4 
hut circles, which have been examined. This is one of the 
earliest fortresses in the kingdom, and points to a very early 
occupation of this part of Britain, and to an amount of knowledge 
and skill in primitive warfare which is very often underrated. 
If an early date must be assigned to this Camp, although 
Roman remains and coins have been found within it, the same 
early date must be assigned to Dolebury, as the structures of the 
two are similar. 
Each wants the regularity and plan of a Roman fortress. The 
position in either case is not that which would have been 
selected by a Roman force, nor the dwellings such as would have 
been occupied by Roman soldiers. 
The form of the rampart at Dolebury is very irregular, and the 
work unscientific as to structure. There is in Roman work a 
regularity and order, and attention to form and measurement, 
which these early fortresses do not possess. 
It is not improbable that roughly hewn timber, with projecting 
branches, may have largely entered into these defences. We 
know that the Gauls used timber in constructing their walls, 
which gave them great strength and power in resisting the 
battering ram, as Cesar * mentions, and in the walls pictured on 
the column of Trajan at Rome, and of that of Antonine, timber 
is seen to be inserted. 
' The walls of our British ancestors probably partook of this 
character, though not so scientifically constructed. There are 
three, or rather there were three, Camps on the Bristol Avon, two 
on the Somerset, and one on the Gloucester side of the river, at 
Bristol, which differ in construction, but serve to show the 
antiquity of that at Dolebury. 
The destruction of the strongest and most perfectly fortified 
of these, that called Borough Walls, overhanging Nightingale 
Valley, revealed the construction of the walls. It had a triple 
* Lib, vii, c. 23, 
‘ 
