With regard to these camps and intrenchments, Mr. King, in his “Monumenta Antiqua,” supposes that most of the strong intrenchments on the summits of natural hills must be attributed to Britons, although subsequent conquerors might have occupied them. They are designated, indiscriminately, Roman camps, Danish forts, or Saxon intrenchments, but often erroneously. The _Roman_ camps were quadrangular, divided into a pavilion for the general and chief officers, and another portion for the tents of the common soldiers. It was fortified with a ditch and parapet, termed _fossa_ and _vallum_. The Danes did not undergo the labour of erecting them on the high hills where they are often found, nor run the risk of being cooped up and starved in them during their invasions; nor can we suppose them to be their work after they settled here as conquerors. The great castle of Norwich, built by Canute, and the great tower at Bury, prove their civilization and skill in architecture. Neither could these hill-camps be Saxon. During the Heptarchy, they erected fortresses of stones. Besides, their earth-works were encampments on plain ground with double ditches, and with either the whole or part of the area raised above the level of the adjacent country, and sometimes with a very small mount for a watchguard. The magnificence of the Norman castles, still splendid in their ruins, will not allow them to have had any share in throwing up these rude intrenchments. They must, therefore, have been the strongholds of the ancient Britons, where their families were lodged, and their cattle housed, on any emergency or invasion.[363]