feet of earth between the gunwale and the surface. It was very strongly built, but without a keel. Imbedded in the alluvial soil, with one end resting upon the side of the vessel, were found two oak trees, which evidently had been felled by the axe, not by the saw. There was a fireplace on board, whereupon were ashes consolidated into a hard mass. In or near the ship were discovered two human skulls,[1] two or three rude earthen vases or jars, a small one of glass, some leather shoes (the soles cut "right and left," very broad at the fore part, and very narrow at the heel), and a few other articles. For an account, written at the time, with measurements taken, for the Society of Antiquaries, see (Archæologia, XX.) It is to be regretted, that, in consequence of the above mentioned curiosities having fallen into the hands of an unqualified person, they did not attract the attention which really they deserved; and that, on the early death of the proprietor, the whole were dispersed, and, very probably, speedily destroyed as valueless.
Newenden standing first, according to the plan of these Notes, of those localities, for which claims have been advanced to be the site of the ancient Anderida, or Andredesceaster, taken and sacked by the Saxons, as already stated, about A.D. 490, this seems to be a proper place for some brief remarks upon the question; which the writer has entered into more fully elsewhere. See Archæol. Journal, IV, 203 et seq. and V, 229.
The credit of representing the lost Anderida has been conjecturally assigned to eight different spots; but the pretensions of two only of those eight appear sufficiently important to deserve notice here; those two are Newenden, and Pevensey in Sussex.
In the former parish there certainly are vestiges of old fortifications, but no traces of any, beyond simple earthworks, are to be discovered: and although I am persuaded, that the very scanty remains, now alone visible, are but a small portion of the original fortress, according to the description (in Harris's Hist. of Kent, 215), quoted above, of its condition at the end of the seventeenth century, the obliterated part must also have been of
- ↑ As a doubt has been thrown upon the genuineness of these skulls, I will add, that my recollection of the condition in which they were first beheld does not enable me to vouch for them; but having visited the spot repeatedly during the process of exhumation, I am satisfied that the other objects were found there, as pretended; and I much question whether the party, who undertook the operation, was likely to have, or capable indeed of having, concocted an imposition of the description suspected.
