[ 20 5 ] 
anticnt Vi ndomis, nor to lie within the Bounds of 
the Segontiaci ; but takes it for Calleva Atrebatum (a), 
mentioned likewife in the Itinerary (b). From the 
Difficulty therefore of fixing the Situation of the Se- 
gontiaciyXb'i. Clarke contents hinifelf with only placing 
the Word incertum againft their Name (c). But had 
this fhort Inscription, as imperfed as it is, offered 
itfelf to thefe learned Writers, none of them could 
have been at any further Doubt, either in placing 
Vindomis, and not Calleva (which belonged to the 
Atrebates ) where Silchejler now Hands,- or including 
this Town within the Limits of the Segontiaci. The 
Want whereof has likewife occafioned them no lefs 
to differ in fettling fome other neighbouring Stations, 
which by this Help might have been fixed with 
much more Agreement and Certainty. 
I would beg Leave further to obferve, with regard 
to the Perfons concerned in this Dedication, that 
Mr. Camden has publifhed the following Infcription 
found long ago at Silchejler , MEMORIAE FL. 
VICTOR1NAE T. TAM. VICTOR CONIVX 
POSVIT (d) j wherein the abbreviated Names T. 
TAM. are read by Mr. Horjley TITVS TAMPHI- 
LVS (e); the latter of which occurs indeed in the 
Fafti Con fnl ares, but as a Cognomen , M. BAEBIVS 
TAMPHILVS. Wherefore I am more inclined to 
think, it fhould be read TAMMONIVS, as it has there 
the Place of a Family Name 5 and that probably he was 
the 
(a) Brit. Rom. p. 457. (£) It. vri. xit. (?) TnJ„ 
propior. nom. apud Caef. {J) Bricann. p. 19 6. edit. 1607, 
(?) Brit Rom. p. 332. 
