A-B, Layer 12), which was laid partly upon clay and partly
upon the pre-existing plough-soil (Fig. 3,
Section A-B, Layers 26 and 27); this floor may have been the
under-floor of a hypocaust. Its depth, which is about the same
as that of the under-floor in Room 32, would suggest this; on
the other hand, no direct evidence was found for a flue
through its north-west wall, and to supply heat to yet another
room would further strain the likely output of Room 48. It is
more probable therefore, that this room was not heated, which
would also suit better its presumed function as an apodyterium.
No entrance into this room, through its south-west wall
from the open courtyard, has been found, nor a doorway into
Room 30, the frigidarium of the suite,
has now been confirmed to occupy a total area of very nearly
19 by 29 feet 6 inches and containing its cold-plunge bath,
Room 31. Mention was made in the 1963 Report6 that
both the frigidarium itself and its plunge-bath were
floored with mosaic pavements, which had been removed
presumably in order that their tesserae might be
re-used. By a stroke of very good fortune, it became possible
this season to recover a large part of this material in Room
46, obviously surplus to requirements, and to reconstruct,
thanks to the painstaking efforts of Mr. David S. Neal,
sufficient of these rejected fragments so as to learn
something of their patterns (see Appendix,
The following additional points about these
mosaics may be made here. The fact that the backing of the
gladiatorial mosaic was as much as 3 inches thick is quite
consistent with the evidence of excavation; for this mosaic
pavement occupied a rectangular portion of the frigidarium,
some 15 by 19 feet in size and excluding the area
immediately south-west of Room 31,8 and was laid
down on a bedding of compact yellow mortar and gravel whereas
the thickness of 1 inch for the backing of the 'dolphin'
mosaic is due to the fact that this pavement was laid down on
the bottom of the plunge-bath, which consisted of 1 foot of opus
signinum (see Fig. 3, Section K-L,
Layer 25 in the 1963 Report). The difference, both in
consistency and in thickness, of the bedding of these mosaics
also accounts for the great variation in the size, of the
recovered fragments; the gladiatorial fragments are' generally
much larger than the 'dolphin' ones as the former could be
removed much more easily from their relatively less solid
foundations. The point made below (see Appendix),
that the 'dolphin' mosaic fragments seem to have been
subjected to water action, is wholly consistent with the
position of the mosaic on the bottom of a plunge-bath.
Arch. Cant, lxxix (1964), 124.
7 1 am indebted to Professor S. S.
Frere, V-P.S.A. and to Mr. A. J. Taylor, F.S.A., through whose
good offices this work has been undertaken; also, to Dr. D. J.
Smith, F.S.A., for expert advice.
8 Arch. Cant, lxxix (1964),