In the ed. pr. we considered the possibility that the gentilicium of the author should be read as Occius but we now regard Oppius as certain in view of 249.1.
Harvey (1985) suggests re[liquo]s. Although he is correct to observe that r in this hand does not always have an exaggerated descender, we think it impossible to read it here and it does not resemble the r in consularem (line 5) which Harvey compares. We prefer the suggestion that we have a name beginning with Pe- or perhaps Te- (cf. Tertius, 343.ii.21). We may well have a short name followed by milite]s, cf. 300.i.3-4.
For the cohors i Tungrorum see 154.1-2 and above, pp.22-3.
The sense required seems clear. It might be possible to restore stati]m [p]r[a]em[isi (cf. CEL, note ad loc.), but the traces are very ambiguous.
].[.].[.]aum Kal( ) F[ebr: CEL 98. In CEL 98 Cugusi mistakenly quotes the reading of the ed. pr. as ]rum. We could in fact envisage reading ]erum or ]orum, which we would now regard as likely to be the end of a place-name rather than the end of an ordinal number, since these numbers are never fully written out in dates (see the note in the ed. pr.). A more attractive alternative is ].dum and we think it may be possible to read a[d] L[i]ndum (Lincoln), although the use of ad with a place-name does not occur elsewhere in the tablets (see Tab.Vindol.I, p.72). We are now more confident that the month-name was February and take the last trace in the line as the foot of r rather than the top of e in the line below.
For the form of e at the end of uale cf. now 300.ii.12 note. The reading is unquestionably correct (cf. the note to the ed. pr.).
There seem to be sufficient traces for a gentilicium followed by Priscino, which is what we would expect, and for a second line, but the traces are too slight for us to offer a reading.