speaking of the original height, and in unusually perfect condition, the construction of the walls being by almost universal consent acknowledged to exhibit the distinguishing characteristics of Roman masonry. The internal area, though much less than that of the earthworks in Newenden, as estimated by Dr. Harris, comprising nearly ten acres, would have contained a sufficiently large body of men to account for the obstinate resistance, which Andredesceaster is stated to have offered to its Saxon besiegers. Moreover the situation of the Roman station at Pevensey answers Gildas's description of that selected for the Roman coast towers. Now indeed it is remote from the shore, but originally the sea closely approached, if it did not actually flow up to, the very walls, the place continuing to be a port for many centuries after all connection of the Romans with Britain had ceased.[1] That these reasons are a powerful presumption in favour of Pevensey is shown by the many persons of repute in such inquiries, who have espoused that side of the question; which, however, cannot be decided by authority merely. We will therefore only mention, Camden being cited in behalf of Newenden, that a modern antiquary of superior information on similar subjects, because he had profited by the researches of his predecessors, the late Mr. Petrie, keeper of the records in the Tower, urged an argument, which has always seemed to me highly deserving of attention; that, inasmuch as every Roman station on our coast from Burgh Castle in Norfolk southward and westward to Portchester in Hampshire can be and is identified by both the ancient and the modem name, with only a single exception in each case, it necessarily becomes a strong probability, that the ancient name of the missing Roman station ought to belong to the Roman remains, which we know only by their modem appellation, the consequent conclusion being, that Pevensey alone can be the site of the long lost Romano-British city.
Against this conclusion two objections are raised, of which a brief notice must be taken: they are, first, that the district around Pevensey does not agree with Henry of Huntingdon's account of Andredesceaster being closely surrounded by forest; secondly, that the same writer expressly declares the site of
- ↑ This assertion is proved by Domesday Book, which mentions "port dues" as accruing in Pevensey about a.d. 1086.
