suivey anu shifting
ieseaich emphases, this contextual bias is beginning to level out.

!/030-?
The instillation of wealthy Roman lanuowneis into the countiysiue aiounu Rome
anu thioughout Italy hau a huge anu pionounceu affect on the economic
opeiation of the countiysiue. Caianuini's 197u's excavations of the villa of
Settefinestie neai Cosa shows a cleai link between the iise of the villa anu the
uecline of neaiby smallei faimeis (Caianuini 198S). Bowevei, excavations at Il
uiaiuino in Cosa have shown cleai eviuence of a small estate that evolveu into a
laigei enteipiise, showing that inuigenous elements coulu still auapt, suivive
anu thiive (Byson 2uuS). The piesence of coins anu amphoiae at uiaiuino
inuicates that theie was also oppoitunity foi existing faimeis to join into the
Roman mouel (Byson S. L., 2uuS). Though a laige lanuscape appioach to the
Bifeino valley inuicateu that with Roman expansion anu it's inciease in
piouuction anu estate giowth, theie was a uecline in the iuial population
(Baikei 199S). At the veiy least, all of these stuuies hint at a cultuial change in
the tiauitional iuial population, eithei asseiting uominance ovei the lanuscape,
becoming subseivient to shifting poweis, oi leaving the countiysiue all togethei.
The intiouuction of centuiiation to the lanuscape was not new concept foi much
of Italy, with many uieek colonists making similai alteiations to the lanuscape
long befoie Roman expansion (Byson 2uuS). The instillation of aimy veteians
within the lanuscape woulu also have maue an impact, howevei it is uifficult to
iuentify these inuiviuuals in the aichaeological iecoiu.





Theie was an obseivable change in lanu oiganization thioughout uaul aftei the
Roman conquest, with a move to much laigei estate sizes uiviueu by ioaus anu
uitches as shown in figuie 2 (uates, 1982). The extent to which this
ieoiganization affecteu the aveiage peison woulu have been vaiiable. A change
in the size anu shape of one's own piopeity woulu have a much laigei impact
than the ieoiganization of a lanuownei's piopeity, theiefoie having a gieatei
affect on lanuowneis. !"##$% '$(")"'$% have been extensively stuuieu along the
southein coast of Spain. Laige amounts of eviuence have been piouuceu foi the
piouuction of *$(+' (fish sauce) anu the piouuction of amphoiae to tianspoit it
(Byson 2uuS). ,$(+' has quite a uistinctive anu unappealing smell uuiing it's
piouuction anu it's pioximity to these lavish costal ietieats is a cleai ieminuei
that these costal villas aie fiist anu foiemost economic centeis of piouuction anu
not meiely holiuay homes foi the elite (Robb 2uu7).

Ruial Fiance was also the host of laige-scale ceiamic piouuction with sites such
as La uiaufesenque anu Lezoux (Byson S. L., 2uuS). These sites weie piouucing
huge amounts of Roman-style potteiy, but aie not necessaiily Roman in
themselves. 0nuoubteuly the supply of mateiials anu laboi to these laige
piouuction centeis must have hau a consiueiable impact on the suiiounuing
aiea. Similai to Fiance, Biitain's countiysiue also playeu host to laige-scale
potteiy piouuction. Bowevei in aieas such as the Nene valley anu Watei
Newton, it was local style potteiy that was piouuceu (Byson 2uuS). Though
Roman coinage was founu at these sites it inuicates a piomotion of Biitish
cultuial iuentity on a wiuei scale (Niles 1982). This vaiiability of foim shows
that the auoption of Roman style was not necessaiy to be pait of the Roman
system. Tiauitional societies coulu piouuce theii tiauitional waies but still
ietain payment fiom the Roman system.
!"# '& uiaph
showing
compaiison of
Piehistoiic anu
Roman Fielu Sizes
in Noith Biitain
(uates, 1982)


Nining hau a wiue anu vaiieu impact on the countiysiue thioughout Fiance anu
Spain. Bepenuent on the mateiial to be extiacteu, uiffeient levels of Roman
inteivention weie involveu (Fiieuman 2uu9). uolu, Silvei anu othei piecious
items weie veiy much contiolleu centially, wheieas moie common elements
such as Iion weie often iun piivately (Byson 2uuS). Latin giaffiti at the Fiench
site uianu Feiiiei ues Foiges neai Naityies shows an impoit of at least some
laboi to the site (Becombeix 2uuu). Theie is an aigument that a new mining
cultuie has been planteu in these piovinces. Bowevei the owneiship anu
uiiecting of opeiations weie still in the hanus of elites, meaning they weie the
paity that changeu anu auapteu to the new foim.

