[2615] Drew (Mem. Geol. Survey,—The Geology of the Country between Folkestone and Rye, pp. 19-20), on the other hand, says that ‘Forest trees flourished on this surface, for the moor-logs in the peat have all the appearance of having grown on the spot. If this be so, it follows that since that time there has been a depression of the land, because the peat that occurs at Appledore, and along the shore between Rye and Dungeness ... is at too low a level for the plants to have grown at these places while the sea had access there.... There is no reason to believe that any of the depression of land took place ... from the time of the Romans downwards, for no human remains nor works of art have been found deep in the Alluvium.’ Dowker (Proc. Geologists’ Association, xv, 1898, p. 221) argues, in support of Drew’s opinion, that if the trees had been carried down by the Rother, ‘we should expect them to have been covered with mud or silt, which does not occur to any extent.’
[2616] See p. 535, supra.
[2617] See M. Burrows, The Cinque Ports, p. 11; Archaeol. Journal, liii, 1896, pp. 364-5: F. Haverfield (Hist. Atlas of Modern Europe, ed. R. L. Poole, 1896, pl. 15), &c. [Prof. Haverfield calls the harbour Portus Lemanae, not Portus Lemanis. Stukeley, however (Itin. curiosum, 1776, p. 133), believed that the Portus Lemanis was ‘about West Hithe’; and Somner (Treatise of the Roman Ports and Forts in Kent, p. 37) says that some of ‘our English Chorographers’ were of the same opinion. So also was the famous geographer, Konrad Mannert (Geogr. der Griechen und Römer, Zweyter Theil, Zweyter Heft, 1795, p. 161). Somner (p. 38) argued that the port was at New Romney; but in order to sustain this opinion he was forced to read XXI instead of XVI (Roman miles),—the distance, according to the Itinerary of Antonine (ed. Wesseling, p. 473) from Durovernum (Canterbury) to Portus Lemanis.]
[2618] C. J. Caesar’s Brit. Expeditions, &c., pp. 43-5, §§ 3-10.
[2619] 26,080, according to Appach; but he assumed that a Roman mile was equal to 1,630 yards, whereas it was really 1,617. Cf. Smith’s Dict. of Greek and Rom. Ant., 3rd ed., ii, 159-60.
[2620] According to Appach, whose arithmetic was a little shaky, 25,840.
[2621] Itin., vii, 1744, p. 132.
[2622] Perambulation of Kent, p. 165.
[2623] Ordnance Survey of England, Sheet 289.
[2624] C. Roach Smith, Ant. of Richborough, &c., p. 255, n. 1.