310 Inaugural Address by the President of the Society, 



Traverse was thrown up for the purpose of continuing the entrench- 

 ment to the westward, the soil did contain Roman remains, whilst, 

 at the time when the older portion of the dyke was thrown up, the 

 same ground did not contain Roman remains. 



Two hundred and sixty feet of rampart, in all, was dug on the 

 south-east of the epaulement without finding anything Roman 

 except some dubious pieces of pottery, quite near the surface. The 

 bulk of the pottery was of a kind that might be attributed to the 

 British as well as the Roman Age. This goes a long way towards 

 proving that the dyke to the south-east of the epaulement was 

 earlier, and that the extension of it to the north-west was made in 

 Roman or post-Roman times, but it is not conclusive. This spot is 

 more distant from the settlement than Sections 1 and 2. Whatever 

 kind of pottery exists in the soil will be thrown up into the rampart, 

 and at whatever period a rampart may be made it will disclose only 

 such kinds of pottery as the soil contained, or such as might have 

 been accidentally dropped into it during its construction. The 

 absence of Roman pottery is, consequently, no proof that a rampart 

 is earlier than the Roman times, though it may leave the question 

 of date open. 



Trenches were dug in the combe at the end of the epaulement, to 

 ascertain whether it had ever extended further and been destroyed 

 by cultivation, but the end of the ditch was found at a distance of 

 272ft. from the spot where it leaves the Main Dyke, showing that 

 it never extended over the hill, but must have been merely a short 

 turn of the rampart to cover and protect the exposed flank, at this 

 time probably also protected by a dense growth of trees and under- 

 wood. 



The question of the age of the right flank, right centre, and a 

 considerable part of the left centre of Bokerley Dyke as far as the 

 epaulement, must be left for future investigation, before it can be 

 determined with the same certainty that we can now speak of the 

 left flank. I have only to say, however, that as the whole character 

 of the extensions coincides with that of the main portion of the 

 entrenchment, except in being of slightly less relief, there is a 

 probability of the latter being found to have been constructed by 



