60 
At least two lists will need our consideration. First we shall 
take the list of names on the Rudge cup, and secondly, a selection 
from the Ravenna list. These two lists are :— 
Rudge Cup. Ravenna, 
Banna /Esica 
Amboglanna Banna 
Uxelodum Uxeludiano 
Aballava Avalaria 
Mais Maia 
Fanocedi 
Taking the first of these lists, we may be fairly allowed to draw 
the inference that all the stations were placed somewhat closely 
together. It may, of course, be argued that this is but a gratuitous 
assumption ; still, we must remember that it was the policy of the 
Romans to isolate the cohorts of like nationality, and for very 
obvious reasons. Thus, in all probability, friendships sprang up 
amongst the garrisons of the neighbouring stations. Hence we 
may with tolerable certainty assume that the hunters of Banna, 
whoever they may have been, drew round themselves a set of 
kindred spirits, actuated by the same object, and selected from the 
neighbouring stations. What that object was we can only surmise, 
but Dr. Bruce seems to think that the Rudge Cup was a libation cup. 
If so, and Maryport was the Axelodunum of the Notitia, we might 
well ask what interest the hunters of Banna could have in a station 
so distant as Axelodunum, or how the garrison at the latter station 
could ever join in the libation, the hunt, or whatever else was 
intended ; for we must remember that wherever Banna was—and 
its position is by no means certain—still it was in the neigbour- 
hood of Esica and Amboglanna—a fact very clearly demonstrated. 
The Ravenna list points to the same conclusion. 
Apparently, then, these lists lend no authority to the theory of 
inversion. We may still ask with propriety what use an inverted 
list would be. The Notitia is either a correct list or an incorrect 
one. If correct, it cannot be inverted ; if inverted, it cannot be a 
record of what existed. As the last important Roman list connected 