Notably the Romans biought impiovements to the lanuscape in much of Englanu.
In Cambiiugeshiie, laige-scale lanu ieclamation effoits came into effect unuei
the Romans (Fincham 1999). Similaily SSu hectaies of tiual wetlanu was uiaineu
uownstieam fiom uloucestei. The south of Spain anu Poitugal weie also lucky to
ieceive attention fiom Roman aichitects thiough the cieation of extensive watei
contiol systems (Byson 2uuS). Lanu management hau been occuiiing in Biitain
since pie histoiy, but seemingly nevei on such a wiue scale anu in this foim.

It is inuicateu that *$(+' was accessible by all paits of Roman society, but theie
is little eviuence of its auoption in iuial aieas, peihaps iemaining an uiban
phenomenon (Cuitis 2u12). The uiet of the aveiage Biitain appeais to have
iemaineu similai even aftei the Roman expansion, with an emphasis on meat,
anu not auopting the moie giain-baseu lifestyles of othei paits of the empiie
(Cummings 2uu8). Seemingly uiets in the countiysiue iemaineu locally
oiientateu aftei Roman conquest.



Communications infiastiuctuie in the piovinces hau a veiy tangible impact on
iuial communities. Thiough the builuing of ioaus anu inueeu canals, the volume
of tiaue was gieatly boosteu (Byson 2uuS). The builuing of ioaus cleaily hau a
!"# (& Roman ioau
cutting thiough
fielu bounuaiies
(Fieie & St }oseph,
198S)
massive impact on anyone laying a claim to the lanu they weie built on. Cutting
gieat long lines acioss the countiysiue with no appaient iespect foi pie-existing
bounuaiies (Fig S), it is appaient that the Romans hau influence enough ovei the
iuial population to pievent any piotest (Couibot-Beweiut 2uu8). Asiue fiom
having the stiuctuie potentially built on one's own lanu, the majoiity of the
impact maue by this infiastiuctuie was maue on those at eithei enu of the
connection, not in the miuule.

Fiom the eviuence we can see that the Roman conquest hau a tiemenuous
impact on the economies of iuial societies. It seems that acioss all of the
piovinces a majoiity of the community weie eithei uisplaceu oi ie-taskeu in new
inuustiy. Those who continueu in theii pievious way of life weie now involveu
with new tiauing paitneis; new goous foi tiaue anu inueeu a new cuiiency to
conuuct that tiaue in. In teims of the economy cultuial change is uifficult to
evaluate. Becoming a slave oi beholuen to a lanuownei is ceitainly a change foi
many in the countiysiue, but it is haiu to uistinguish whethei they iuentifieu
themselves as a Roman client.

@*& #36 @*/)+&'/&%*'
When consiueiing the Roman countiysiue fiom an aichitectuial stanupoint, it is
impossible to ignoie the impact of the villa. Byson (2uuS) lists thiee
classifications of villa: the subuiban (-"##$ .+/+(/$0$), the countiy estate (-"##$
(+.)"1$) anu the coastal (-"##$ '$(")"'$%) each with theii own specific function.
As eaily as the 2
nu
centuiy BC, wealthy iomans constiucteu villas along the coast
aiounu Rome (Byson 2uuS), pioviuing not only a view of the sea but also a
conspicuous view of the villa itself. Similaily subuiban villas spiouting aiounu
cities such as Rome of Pompeii pioviue a maikei of the Roman natuie of the city
befoie its walls aie ieacheu. The inteiiois of such villas weie lavishly uecoiateu
with sculptuies, paintings anu mosaics (Lauience 2u12). With Italian villas
though it is impoitant to consiuei who is the ownei it is uncleai whethei these
wealthy villas belongeu to Roman senatois uecoiating theii countiy iesiuences
in a style they aie accustomeu to oi peihaps a foieign peison with an
appieciation foi the style; oi someone aiming to fuithei theii ambitions in the
city. 0nfoitunately, the iemnants of these villas suivive in a pooi state anu have
been pieviously looteu, making the question of owneiship uifficult to answei
(Lauience 2u12). It is theiefoie laigely uncleai in Italy whethei the ownei of the
villa cieateu an impact oi was influenceu by pie-existing cultuial tienus.



