2 
The ground has been, to some extent, covered by the useful 
archeological maps of the Society of Antiquaries, and by lists of 
early forts recorded in some volumes of the Victoria County 
Histories (now in course of publication); both together, however, 
cover but a limited portion of the country, and neither work is so 
generally accessible as it is hoped the Committee’s schedules 
will be. 
Not to court failure by attempting too much the Committee 
suggests that— 
1. The lists should be confined to defensive works, omitting 
burial barrows and boundary banks. 
2. Though careful record should be made of any “finds” 
indicative of period of use of the forts, no effort need be 
made to assign a definite period of construction, excepting 
in those cases in which the age is beyond question, e.g. 
camps and fortified settlements of undoubted Roman 
origin, or enclosures of proved Neolithic, Bronze, or 
Tron age. 
It is proposed that defensive works be classified, so far as may 
be, under the following heads :— 
A. Fortresses partly inaccessible, by reason of precipices, 
cliffs, or water, additionally defended by artificial banks 
or walls. : 
B. Fortresses on hill-tops with artificial defences, following the 
natural line of the hill ; 
Or, though usually on high ground, less dependent on 
natural slopes for protection. 
c. Rectangular or other simple enclosures, including forts and 
towns of the Romano-British period. 
p. Forts consisting only of a mount with encircling ditch 
or fosse. 
= 
Fortified mounts, either artificial or partly natural, with 
traces of an attached court or bailey, or of two or more 
such courts. 
F. Homestead moats, such as abound in some lowland 
districts, consisting of simple enclosures formed into 
artificial islands by water moats. 
c. Works which fall under none of these headings. 


