66
A REPLY BY I. CHALKLEY GOULD.
archaeological question. In my paper I suggested that "we have
here a natural oblong hill"; so far we agree, but I claim that
there is evidence of man's occupation, and that at a time when
occupation necessitated defence.
Roman coins, pottery, etc., reported to have been found, show
occupation during the Roman period ; but the whole work is too
small to render it probable that the Romans originated a military
station here. I conclude, therefore, that it existed as an occupied
post before the Roman settlement. Its dangerous position, in what
(I believe) was the borderland of the Trinovantes, would make it
impossible for its occupiers to exist without fortifications ; but, as
the place was practically almost an island in those days, the additional
defences may have been mainly of wood, which would have
perished long since.
Guided by the views of the great authority, Mr. Clark, as
expressed in his "Mediaeval Military Architecture" (1884), I
suggest that it is possible that the shape of the lower portion of
the mound, on its N. side, was the result of some reconstruction
to suit the common form of Saxon or Danish fortified home.
Whether this is so or not, does not affect the question of the
earlier occupation of the whole work.2
In addition to the evidence afforded by coins, we must note:
(1) The dyke which surrounds the enclosure. Mr. Holmes says
it is an ordinary farm ditch just where the alluvium joins the base of
the hill. Permit me to say that in more than half of its length it is
not where the alluvium appears to commence, that in part of its
course it is a dry dyke taking a form (often seen in early works)
suggestive of a road rather than a ditch, that it slightly ascends the
side of the hill on the E., and that in another part it is thirty feet
wide. Surely this is not an ordinary farm ditch at the base of the
hill.
(2) The sunken way, part of the dyke, on the S.W. must have
been subject to much traffic, or have been intentionally lowered for
the purpose of defence from the banks. Again, where the road to
the mound passes down from the high land to the marsh level it is
sunk some 8 feet. Man's handiwork, or very considerable traffic
alone, can account for such a depression ; part of it being cut through
rising ground, water cannot have accomplished this. It is possible
that the road led by the hill to some ancient, long-forgotten fordway
2 In suggesting that possibly the high mound was thrown up in the Saxon period, I did
not, of course, mean that it was thrown up from base to summit ; but simply added to by-
earth from the lower part. This meaning would be evident from my reference to the whole
as a "natural oblong hill.''