PHILOLOGICAL COMMENTARY

• Collectively the omens 32.A.81’ and 32.A.83’ are problematic as they have the same protasis but differing apodoses. In fact, while the above is negative, 32.A.83’ appears to be positive.

To resolve the issue, If a City 2 (172-73, *32.9’; 173, n. 9’) revises the above protasis so that a lizard enters a woman’s lap, instead of a man’s. This emendation occurs despite If a City 2 confirmation that the manuscript indeed reads NA ‘man’.

The more recent edition KAL 1 reads (16-17, Rs. 9’ A9) and translates (16-17, 73 Rs. 9’) similarly to above. KAL 1 (75, n. Rs. 9’ + 11’) also notes the repeated protasis and suggests a scribal error has occurred. See, however, the commentary at 32.S.79 as that omen possibly involves a lizard crawling into a woman’s lap. The signs show damage on the hand copy. The sequence of Sultantepe omens would also indicate a correspondence between 32.A.81’ and 32.S.79. This would support emending the above omen’s protasis to have the lizard crawl into a woman’s lap, instead of a man’s. If this were the case, MUNUS.BI in the apodosis would no longer be ‘his wife’, but ‘that woman’. Unfortunately the reading of 32.S.79 is rather tentative, and it is hard to completely reconcile the two omens with each other.

Another possibility is that this is not a scribal error, but that these two omens are meant for two different (unwritten) contexts. Supporting this is the fact that they are in two different sections of the manuscript, on two different sides of a horizontal ruling. A final possibility is that ÚR may also indicate two slight different body parts in each of the omens.

Changing the text to read MUNUS in the protasis instead of NA is to be done with caution. In general, women make only rare appearances in šumma ālu omens and are usually restricted to the apodoses. The Tablet on lizards being, however, one of the few exceptions (Muller 2016, 431–32).

Further and while certainly not common, Assur 81’ and 83’ are not the only instances among the lizard omens of identical protases being repeated among multiple omens with differing apodoses. See, for example, the multiple omens with the apodosis ‘If a lizard falls in front of a man’ discussed at Assur 5. We therefore read the above omen as it has been preserved on the manuscript, but note the similarities to Sultantepe 78 and the possibility of a scribal mistake.

• The sign ÚR, read here as sūnu ‘lap’, refers to the anatomical region and could also be translated as ‘thigh’ or ‘loins’. As the apodosis refers to a man’s wife, it might also be a euphemism for the man’s genitals. See CAD S p. 386 s.v. sūnu A.
• The break after KI.ḪUL ‘mourning’ or ‘mourning ritual’ leaves room for several signs—at least seven or eight. From other omen protases (CAD K p. 350 s.v. kiḫullû 2), it is possible to imagine the original protasis indicated mourning would befall the man’s house: KI.ḪUL ina É NA GÁL-ši ‘there will be mourning in the man’s house’.