63 
astic antiquarian unearths the altars at Maryport, would he be 
justified in saying that the ancient camp of Papcastle had been 
found, merely because there is agreement between altars and list? 
Clearly such reasoning would be absurd. 
For a few moments we shall now have to consider the views of 
the other set of antiquarians, who, leaving altars entirely out of 
consideration, agree as to the fact of geographical sequence pure 
and simple. Even this set is not unanimous in its allocations, for 
whilst one portion accepts Watchcross as a permanent station, 
another portion rejects its claims. Thus, zw’ Watchcross as a 
station, we have eighteen stations—and wzthout it, seventeen 
stations—actually on the Wall, the remaining six, in the latter 
case, being drawn across the isthmus from Tynemouth to Maryport. 
These views are shown in the following table :— 
Horsley and Wright. Hodgson. 
Tunnocellum Bowness Tynemouth 
Glannibanta _ Lanchester (Horsley) Lanchester 
A lionts Whitley Castle Whitley Castle 
Bremetenracum Brampton or Plumpton Brampton or Plumpton 
Olenacum Old Carlisle Old Carlisle 
Virosidum Maryport Maryport 
J. Hodgson Hinde (Ach. 42/1. Vol. iv. pt. ii. p. 109,0.8.), however, 
combats this view of supporting stations, placing Bremetenracum 
at Ribchester, Olenacum at Ilkley, and Virosidum at Adel. In 
the face, however, of the unanimous testimony of both sections of 
antiquarians who favour geographical sequence, whether by means 
of altars or otherwise, we can leave this objection without further 
consideration. 
We must therefore at once face the difficulty if we are to hope 
for success. True, the idea of geographical sequence is practically 
conceded ; but how it is to be applied is by no means so 
unanimously agreed upon. Speaking on this point, Dr. Bruce 
(Lapidarium Septentrionale, p. 270), says, “as all stations which 
have been indisputably identified form an unbroken chain 
proceeding from east to west, we should expect the same state of 