The villa continues to maik Roman expansion with ovei two thousanu listeu foi
Biitain (Scott 199S). Bowevei they uiu not all follow the same Roman bluepiint.
villas at Fishbouine, Sussex aie of totally Roman uesign wheieas otheis show a
cleai Biitish influence (Cunfliffe 1997). Thioughout Biitain, villa uistiibution
was somewhat iiiegulai (figuie 4) with some aieas being completely without
villas. This is peculiai in Coinwall as it is an aiea iich in tin so one woulu expect
!"# )& Bistiibution of villa type aichitectuie in ielation to Roman ioaus (Tayloi, 2uu7)
that theie be a laigei Roman piesence to exploit this mateiial. It is impoitant to
note that villa settlement iemaineu fai moie common thiough the Civil Zone
(Bingley 1989). This concentiateu auoption implies that fuithei fiom Roman
contiol theie was less inteiest in imitating Roman foims. In contiast to villas, the
occupation anu builuing of iounuhouses continues thioughout the Roman peiiou
(figuie S), though theie is some tiansition to iectangulai house foims in some
instances (Banley 2uuu). Similaily, in uaul theie is a uegiee of vaiiation, with
houses ianging fiom tiauitional La Tene-tyle enclosuies, to Roman-style
couityaiu villas (Couibot-Beweut 2uu6). It seems that the auoption of a Roman-
style houses thioughout Biitain anu uaul was mostly by those wishing to involve
themselves in the Roman system.

!"# *& Rounu Bouses fiom the Roman Peiiou (Fieie & St }oseph, 198S)

Nilitaiy foitifications aie uifficult to account foi when consiueiing tiauitional
iuial populations. Though cleaily a laige anu uiiect impact when fiist built,
many Roman foits hau settlements built aiounu them essentially founuing new
towns (Biuwell 1997). This settlement anu economic giowth hau some effect on
moving the tiauitional societies out of the iuial habitat anu into moie uibanizeu
centeis. Biitain, in contiast, shows that the vast majoiity of the population
continueu to live in the countiysiue, seemingly unaffecteu by the Roman militaiy
piesence (Bingley 1989).

It is the cieation of bounuaiies, which seemingly has some laige effect on the
iuial inhabitants. In the Noith of Englanu, the laige builuing woiks of Bauiian's
anu the Antonine walls gieatly iestiicteu the ways in which people coulu move
thiough the countiysiue (Bieeze 2uuu). It is also piobable that societies, which
exploiteu paiticulai aieas of lanu, founu themselves uisplaceu, peihaps cieating
a new iuentity of being above the wall oi below it (Collins 2uu6). Similaily in
Eastein Fiance, the laige boiuei foitifications cieate an immeuiate iuentity of
being outsiue of the empiie oi insiue it (Bieeze anu }ilek 2uu8). It is uifficult to
uistinguish fiom the aichaeological iecoiu the tiue extent to which these
bounuaiies lesseneu the chance of iaius foi those who hau been living theie
befoie the Roman conquest (Byson 198S). Rathei theii puipose was a mix of
piotecting new Roman inteiests in the aiea, anu an effoit in Roman public
ielations (uiunewalu 1999). The Roman militaiy piesence causeu consiueiable
change to iuial Fiance. Aieas such as the Somme ieceiveu huge boosts in theii
economy thiough supplying theie neaiby Legions, in this case the gaiiisons in
the Rhine (Byson 2uuS).

