ANCIENT EARTHWORKS certainty be followed further, though a slight trench suggests its course on the northern side. Within the enclosure are two distinct mounts which may be burial tumuli, and traces of a third possibly exist, as well as of another just out- side the present entrance at the south-west angle. The presence of these mounts or tumuli, together with the general form of the earthwork, would lead to the conclusion that we have here a hill fortress of early date, but we are involved in doubt when we read the words of Philemon Holland in the first edition of his translation of Camden's Britannia, dated 1610 and evidently written about 1600 :* — As for the other small intrenchment not farre of by W. Wickham, it was cast in fresh memorie when old Sir Christopher Heyion, a man of great command in these parts, trained the country people. It may be that this is not the work referred to, for its form seems hardly suited to the Elizabethan period, or it may be that Sir Chris- topher simply threw down ramparts and altered the character of the defences.' Whatever its date may be we are glad to know it is saved from complete destruction. Traces of fortresses have been noted, by various observers, at the following places, but do not, for the most part, appear to be well defined or of sufficient importance to need description. Chilham (Penny Pot Wood), Crouch (Great Comp Wood), Ightham (Beech Tree and Wimlet Hills), Littlebourne (Pine Wood), Newnham (W. of valley), Tonbridge (Castle Hill 2 m. S.E. and one near Dry Hill), Wateringbury (Roydon Hill)/ RECTANGULAR CAMPS, ETC. [Class C] Ash (by Sandwich) : Richborough Castle. — Though necessarily mentioned here as one of the ancient defensive works of Kent, all descrip- tion of Richborough (Rutupise) will be found in the article devoted to Romano-British Kent. Canterbury : The City Defences. — Though it is to be sup- posed that in the days when the Cantii occupied the district there may have been a British settlement on this important site, where ancient ways lead by fords across the river, we have no evidence of defences which can with certainty be assigned to so early a period. As the Roman town and its defences are discussed in another article, and the mediaeval wall is outside our scope, it will be sufficient here to mention the remains of the fosse and rampart which antedated the wall of masonry. The principal portion left is at the southern angle, where we see « Camden, Brit. 326. 2 Mr. VV. H. Griffin and members of the Catford and District Nat. Hist. Soc. are devoting much attention to the earthwork and its contained tumuli, and may obtain some further light on the origin. = Archaeological Survey. Arch. (1889) li, and Collectanea Cant. (1893). 403
