PHILOLOGICAL COMMENTARY

• The first omen of the Nineveh recension is rather complex for several reasons: It flows over several lines. It is incomplete on all three attested manuscripts. And, because of its use of the precative in the middle of the omen, the omen includes a line taken from a ritual. Finally, the omen’s interpretation also involves multiple problems discussed below.

The commentary below will address the individual manuscripts before considering the reconstruction and interpretation of the omen as a whole.

Manuscript readings

• Manuscript K 06912+ preserves the largest portion of the above omen:
  1. The reconstructed beginning of K 06912+ 1 comes from the catchline on BM 41586 r. 5’ and is the standard beginning for lizard omens. The reconstructed ending of K 06912+ 1 comes from K 03730+ 1. The previous edition If a City 2 (190, 32.1, Ex(3)1) reads K 06912+ 1 mostly as above.
  2. If a City 2 (166, n. 1, Ex(3)) interprets K 06912+ 2 as an interpolation between the lines K 06912+ 1 and K 06912+ 3. This results in If a City 2 (190, 32.1) omitting K 06912+ 2 from the above omen’s score. Line K 06912+ 2 is read in a note (If a City 2, 166, n. 1 Ex(3)) as

                      [… EME.ŠI]D.MEŠ SUD.MEŠ SA5.MEŠ IGI.DU8 ša2 l[i? …]

Collation of the line shows a series of vertical wedges on the manuscript’s left-hand side. There appears to be the tail-end of a rather faint horizontal wedge running through the vertical wedges. While the remnants would theoretically allow for both the reading ŠID and KUN, the position of the horizontal fits closer to KUN and reading the traces so means the line can be integrated as part of the omen: KUN.MEŠ ‘the tails’ (K 06912+ 2) refers back to the ˹2˺ KUN.MEŠ-šá ‘with two tails’ at the beginning of the omen (K 06912+ 1).

The sign at the end of K 06912+ 2, on the broken right-hand edge, does not resemble LI as read in If a City 2. Upon collation, the remnants in K 06912+ 2 show two short horizontal wedges written closely on top of each other. To their right are further wedges that unfortunately continue onto a missing fragment. The remnants resemble those at the beginning of K 03730+ 2. At both the end of K 06912+ 2 and the beginning of K 03730+ 2, the remnants fit with the reading GAZ, interpreted as dâku ‘to kill’, which we suggest for both manuscripts. See also the commentary below on K 03730+.

• 3. Collation also shows that there are minimal remnants of a sign at the beginning of K 06912+ 3. The remnants allow for the reading KUN, which mirrors K 03730+ 2, despite the change in the lizard’s gender (KUN-su versus [KU]N-sà) between the two manuscripts. This sign was omitted from the line’s reading in If a City 2 (190, 32.1, Ex(3)3), though the previous edition otherwise reads the line as above.

For the reconstruction of GAR in the break at the end of K 06912+ 3, see the commentary on the omen’s interpretation below.

1. 4. Reconstructing U4 ‘day’ in the break at the beginning of K 06912+ 4 is suggested from the comparable 32.S.60. The signs GAR-tu4 are read syllabically šá-tu4 in If a City 2 (190, 32.1, Ex(3)4) and are tentatively translated (167, 32.1) to mean ‘in that year(?)’. As in 32.S.60, we suggest reading GAR-tu4 to be interpreted as the feminine stative of šakānu ‘to place’ with a subjunctive ending. The relative clause is introduced by U4 ‘day’ (reconstructed in the break). See below the first commentary under ‘omen reconstruction and interpretation’, for If a City 2’s translation.

For the reconstruction of TE in K 06912+ 4 and the transliteration of 32.S.60, see the comments on manuscript K 03730+ 3.

• The omen runs over the first three lines of manuscript K 03730+, and though the manuscript is missing large portions of all three, reconstruction is at least partially possible based on the two other manuscripts.
  1. The protasis’s reconstruction is from the catchline on BM 41586 r. 5’. The ending of K 03730+ 1 is taken from K 06912+ 2. The manuscript at the beginning of K 03730+ 1 shows abrasion, and the end of the line is broken away, leaving more than enough room for the reconstruction.
  2. The preserved section of K 03730+ 2 begins with a broken sign, read as x in If a City 2 (190, 32.1, Ex(1)2). Upon collation, the remnants suggest GAZ ‘to kill’. With this reading, the line’s second sign IGI can be read as the enclitic pronoun referring to the lizard, that is GAZ-ši. See also the commentary on K 06912+ 2 above.

The missing right-hand portion of K 03730+ 2 is large and would allow for quite a few signs to be reconstructed. We reconstruct ina SU7 šá É-šú GAR? … from K 06912+ 3. For the reconstruction of GAR, see the commentary on the omen’s interpretation below. The next line, K 03730+ 3, begins with [d]ALAD u dLAMMA, which is also attested in the middle of K 06912+ 4. For these reasons, it is possible that the signs at the beginning of K 06912+ 4 should also be reconstructed at the end of K 03730+ 2.

1. 3. The end of K 03730+ 3 has been reconstructed following K 06912+ 4.