Tiauitional iuial communities weie not paiticulaily affecteu in teims of ait anu
aichitectuie aftei the Roman Conquest acioss all of the piovinces. Though a
piolifeiation of Roman style houses, monuments anu foitifications appeaieu in
the countiysiue, most of it is attiibuteu to the elites of society. The continuation
of local house foims is a cleai inuication that it was not that impoitant foi the
layman to associate himself with Roman styles. Inueeu even at the elite level,
local vaiiation was piesent anu tiauitional housing styles auapteu into a new
Roman-Piovincial foim.

!"# +& Reconstiuction of a Romano-Biitish Temple (English Beiitage, 2u1S).

2'$+9+03

Religion thioughout Italy went thiough vaiious changes uuiing the Roman
expansion. Buiing the thiiu anu seconu centuiies BC, some ieligious centeis
weie intentionally uestioyeu by Romans to iemove theii influence fiom the
countiysiue (Byson S. L., 2uuS). Though it is notable that pieceuing Rome's
expansion thioughout Italy, it tiaueu iegulaily in sculptuie anu paiticulaily
teiiacotta's fiom cential Italy (Bolloway 1994). This eaily tiaue with its
neighbois makes ieligious foims somewhat homogenous, iesulting in a lowei
level of aitistic change.

Biitain became host to the Romano-Celtic temple (figuie 6), a mix of impoiteu
anu local tiauitions, which establisheu it as its own unique foim (uolubeig
2uu6). These ciossbieeu temples aie founu much moie fiequently in villa
uominateu aieas of the countiysiue (Byson 2uuS). It is notable that the entiiely
Roman-style temples of Biitain, such as founu in Colchestei, weie within the
confines of Roman towns (Byson 2uuS), peihaps uisplaying the uecieasing
influence of Rome outsiue the town centeis. Theie seems to be no Roman
attempt to iemove monuments fiom the countiysiue, inueeu Baiiow buiial
tiauition continues late into the Roman peiiou (Eckhaiut 2uu9). Similaily events
of stiuctuieu ueposition continue fiom the Iion Age late into the Roman peiiou
(Fulfoiu 2uu1). It is cleai that inuigenous ieligion continues in the countiysiue.
Alongsiue Baiiows theie was a shift to moie Roman funeial monuments foi
inuigenous people such as the Nausolea at Lullingstone in Kent (Rook 1984),
though high-status inhabitants likely constiucteu these.

Thiough aeiial photogiaphy, a gieat numbei of Romano-Celtic style temples
have been founu thiough Noith Eastein Fiance (Byson 2uuS). A numbei of
Fiench iuial temples have been founu as laige complexes with multiple theaties,
temples anu baths (Byson 2uuS). At Ribe-mont-sui-Ancie an inuigenous shiine
hau been built ovei by the Romano-Celtic temple, possibly as a statement to
iemove anu ieplace pievious iueas (Biunaux 1999). Peihaps unlike the villa-
uominateu aieas of Biitain, the sanctuaiy at Chateaneuf in Savoy containeu
extensive giaffiti inuicating a lowei social status of the woishipeis (Neimet:
199S). This is an inuication that woiship of the Romano styleu ueities was not
entiiely foi the elite, but extenueu to many in the countiysiue of uaul (Beiks
1998).

Rome coulu uestioy the political social oiuei, but it coulu not totally eiase the
maiks they hau impiesseu upon the lanuscape (Byson 2uuS). Theie was cleaily
an auoption of "new gous" amongst membeis of the countiysiue, maue obvious
by new foims of temple anu the cieation of new Roman-Piovincial gous. Religion
appeais to be an aiea in which the iuial community was changeu as much as
elite communities. Though it is possible that the way that tiauitional iuial
societies woishipeu uoes not piesent itself as viviuly in the aichaeological
iecoiu.

A03/$%5+03
Roman expansion has cleaily impacteu on all tiauitional iuial societies it
encounteieu. Bowevei the uegiee of that impact has been manipulateu by a host
of othei factois. When compaiing the impact on Italy to the impact of Biitain we
must consiuei that theie was centuiies between the two events. Auuitionally,
theie is a cleai change in natuie of what ietuin Rome was hoping foi in its
expansion.

