A HISTORY OF KENT 



Recognizing our limitations it is thought preferable to adopt the 

 scheme published by the Congress of Archaeological Societies, and 

 classify the defensive enclosures of a district by form rather than to 

 attempt a strict chronological order.' 



Of earthworks classed under B, Oldbury, in Ightham, and Holwood 

 in Keston, are the most important but mutilated remains, both pro- 

 bably of Celtic construction. Other examples of that period are in even 

 more fragmentary condition. 



Of Roman work we have more complete evidence, but being mostly 

 written in stone, as at Richborough, Reculver and Lympne, its record 

 belongs to another chapter. 



Entries in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle lead to the hope of discovery 

 of remains at Appledore, Milton, and elsewhere, but we seek in vain 

 for definite traces. 



Artificial, or partly artificial, defensive mounts, with fosses around 

 them, abound in England, mostly provided with one or more courts or 

 baileys attached to them. Much discussion has arisen as to their date, 

 but opinion in the archsological world is settling down to the theory of 

 Norman origin for the vast majority of examples, though some appear 

 to have existed in the time of Edward the Confessor, and fossed mounts, 

 without courts, possibly earlier. It must not be forgotten that when first 

 thrown up, artificial mounts of earth were incapable of sustaining the 

 weight of stone structures, and must therefore have been dependent 

 upon wooden defences such as are shown on the Bayeux tapestry. 

 Some half-dozen Kentish examples of these feudal strongholds show 

 simple mounts with encircling fosses, without traces of attached courts 

 (class D), though the latter may have existed and been destroyed. Of 

 those with baileys adjoining the mounts (class E) Tonbridge presents the 

 finest example in the county. 



Manorial holdings and others, of class G, are well represented in 

 Kent, some possessing strong castles of stone, probably the successors of 

 earlier timber structures. 



camps and intrenchments made in more antient times, tho' (sic) in reality they will be found to be of a 

 much later date ; among them are several which were made by the Lord Cobham, Lord-Lieutenant of 

 this county in that reign [Elizabeth], in pursuance of orders sent to him to make trenches, etc., in those 

 places, where the enemy was most likely to land.' — Hist. Kent (1778), i. 112. 



' The following classification is recommended in the Scheme and its Appendix : — 



A. Fortresses partly inaccessible, by reason of precipices, cliffs, or water, additionally defended by 



artificial works, usually known as promontory fortresses. 



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. 



D. Forts consisting only of a mount with encircling ditch or fosse. 



E. 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. 



G. Enclosures, mostly rectangular, partaking of the form of F, but protected by stronger defensive 



works, ramparted and fossed, and in some instances provided with outworks. 

 H. Ancient village sites protected by walls, ramparts or fosses. 

 X. Defensive works which fall under none of these headings. 



