These four reports contribute variously to our knowledge of Roman London, its suburbs and environs: those on the excavations at Bow Bells House and 10 Gresham Street describe urban sequences west of the Walbrook within the later Roman walled area of Londinium; that of the Southwark burials relates to the history of the suburb south of the river, while the Brentford excavations contribute to our knowledge of a settlement which developed some 15 km west of London along the Silchester road, the major route leading out of the city to the west and south-west of Britannia, and either side of the river Brent close to its confluence with the Thames. Three reports are the work of Museum of London Archaeology (MOLA), the fourth is by Pre-Construct Archaeology (PCA).

Both the Bow Bells House and 10 Gresham Street excavations are typical, City of London developer-funded excavations, their limits determined by the extent of the developments, with the recovery of truncated sequences and only partial plans of buildings and occupation from the various phases — the early Roman much better represented than the late. At Bow Bells House, just to the south of the main east–west road, the evidence is largely confined to a sequence of pitting, intense c. a.d. 60–70, and of dumping, also intense in a phase probably prior to the Hadrianic fire. Truncation of the sequence after the mid-second century was severe, but a few pits and a well document continuing occupation to the late fourth/early fifth century. Glass-working provides a link between the two ‘urban’ sites — a hearth and waste from the manufacture of beads from the Claudio-Neronian period (c. a.d. 50–70) at 10 Gresham House and dumped moils and cullet, derived from the production of vessel glass and probably of a similar date, at Bow Bells House. The Gresham House material was associated with the remains of a rectangular, timber-framed workshop, around which were clustered more than a dozen circular structures ranging from c. 1.9 to 10.6 m in diameter (fig. 10). Such an association of round and rectangular buildings is also well attested in nearby, pre-Flavian Silchester. At Gresham Street only one, B14, produced evidence of a hearth and the smaller structures are interpreted as animal pens. This occupation was largely sealed by a north–south street laid out in the Flavian period with strip buildings fronting on to it on either side. Their character is only tantalisingly glimpsed from the narrow trenches which cut across them, but with some remarkable preservation. Remains of a courtyard building (B50) with brickearth walls, constructed after c. a.d. 130, but burnt down probably by the mid-second century, produced the larger part of a polychrome mosaic floor (figs 69–70) as well as a cluster of complete pots in the corner of an adjacent room (figs 66, 72). From the period after c. a.d. 160/200 little, other than pits and some cutting into the north–south street in the fourth century, survived truncation, but the slight remains of two masonry buildings (B55, B56) were recorded, giving another glimpse into the late Roman city.

In Southwark, London's southern suburb across the river, PCA's excavations revealed important evidence of burial practice in two areas, Lant Street and Southwark Bridge Road, the former on the ‘mainland’ close to the convergence of Stane Street and Watling Street, the latter on the ‘south island’, again set back from the properties fronting the road up to the bridge. While Lant Street saw the development of burials, 84 in total and almost exclusively inhumations, from the second century onwards, but with the majority of late Roman date, the 18 burials from the northern group date mainly from the fourth century. Prone burials formed a relatively high proportion (16.6 per cent) of the second-century inhumations, but the practice, at 3–4 per cent, continued into the fourth century in both cemeteries. Just over one third of the Lant street burials contained grave goods, with one (BL15), that of an adolescent, aged about 14, richly furnished with glass vessels, a folding knife with its handle carved into the form of a leopard and a casket with copper fittings and carved bone inlays. Oxygen isotope analysis and cranial measurement suggested an African ancestry for this individual. Both forms of analysis, as well as of carbon and nitrogen isotopes, were extended more widely to the Lant Street burials. At least 5 of the sample of 19, but possibly as many as 13, are considered to be migrants from warmer climates. Despite the relative wealth of some of the grave goods, the carbon and nitrogen study revealed little evidence of the consumption of marine foods, elsewhere associated with high-status individuals.

From the environs of London, the report on the settlement and landscape at Brentford provides invaluable characterisation of a linear settlement which, centred on the river Brent, developed alongside one of the major roads of the province and, at its height in the second century, extended over almost one kilometre. The excavation represents a transect of the settlement with the bulk of the area examined extending at right angles for some 150 m back from the road to include the plots at the rear of the properties fronting on to it. In addition to finding good preservation of two small (one certainly only of one room) post-built, late second-century buildings on the road frontage, the excavation produced important assemblages of associated finds of coins, pottery, metalwork and glass, whose comparative richness seems at odds with the status of the buildings. Deposits of charred cereals, generally of spelt wheat, but with concentrations of almost pure barley, were also recovered from these buildings. The settlement is approximately midway between London and the settlement and probable mansio at the crossing of the Thames at Staines (Pontibus) and may, therefore, have supported a posting-station (mutatio).

All four reports are supported by extensive and well-illustrated finds reports, but they are not always equally useful for comparative research. While the majority of reports give the basic numbers of items upon which interpretations are built, this is not the case with the pottery where priority is given to the careful illustration and listing of individual sherds (why?) at the expense of a clear tabulation by period of quantities by form and fabric. Of the three MOLA reports, two contain no tabulation of these basic data, while the third, 10 Gresham Street, presents a table (158, table 16) by generalised ware groups — amphora, black burnished ware, fine wares–imported, fine wares–Romano-British, etc., etc. — which do not conform to the recognised industry standard (R. Tomber and J. Dore, The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection (1998)) and do not readily lend themselves to integration in more wide-ranging research. This is not helpful! The percentages of wares by sherd count are reported, but not obviously comprehensively, in the text of the Brentford report, where a table would have served better. Coins provide another example of inconsistent reporting: while they are individually catalogued in detail and also discussed in the Bow Bells and Brentford reports, there is no report at all in 10 Gresham Street! MOLA would do well to review urgently their finds reporting strategy, evaluating how others use their work.