2 



The ground has been, to some extent, covered by the useful 

 archaeological maps of the Society of Antiquaries, and by lists of 

 early forts recorded in some volumes of the Victoria County 

 Histories (now in course of publication) ; both together, however, 

 cover but a limited portion of the country, and neither work is so 

 generally accessible as it is hoped the Committee's schedules 

 will be. 



Not to court failure by attempting too much the Committee 

 suggests that — 



1. The lists should be confined to defensive works, omitting 



burial barrows and boundary banks. 



2. Though careful record should be made of any "finds" 



indicative of period of use of the forts, no effort need be 

 made to assign a definite period of construction, excepting 

 in those cases in which the age is beyond question, e.g. 

 camps and fortified settlements of undoubted Roman 

 origin, or enclosures of proved Neolithic, Bronze, or 

 Iron age. 



It is proposed that defensive works be classified, so far as may 

 be, under the following heads : — 



a. Fortresses partly inaccessible, by reason of precipices, 



cliffs, or water, additionally defended by artificial banks 

 or walls. 



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. Works which fall under none of these headings. 



