By Maud E. Cunnington. 415 



The relics found throughout the excavations were few in number 

 and fragmentary. They did not include a single coin, only one 

 nondescript piece of bronze, two or three ambiguous pieces of iron, 

 and exclusive of one large pot found. broken into many fragments, 

 perhaps a hundred potsherds. This scarcity of remains, together 

 with the absence of pit-dwellings, or other discoverable signs of 

 permanent habitation in the camp, should perhaps be regarded as 

 evidence that the site could not have been occupied in any ordinary 

 way by a number of people for any length of time. 



The reason for this may be that only a short time elapsed be- 

 tween the making of the camp and its abandonment, either volun- 

 tarily, or by force of conquest. Or it may be that it was never 

 intended for permanent occupation, that it was not a dwelling- 

 place, but a " city of refuge," a stronghold to fly to in times of stress 

 and danger.' Its bleak and exposed position and the absence of 

 any water supply makes this the more probable. This absence of 

 water may almost be said to be a characteristic of what appear to 

 be pre-Eoman hill forts. Speaking of similar sites in general, and 

 of Winklebury in particular, General Pitt-Kivers says that there 

 are three possible explanations of the absence of water in camps. 

 Firstly, that water was fetched from outside ; secondly, that there 

 were wells which have been filled up and not since discovered ; 

 thirdly, that the springs were higher in prehistoric times and nearer 

 to the camps than at present. The first alternative. General Pitt- 

 Eivers goes on to say, if the people were liable to siege, would be 

 both difficult and dangerous, but, that having regard to the habits 

 of uncivilised people generally, a systematic and sustained siege 

 was improbable.'^ The water level seems to have been undoubtedly 



'"Wherever we find such isolated encampments on the tops of hills in 

 prehistoric times, we may be sure that they were simply places of refuge for 

 some local tribe, inhabiting the vicinity, to which they resorted when attacked 

 by a neighbouring tribe. They imply a low state of civilisation before the 

 inhabitants of any large district had attained to such organization as was 

 necessary for combined defence." Pitt-Rivers, Excavations, vol. III., p. 7. 



- " It is probable that warfare in those days consisted of raids between 

 neighbouring tribes and that the defenders carried in with them such a supply 

 of water as they might require during a short attack, never exceeding a day 

 or two. Pitt-Rivers, Excavations, vol. II., p. 237 — 8. 



