177 



©I}.$cri);ition$ on tlje " Matei'.Siip|lg " of some 

 of out g^itcicut §riti$Ij €ncam^ment0, 



p;ffre farticttlarlg m ltilts|ire aiib ^usse^. 



By SiE Geobge Duckett, Bart. 



*§HE earthworks o£ whieli the higher land in England, such as 

 the "Wiltshire and Sussex Downs, exhibit so many examples, 

 were, according to general opinion, military encampments, some 

 previous to, others coeval with, the Roman conquest. But were 

 these earthworks intended as military encampments, or as sites 

 for religious purposes, or, according to the views of some antiquaries, 

 as combining both these purposes? The latter is so greatly at 

 variance with either primitive or modern warfare, that we put no 

 faith whatever in any such combination. The designation usually 

 assigned to Ihem, therefore, is probably correct ; but the question 

 rests entirely on the ability to prove a supply of water sufficient 

 for the use of the garrison, and failing this, we imagine that the 

 camp theory falls to the ground. It is not enough to particularise 

 that such and such an earthwork is provided with a single or double 

 vallum, and so forth. The water-supply must be accounted for. 

 The occupant, even if such earthworks were simply entrenchments 

 thrown up for temporary defence, must of necessity have had access 

 to water, and in the case of permanent encampments, this point is 

 altogether conclusive on the subject. We allude in these remarks 

 to camps on high ground 07ilj/, quite removed from rivers or water, 

 as on the tops of downs, and our object will be to show in what way 

 the supply of water was apparently obtained. 



It seems in treating of these ancient earthworks to be very much 