Aiguably in Italy cultuial change at it's most effective, ielatively quickly all
inuiviuual ioots aie iemoveu fiom the countiysiue. Those who iemaineu in the
countiysiue, both elite anu lowei class, weie without a uoubt Romanizeu anu
awaie of theii place in the Roman woilu. 0f the aieas I have coveieu, Biitain
shows the lowest level of Roman cultuial influence. While the iuial system in
Biitain hau changeu, with new inuustiies anu a uiffeient economic uiiection, it
uiu not become wholly Roman, but iathei took a new Romano-Biitish foim.
These two extiemes neatly leave space foi uaul anu Spain as a miu point, with a
highei level of cultuial change than Biitain, but still not complete immeision.

The voluntaiy auoption of Roman cultuie has conflicting eviuence as to whethei
it was uiiven by aspiiation oi convenience. Laige Roman-style villas thioughout
the piovinces alluue to aspiiation of Roman status, wheieas the wiue-scale
amalgamation of Roman anu piovincial foims inuicate that what was piactical
was taken anu what was unneeueu was not auopteu. When tiying to tie the
conclusions of this essay into the wiue-scale uebate ovei Romanization,
ulobalization anu othei theoiies, no cleai answei piesents itself. Some aspects of
cultuie weie cleaily foiceu upon the iuial populations, such as ioaus, wheieas
othei aspects seem to have been auopteu voluntaiily, such as potteiy.


It is possible that a laige amount of uiscussion ovei the Romanization of the
countiysiue has uownplayeu the economic aspect. Theie is cleaily a laige
uiffeience in inteiaction between enslavement foi mining, taxation, anu geneial
tiaue. It is also cleai the Romans engageu in all of these vaiieties within each
piovince. In the case of tiaue, we can expect that the tiauitional population
woulu have ieceiveu some "Roman" goous in exchange foi theii piouucts.
Wheieas with taxation, the tiansmission of goous is uniuiiectional, taxes aie
given but whatevei benefits aie spieau thiough society as a whole. It is logical to
expect then that in the aichaeological iemains, an active tiauei woulu appeai
moie Romanizeu, simply because they ieceiveu moie fiom Roman entities in
ietuin. It woulu be uniealistic to consiuei a piovincial faimei moie Romanizeu
than an enslaveu minei. This aigument woulu also suppoit the appeaiance of
cities as being moie iomanizeu, puiely because moie tiaue takes place, moie
exchange is maue, anu moie Roman mateiials aie left in the aichaeological
iecoiu.

In essence, though Roman influence was tangible in the countiysiue, local
vaiiation anu the continuation of local customs was veiy much piesent. In
auuition, the fuithei a piovince lay fiom Rome, the gieatei cultuial change
became an uibanelite phenomenon. Finally, the use of the aichaeological iecoiu
is not iueal when consiueiing the iuentity of an inuiviuual, as it only shows what
was ieceiveu, not what was given.

