A HISTORY OF KENT 



days for the construction of this strong hill-fort ; indeed the discovery 

 of British pottery would seem to support this opinion, but General 

 Pitt-Rivers' careful examination leaves little room to doubt the approxi- 

 mate date, and the presence of British relics can possibly be attributed 

 to the previous presence here of a burial tumulus destroyed maybe in 

 digging the castle works.* 



The entrenchments form three enclosures : (i) That on the south- 

 west occupying the highest portion of the hill and acting as the keep of 

 the castle. The inner fall of the rampart of this keep is hardly trace- 

 able in places, and about the section E-F the most perfect part is now 

 only about 4 ft. in height. (2) That on the east acting as the bailey, 

 or court, but of very uneven surface, the central portion running 

 roughly east and west as a natural ridge. (3) A small sloping space on 

 the north-west approached from the court-yard by the outer rampart of 

 the keep, and down the gully north of the keep. 



Within and below the inner rampart cut by the section G-H are 

 depressions in the ground, and the ditch is divided by low causeways at 

 certain distances, such as are found at Winkelbury in Wiltshire and 

 elsewhere. 



General Pitt-Rivers' description is so precise that we cannot do 

 better than quote some portions of his minute account of the results ot 

 the explorations conducted under his personal supervision in 1878 ' : — 



It [the fortress] is on the apex of a cape and is guarded by a ' bay ' or ' coombe.' 

 Whether it was that the sides of this bay were not originally sufficiently steep to form 

 a natural defence, or that an attack on this quarter might be more probably expected, 

 the sides of the bay on the west side of the Camp, immediately outside the ditch of 

 the citadel, have been artificially escarped for a depth of about 90 ft. so as to give the 

 slope an angle of 4ii° with the horizon. 



On the south side of the Camp the natural escarpment is at an angle of 30° and 

 the height 250 ft., whilst on the north side the slope is not more than 15°, and the 

 total height from the summit to the bottom of the valley on that side about 80 ft. 

 This being the weakest side is therefore defended by two ramparts, viz., that of the 

 outer camp (the outer rampart) and that of the citadel (the inner or upper rampart), 

 whilst the stronger sides are defended by part of the citadel only. 



Respecting the traverse, which runs from the inner to the outer 

 rampart on the north of the citadel, we read : — 



Such a traverse might either have been constructed to cut off a breach during 

 an attack on the west side, or if an attack on that side was anticipated it might have 

 formed part of the original defence. The fact that the ditch of the traverse does not 

 run into that of the citadel, but leaves a causeway about 15 ft. in width, to facilitate 

 communication between the two outer compartments of the Camp, favours the opinion 

 that it formed part of the original defences. 



Immediately to the north of the outer rampart is a level space of 

 about 700 ft. by 450 ft., which is bounded by the bank running along 

 the counterscarp of the northern fosse of the camp on one side, and on 

 the east by its continuation in a northern direction, parallel with the 



' The General noticed such a tumulus on the western side of the ravine on the west of this fortress. 

 5 Archisologia (1883), xlvii. 



416 



