PHILOLOGICAL COMMENTARY

• The remainder of the manuscript’s obverse is fragmentary, only the middle of each line remains.

If a City 2 (182, n. 126’ff) suggests the subject of the above omen (32.A.65) through 32.A.72 (the obverse’s remaining lines) may be a different sort of lizard and does not reconstruct EME.DIR in the protases. If a City 2’s reasoning for this is that 32.A.52’s protasis appears to be the same as the remnants of 32.A.68’s protasis—though with differing apodoses. The manuscript VAT 10167, however, shows no indication of collecting omens from other animals, and there is sufficient room for an adjective modifying the type of lizard, say for example a color; therefore, it seems more appropriate to reconstruct EME.DIR for the final few omens on the manuscripts obverse, as done in KAL 1 (16-17, Vs. 65-71).

• The photograph of VAT 101067 65 shows remnants of three signs on the left-hand side of the line. Only their upper edge remains, but two of the signs’ traces fit with the expected ina É ‘in the house’. The earlier edition If a City 2 (200, *32.126’ C r.65’) only notes traces of two signs and does not reconstruct (182, *32.126’) or translate (183, *32.126’) them.