{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02112163146394756, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0029133284777858705, 'mean_word_length': 4.496, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Halls or yards? A problem of villa interpretation

Professor Branigan, in his recent article ‘Villa Settlement in the West Country’, interprets the plans of six British villas as a series of rooms ranged around a small courtyard which he calls an intra-mural yard. They will be discussed later; for the moment it is enough to point out that no evidence is adduced in support of the interpretation. Branigan, however, not content to leave the matter there, goes on to say that the intra-mural yard is ‘a design which is common among the smaller villas in northern Gaul’ and points to six plans in support of this notion. Again, no evidence is offered. Now what is so astonishing is that three of the villas cited as evidence for this bland statement were interpreted as hall-type villas in 1921 by Franz Oelmann in the classic article which established the existence of the type, and have been so regarded ever since. The reversion to the orthodoxy of nearly sixty years ago is not defended, Oelmann's arguments are not refuted, nor does his article even appear in the bibliography; we are expected to take Branigan's word that it is so. For all that there are no arguments to attack, the point at issue is of such fundamental importance for villa studies in all the northern provinces that I propose to pass in review the essential facts on which judgement has to be based.