COMPARISON OF VARIOUS DEFENSIVE STRUCTURES. ]01 



dozen feet apart, on which are often carved ludicrous representations of men and 

 animals; the spaces between the poles being filled with stakes, placed close 

 together, and bound firmly with horizontal pieces by a creeper called toro-toro, 

 which is tough and serviceable for a long period. These strongholds have often 

 proved superior to any force the natives could bring against them. Few instances 

 have occurred of a Pa being taken by a brisk siege ; they have failed only when 

 cowardice, treachery, or improvidence have aided the assailants. The stockades 

 that enclose the fort are within a few feet of each other, the outer gate or entrance 

 being much less than the inner opening, which, in time of war, is entered by step- 

 ping-stones or small wooden posts like a turnstile. The width is so contracted as 

 scarcely to admit a large-sized man, and between the fences a fosse is often cut, 

 about four feet in depth, sheltering the besieged while discharging their missiles at 

 the enemy. A more confused scene can scarcely be conceived than a Pel during 

 a siege. Some hundreds of low arched huts lie huddled together without regularity, 

 streets, or paths ; among these, some native palaces raise their roofs, and platforms 

 (watas) built on trees for the preservation of food, and not for defensive purposes. 

 Mounds are often erected during a night by an enemy, to overlook the interior 

 of a fort, but they are of rare occurrence. The huts near the tidpa or stockades 

 are covered with earth and clay, to render them secure to the inmates. 



" Some forts have been selected with consummate skill, having the command of 

 mountain gorges and narrow passes, which might keep in ckeck an army, if defended 

 by a handful of brave men. Various contrivances are invented to render an ap- 

 px'oach to a fortification difficult of access. Sometimes a wooden post with notches 

 for the feet affords the only means of entering the fort. The Pa formed by the 

 celebrated E'Ongi, on a promontory jutting into Lake Moperri, was a work of 

 much merit, and added greatly to the consequence of the self-taught engineer 

 among his countrymen." — {Pollock^s New Zealand, Vol. II., p. 26.) 



It appears from these facts, that whatever estimate we may place upon the 

 capabilities of the Pacific and South Sea Islanders, in other respects, they are, in 

 the language of a close observer, " sufficiently advanced in civilization to construct 

 fortifications, and adapt them to the nature of the country in which they are 

 required." — (Lamp's Polynesian Nations, p. 108 ) 



The defensive works of Great Britain present a great variety of forms, betraying 

 different authors and different eras of construction. First of all, we have the 

 works of the ancient Celts, of irregular outline, and occupying strong natural 

 positions. These are succeeded by the fortified camps and other defences of the 

 Roman era, which are followed by the less regular but more laborious works of 

 the Belgic or Saxon period. 



During the earliest or Celtic period, a large proportion of the barrows or tumuli 

 scattered over the islands, were erected ; then, also, were built those mysterious 

 circles and long avenues which bear so striking a resemblance to the ancient 

 structures of our own country. 



In the choice of their military positions, the ancient Britons were governed by 

 the same obvious rules which regulated the mound builders, and the American 

 Indians generally — advantage in all cases being taken of the natural features of 



