Page:VCH Kent 1.djvu/484

 A HISTORY OF KENT Recognizing our limitations it is thought preferable to adopt the scheme published by the Congress of Archaeological Societies, and classify the defensive enclosures of a district by form rather than to attempt a strict chronological order.' Of earthworks classed under B, Oldbury, in Ightham, and Holwood in Keston, are the most important but mutilated remains, both pro- bably of Celtic construction. Other examples of that period are in even more fragmentary condition. Of Roman work we have more complete evidence, but being mostly written in stone, as at Richborough, Reculver and Lympne, its record belongs to another chapter. Entries in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle lead to the hope of discovery of remains at Appledore, Milton, and elsewhere, but we seek in vain for definite traces. Artificial, or partly artificial, defensive mounts, with fosses around them, abound in England, mostly provided with one or more courts or baileys attached to them. Much discussion has arisen as to their date, but opinion in the archsological world is settling down to the theory of Norman origin for the vast majority of examples, though some appear to have existed in the time of Edward the Confessor, and fossed mounts, without courts, possibly earlier. It must not be forgotten that when first thrown up, artificial mounts of earth were incapable of sustaining the weight of stone structures, and must therefore have been dependent upon wooden defences such as are shown on the Bayeux tapestry. Some half-dozen Kentish examples of these feudal strongholds show simple mounts with encircling fosses, without traces of attached courts (class D), though the latter may have existed and been destroyed. Of those with baileys adjoining the mounts (class E) Tonbridge presents the finest example in the county. Manorial holdings and others, of class G, are well represented in Kent, some possessing strong castles of stone, probably the successors of earlier timber structures. camps and intrenchments made in more antient times, tho' (sic) in reality they will be found to be of a much later date ; among them are several which were made by the Lord Cobham, Lord-Lieutenant of this county in that reign [Elizabeth], in pursuance of orders sent to him to make trenches, etc., in those places, where the enemy was most likely to land.' — Hist. Kent (1778), i. 112. ' The following classification is recommended in the Scheme and its Appendix : — A. Fortresses partly inaccessible, by reason of precipices, cliffs, or water, additionally defended by artificial works, usually known as promontory fortresses. 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. Enclosures, mostly rectangular, partaking of the form of F, but protected by stronger defensive works, ramparted and fossed, and in some instances provided with outworks. H. Ancient village sites protected by walls, ramparts or fosses. X. Defensive works which fall under none of these headings.