After the manuscript’s large break, K 03730+ 3 has minimal remnants of a final sign, too fragmentary to read with any certainty. Though If a City 2 (190, 32.1, Ex(1)3) does not read the sign, we follow the previous edition’s (166, 32.1) reconstruction and read TE ‘to approach’, based on the similar omen 32.S.60:

32.S.60
[If a lizard th]at has two tails is repeatedly seen in a man’s house — favorable: may he who sees (it), take its tail (and) may he place it [on the threshing floo]r of his house; on the day!d when [it]s? t[ail]? has been placed in that house, a šedu and lamassu protective spirit will not approach the man’s house.

[DIŠ EME.ŠID š]á 2 KUN.MEŠ-šá ina É NA IGI.IGI šá-li-mu IGI KUN-sa TI-qí [ina SU]7 É­-šú GAR ˹U4˺! K[UN?-s]a? ina É šu-a-tu4 GAR-tu4 dALAD u dLAMMA ina É NA NU TE

• Manuscript BM 41586 is a commentary text on scorpion omens (Šumma ālu Tablet 31). It has been included in the above omen’s score as the manuscript’s ending rubric quotes the protasis of Tablet 32’s first omen, a so-called ‘catchline’. The remnants of the line’s last signs are written on the edge of the manuscript and are damaged. They were also collated by the Cuneiform Commentaries Project.[1]
  1. Collation reveals that If a City 2’s (166, n. 1, BM 41586) placement of the catchline in BM 41586 r. 4 is incorrect. The catchline is to be found in line r. 5’, as is also read by the Cuneiform Commentaries Project (Jiménez 2014 CCP 3.5.31 - Ālu 31 (“29”), r 5'). Further If a City 2 interprets the sign read as ina above as a broken IGI and omits the subsequent sign read as -˹mir˺? above. This has little bearing on the apodosis’s translation.

Omen reconstruction and interpretation

• As If a City 2 does not provide separate reconstructions for variant lines, its reconstructed transliterations and translations can differ significantly from the current edition, making comparisons difficult.

• 1. The most significant difference in interpretation is due to If a City 2 (166, n. 1, Ex(3)) understanding K 06912+ 2 to be an interpolation, whereas we have demonstrated that the line is in fact part of the above omen. See also the comments above on manuscript K 06912+.
  2. If a City 2 (166, n. 1) also reconstructs šá-li-mu at the end of K 03730+ 1 on the suggestion of Leichty. This appears to come from 32.S.60, which, because of its similarities to the above omen, was also used to reconstruct parts of K 06912+ and K 03730+ above. The omen 32.S.60 has šá-li-mu immediately after the protasis’s verb IGI.IGI is ‘repeatedly seen’. See the commentary to manuscript K 03730+ for the entire Sultantepe omen. In the present case, however, the suggested restoration with šá-li-mu simply does not reflect the state of K 03730+ 1 which has a large break after IGI-ir and must have more text missing (see the score above).
  3. The negative marker NU before TE at the end of the omen comes from 32.S.60. Although the two omens are not exactly the same, the similarities are striking, and there is more than enough room for a NU in the breaks of both K 03730+ and K 06912+.
• The reading of SÙ as arāku ‘to be(come) long’ for the third sign on K 06912+ 2 is attested in physiognomic omen texts. See CAD A/2, 223 s.v. arāku. The more common logographic writing for arāku, however, is GÍD.DA; for an example see 32.N.2.
  1. The signs SÙ.MEŠ (K 06912+ 2) were also interpreted as meaning ‘long’ in If a City 2 (166, n. 1, Ex(3)):

      […] long(?) red lizards are seen, which […]

Note that If a City 2 mistakenly reconstructs EME.ŠI]D ‘lizards’ instead of KU]N.MEŠ (see above) in front of SÙ.MEŠ, thus necessitating the question mark. Applied to tails, as suggested above, there is nothing questionable about the translation ‘long’ for SÙ.MEŠ.

• The reading GAR ‘to put, to place’ has been suggested as a possible reconstruction in both variants for what the man should do with the lizard’s tail ‘on his house’s threshing floor’. The verb not only makes sense contextually but also forms of šakānu (GAR) are common in other omen texts with maškānu ‘threshing floor’. There is the obvious play on the common verbal roots of the two words. See CAD M/1, 371 s.v. maškānu. The most salient reason remains however that the similar 32.S.60 also uses GAR.
• The grammatical gender of lizards in Akkadian is flexible from one ancient source to the other, sometimes even being used interchangeably within one manuscript. The manuscripts here show this nicely:

Manuscript BM 41586 (r. 5’: KUN.MEŠ-šú) uses a masculine possessive suffix to refer to the lizard, whereas K 03730+ changes from the masculine (1: KUN.MEŠ-šú, 2: KUN-su) to the feminine (2: G]AZ‑ši), and K 06912+ (1: KUN.MEŠ-šá, 3: [KU]N-sà) uses a feminine suffix. In the current edition, unless the gender is specifically indicated—through syllabic spelling or pronouns—the Akkadian masculine for lizard ṣurāru has been used. The feminine of lizard can be normalized as ṣurīrītu or ṣurīrittu. We have chosen the latter to match the orthography of those omens that spell the animal syllabically. The variants of the above omen differ in the gender of lizards.

• For other omens with lamassu or šedu protective spirits, see 32.N.20, Sm 0710+ 9’, 32.A.71, 32.S.58, and 32.S.60.

[1] Photos of manuscript BM 41586 can be viewed at https://ccp.yale.edu/P461205.