ANCIENT EARTHWORKS 



certainty be followed further, though a slight trench suggests its course 

 on the northern side. 



Within the enclosure are two distinct mounts which may be burial 

 tumuli, and traces of a third possibly exist, as well as of another just out- 

 side the present entrance at the south-west angle. 



The presence of these mounts or tumuli, together with the general 

 form of the earthwork, would lead to the conclusion that we have here a 

 hill fortress of early date, but we are involved in doubt when we read 

 the words of Philemon Holland in the first edition of his translation of 

 Camden's Britannia, dated 1610 and evidently written about 1600 :* — 



As for the other small intrenchment not farre of by W. Wickham, it was cast in 

 fresh memorie when old Sir Christopher Heyion, a man of great command in these 

 parts, trained the country people. 



It may be that this is not the work referred to, for its form seems 

 hardly suited to the Elizabethan period, or it may be that Sir Chris- 

 topher simply threw down ramparts and altered the character of the 

 defences.' Whatever its date may be we are glad to know it is saved 

 from complete destruction. 



Traces of fortresses have been noted, by various observers, at the 

 following places, but do not, for the most part, appear to be well defined 

 or of sufficient importance to need description. 



Chilham (Penny Pot Wood), Crouch (Great Comp Wood), 

 Ightham (Beech Tree and Wimlet Hills), Littlebourne (Pine Wood), 

 Newnham (W. of valley), Tonbridge (Castle Hill 2 m. S.E. and one 

 near Dry Hill), Wateringbury (Roydon Hill)/ 



RECTANGULAR CAMPS, ETC. 

 [Class C] 



Ash (by Sandwich) : Richborough Castle. — Though necessarily 

 mentioned here as one of the ancient defensive works of Kent, all descrip- 

 tion of Richborough (Rutupise) will be found in the article devoted to 

 Romano-British Kent. 



Canterbury : The City Defences. — Though it is to be sup- 

 posed that in the days when the Cantii occupied the district there may 

 have been a British settlement on this important site, where ancient 

 ways lead by fords across the river, we have no evidence of defences 

 which can with certainty be assigned to so early a period. 



As the Roman town and its defences are discussed in another 

 article, and the mediaeval wall is outside our scope, it will be sufficient 

 here to mention the remains of the fosse and rampart which antedated 

 the wall of masonry. 



The principal portion left is at the southern angle, where we see 



« Camden, Brit. 326. 



2 Mr. VV. H. Griffin and members of the Catford and District Nat. Hist. Soc. are devoting much 

 attention to the earthwork and its contained tumuli, and may obtain some further light on the origin. 

 = Archaeological Survey. Arch. (1889) li, and Collectanea Cant. (1893). 



403 



