80 Casterley Camp Excavations. 



after (at least) some of the inner works, they were not planned I 

 independently of each other, and cannot be of very different date, 

 Imt are probably the work of one and the same people. 



The evidence is also in favour of the greater part of the inner | 

 works being contemporary one with another. This does not of 

 coarse necessitate that they were all actually made, or even planned, j 

 at once, but that the various parts were made as additions to, and! 

 not independently of, those already existing. 



It appears, for instance, that the ditches Nos. 1 to 8a are mutually 1 

 inter-dependent on each other. 



The relationship between Nos. 1 and 2 has already been suggested 

 (page 62). Nos. 3 and 5 come to an end in the bank of No. 1, and! 

 could only have been made when that bank and ditch were inl 

 evidence. No. 4 ends in No. 3 at a sharp angle, and must havq 

 been dug when No. 3 was still open to the bottom. 



Nos. 6 and 7 start at right-angles out of No. 1, and could only! 

 have been dug when No. 1 was open to the bottom ; No. 7 runa 

 into No. 8, and consequently shows that Nos. 1 and 8 must hav« 

 been open at the same time. The short ditch No. 8a begins (oil 

 ends) in No. 8, the two being of equal depth at their point of 

 junction. 



Thus it is clear that Nos. 1 to 8a form a contemporary group! 

 all planned in relation to each other, with No. I as the principal ami 

 connecting link of the group. It has already been shown (page 611 

 on different grounds, that the irregular enclosures were subordinate 

 to the rectilinear enclosure bounded by ditch No. 1, and now i 

 appears that No. 1 is actually the most important member of thJ 

 group, forming, as it does, the connecting link between this sys ten 

 of ditches. 



In the same way it will be seen that Nos. 9, 10, and 11 arl 

 evidently connected with each other, but it is not impossible Ilia 

 these three are altogether independent of Nos. 1 to 8a, for No. I 

 cuts right through No. 9, and therefore these two ditches were nol 

 necessarily made in reference to each other. 



Nevertheless the groups Nos. 1 to 8a and 9 to 11 are both linkel 

 with the outer entrenchment, and it may be argued that if bot| 



