advanced with perfect confidence, yet such have been withdrawn 

 as more light dawned on the subject. With all due deference to 

 those authorities who decide in favour of Axelodunum, I am unable 

 to see the drift of the argument by which they have arrived at their 

 conclusion, viz. — that "the altars found prove it to be so;" and 

 hence think it not unprofitable to discuss the question. 



Although many eminent authorities decide for Axelodunum, it 

 must be remembered that there is far from a consensus of opinion 

 on the matter even amongst antiquarians still living, as no less 

 than at least five names have been applied to the station. 



These names, alphabetically arranged, are : — Axelodunum, 

 Glanoventa, Olenacum, Virosidum, Volantium. 



Taking each of these names in order, we shall show to what 

 different places each of them has been applied, together with some 

 of the authorities favouring such allocation. Thus : — 



Axelodunum is placed at Maryport by Professor Hiibner, R. S. 



Ferguson, W. T. Watkin, and 

 W. H. D. Longstaffe. 

 J, „ Hexham by Camden. 



jj „ .S/'fl';/z£'/^ by Mc. Lauchlan. (I am in- 



clined to think this is the 

 proper name.) 

 J I „ Bowness by Godwin. 



„ „ Burgh by Horsley, Wright, Dr. Bennet, 



Hutchinson. 

 ji - „ Watchcross by Maughan. 



jj „ Drumburgh by Hodgson and Dr. 



Hooppell. 

 Speaking of this name. Dr. J. Collingwood Bruce expressly says, 

 "Axelodunum cannot be Maryport; it must, from its order of 

 sequence in the Notitia, be situated on the Wall itself, and east of 

 Bowness."* Whilst, without committing himself to the opinion, 

 he says further, "The idea is beginning to be entertained by 

 some, that Maryport was the Axelodunum of the Notitia."t 



* Trans. Cumb. and West. Antiq. and Arch. Soc, vol. I, p. 175. 

 t Lapidarium Septentrionale, p. 394. 



