Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:55:48.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IV.—Further Remarks on the Hill Forts of Sussex: being an Account of Excavations in the Forts at Cissbury and Highdown

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2012

Augustus Henry Lane Fox
Get access

Extract

In a paper which I had the honour of reading to this Society on the 6th February 1868 I gave a general description of the ancient earthworks of the downs between Beachy Head and Chichester, and I concluded by expressing an opinion, derived chiefly from a consideration of the principles of castrametation, outline, and other indications observable on the surface, that these intrenchments belonged to the Ancient British period, and were not, as some writers have supposed, the work of the Roman invaders of this country.

Type
Research Article
Information
Archaeologia , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , 1869 , pp. 53 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1869

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 54 note a Camden, by Gough, 1789, i. 188.

page 54 note b Bapin's History of England, i. 59.

page 55 note a This is also in accordance with the opinion of Camden, who says, in the Britannia, i. 185—Gough's edition—“Chichester, in British, Caer Cei; in Saxon, Cissan Ceaster; in Latin, Cicestria; is a tolerably large city, walled round, built by, and named after, Cissa, the second Saxon prince of that province. Cissanceaster means nothing more than the City of Cissa.” If, however, Caer Cei was the British name for this place, it does not appear quite evident why it should be necessary to introduce the name of Cissa in order to form Chichester.

page 55 note b Sussex Archæological Collections, vol. iii.

page 56 note a Vol. xiii.

page 57 note a Journal of the Archæological Association, xiii. 291.

page 58 note a The present communication was accompanied by an exhibition of a number of flint implements from the localities in question, several of the most characteristic specimens of which will be found engraved in Plate VIII.

page 64 note a One fragment of iron, 7 inches in length, 1½ in width, and ⅙th of an inch thick, was found close to the surface of one of the pits. On submitting it to Dr. Percy for examination, he pronounced it to be charcoal iron, and, therefore, probably of ancient origin. Its position, however, within a foot of the surface, implies that it may probably have dropped into the pit in comparatively recent times, and may therefore be classed with the surface pottery, some of which was undoubtedly Roman. Considering the extent of the excavations, it is a matter of surprise that so little of recent origin should have turned up in the soil.

page 66 note a The other sides of the implements represented in figs. 12 and 13 are flat.

page 68 note a All the flint implements figured in Plate VIII., with the exception of fig. 20, have been presented to the Christy Collection.

page 71 note a Mr. Brice Wright has been kind enough to name the shells found in Cissbury; they consist of the following species, viz.: Littorina littorea; Cyclostoma elegans; Tapes decussata, Linn.; Helix nemoralis, Linn.