ON ANCIENT CAMPS AND EARTH-WORKS. 121 
camp has been successfully made out, and the name for the 
most part identified by remains which have been found, 
in one or other in the list of fortresses given in the 
Notitia. Altars and inscribed stones have been dug up in 
most of the stations “ per lineam Valli,” but I cannot hear 
of any along the supposed line of Ostorius, except a few 
remains, not important, found at Camerton. The finding 
of the inseribed stone last year at Combe Down, just op- 
posite Midford Castle, where Mr. Skinner supposes a fort 
to have been placed, is, I believe, the only instance, and 
that belongs to a late period of the Roman oceupation. It 
is probable that inseriptions were not common in Roman 
works until the time of Hadrian, and few have been found, 
of an earlier date; but still the form of the earth-works is 
not Roman, nor do they exhibit signs of Roman occupa- 
tion, except it be the camp over Batheaston, called Little 
Salisbury, which seems to have been occupied by that 
people. This has been considered to be the first of a chain 
of forts communicating with the Severn, and running along 
the Cotswold Hills, which, if we regard the Bath Avon as 
the river Aufona, Antona, or Avona, mentioned by Taecitus, 
has certainly a better claim than the camps on the line of 
the Wansdyke between Bath and Portishead. The Ro- 
mans appear in certain cases to have occupied ancient 
British intrenchments, with little alteration of their form; 
but in these Roman coins are generally found. It is not 
always an easy matter to assign a particular date to an 
earth-work which has been occupied successively by Roman, 
Saxon, and Danish invaders, after having been first formed 
by the aboriginal British tribes. Nevertheless, in a con- 
nected chain of forts the Roman mode of intrenehment will 
always shew itself in places. If rectangular works are not 
VOL. VvI., 1855, PART I. Q 
