Thursday, 3nhj 'ilth. 201 



giving one the impression that it must have been in its daya position of 

 very great strength. The Rev. J. F. Welsh, in a few words, stated 

 the opinion of some authorities, founded apparently on the find of 

 some Roman coins in the north-west angle in 1773, that the camp 

 was of Roman origin — but General Pitt-Rivebs, whilst declaring 

 that nothing but the spade used scieniifically could settle the date 

 of this or any other camp, said that it was almost certainly not 

 Roman. The Romans might have occupied it doubtless, but it was 

 almost certainly formed by a people who depended much upon 

 missile weapons for defence, which the Romans themselves did not. 

 Moreover, it was not the habit of the Roman commanders to form 

 hill-forts, such as this, nor did they throw up great earthworks of 

 this kind — they did not respect their enemies sufficiently to take 

 the trouble to do so. On the contrary, Roman camps were generally 

 found on comparatively low ground, and the earthworks surrounding 

 them were by no means of such magnitude as those of the British 

 camps. Whilst walking round the ramparts the General pointed 

 out how the inner rampart, originally probably 5 or 6 feet higher 

 than at present, would have commanded the steep escarpment of the 

 down to a much greater extent than it does now, and also how— 

 where the ground is comparatively level at the two ends of the camp 

 •^a third line of rampart is constructed to form an additional defence. 

 He also pointed out that the entrances to the camp were probably 

 not direct openings in the embankments, but narrow ways running 

 for some distance parallel with the banks, and then turning at 

 right-angles through them, being overlapped by the outer rampart. 

 General Pitt-Rivers considered that, so far as appearances went, 

 it was probable that the barrow, which stands in the lines of the 

 fortification, was constructed later than the camp — but here again 

 he said nothing could be proved, except by the scientific excavation 

 of the barrow itself and the rampart adjoining it. The mere opening 

 of the barrow in such a case was useless for purposes of evidence. 

 The great object was to find the original undisturbed surface under 

 the earthwork , and then if you could find coins, fragments of pottery, 

 or other objects capable of being dated, on that original surface, 

 you would know that they were there before the earthwork was 