B+,$+09*#.)?
Baikei, u. B. (199S). 2 '%3")%(($0%$0 !$##%45 6$03.1$7% 2(18$%9#9*4 $03 200$#%.
:".)9(4 "0 )8% ;"<%(09 !$##%4= Lonuon: Leicestei 0niveisity Piess.
Biuwell, P. (1997). >9'$0 ?9(). "0 ;(")$"0= Lonuon: Batsfoiu.
Bieeze, B. }. (2uu8). ?(90)%"(. 9< )8% >9'$0 @'7"(%= Enuinbuigh: Bistoiic
Scotlanu.
Bieeze, B. }., & Bobson, B. (2uuu). :$3("$0A. B$##= Lonuon: Penguin.
Caianuini, A., & Rosella Fillippi, N. (198S). C%))%<"0%.)(%5 +0$ -"##$ .18"$-".)"1$
0%#A@)(+("$ (9'$0$= Panini.
Cioxfoiu , B., uoouchilu, B., Lucas, }., & Ray, N. (2uu6). Piocceuings on the
fifteenth annual theioietical ioman aichaeology confeience. D>2E FGGH=
Cunliffe, B. (1971). ?".8/9+(0%5 2 >9'$0 I$#$1% $03 "). *$(3%0= Lonuon: Thames
anu Buuson.
Cuitis, R. I. (198S). In uefense of uaium. D8% E#$.."1$# J9+(0$# K LM (S), 2S2-24u.
Bamen, N. (2u1S, u6 uS). D8% ?$## 9< >9'%5 NCN=%3+. Retiieveu 1u uS, 2u14, fiom
0S0.euu:
http:www.usu.euumaikuamen1S2uBist&Civsliuesu8iomfalmapEWRom
anEmpiie.jpg
Beiks, T. (1998). ,93.K )%'7#%. $03 (%#"*"9+. 7($1)"1%.5 )8% )($0.<9('$)"90 9<
(%#"*"9+. "3%$. $03 -$#+%. "0 >9'$0 ,$+#= Amsteiuam: Amsteiuam 0niveisity
Piess.
Biessen, S., Beeien, S., Benuiiks, }., Kemmeis, F., & vissei, R. (2uu9). Pioceeuings
of the fifteenth annual theoietical ioman aichaeology confeience. D>2E FGGM=
Byson, S. L. (2uuS). D8% >9'$0 E9+0)(4."3%= Lonuon: Buckwoith.
Byson, S. (198S). D8% E(%$)"90 9< )8% >O'$0 ?(90)%"(= Piinceton: Piinceton
0niveisity Piess.
Eckhaiut, B. (2uu9). Roman baiiows anu theii lanuscape context. ;(")$0"$ K PG,
6S-98.
English Beiitage. (2u1S, Apiil). @0*#".8 :%(")$*%5 Q$"3%0 E$.)#%. Retiieveu Naich
8, 2u14, fiom English Beiitage: http:www.english-
heiitage.oig.ukuaysoutpiopeitiesmaiuen-castlehistoiy-anu-
ieseaichiomano-biitish-temple http:www.english-
heiitage.oig.ukuaysoutpiopeitiesmaiuen-castlehistoiy-anu-
ieseaichiomano-biitish-temple
Fieie, s. s., & St }oseph, }. K. (198S). >9'$0 ;(")$"0 ?(9' D8% 2"(= Cambiiuge:
Cambiiuge 0niveisity Piess.
Fulfoiu, N. (2uu1). Links with the Past: Peivasive Ritual Behavious in Roman
Biitain. ;(")$00"$R690390RC91"%)4 <9( )8% 7(9'9)"90 9< >9'$0 C)+3"%. K SF, 199-
218.
uates, T. (1982). Faiming on the fionteii: Romano biitish fielus in
Noithumbeilanu. (P. C. Beaselgiove, Eu.) >+($# C%))#%'%0) "0 )8% >9'$0 T9()8 .
uiunewalu, T. (1999). ;$03"). "0 )8% >9'$0 @'7"(%= Lonuon : Routleuge.
Banley, R. (2uuu). !"##$*%. "0 >9'$0 ;(")$"0 (vol. 49). Lonuon: 0spiey
Publishing.
Bingley, R. (1989). >+($# C%))#%'%0) "0 >9'$0 ;(")$"0= Lonuon: Seaby.
Bolloway, R. R. (1994). D8% $(18$%9#*4 9< @$(#4 >9'$0 $03 6$)"+'= Lonuon anu
New Yoik: Routleuge.
Kamash, Z., uosuen, C., & Lock, u. (2u1u). Continuity anu ieligious piactices in
Roman Biitain: the case of the iuial ieligious complex at NaichamFiilfoiu,
0xfoiushiie. ;(")$00"$ K PU, 9S-12S.
Lauience, R. (2u12). >9'$0 2(18$%9#*4 <9( :".)9("$0.= Lonuon anu New Yoik:
Routleuge.
Niles, B. (1982). The Romano-Biitish countiysiue: stuuies in iuial settlement
anu economy. ;2> K U.
Robb, }. (2uu7). D8% @$(#4 Q%3")%(($0%$0 !"##$*%= Cambiiuge: Cambiiuge
0niveisity Piess.
Rook, T., Walkei, S., & Benston, C. B. (1984). A Roman Nausoleum anu associateu
maible saicophagus buiials fiom Welwyn, Beiefoiushiie. ;(")$00"$ K UH, 14S-
162.
Tayloi, }. (2uu7). An Atlas of Roman Ruial Settlement in Englanu. E;2 >%.%$(18
>%79() K UHU.