PHILOLOGICAL COMMENTARY

• We reconstruct ŠUB-ut in the protasis from 32.A.8 as the same apodoses appears there and it is not a common one in the corpus. See the commentary there.

We follow If a City 2 (168, *32.29’) and reconstruct the protasis to have the lizard fall ana EGIR NA ‘behind a man’. If a City 2 does not explicitly state the reason for its reconstruction. Our reconstruction come from 32.N.31’, whose protasis involves a lizard falling behind a man and then flopping about. Line K 02708+ i 9’ preserves the complete protasis of 32.N.31’ and is ruled, which can indicate the end of a sequence of similarly constructed protases.

The fact that 32.N.30’s (K 02708+ i 8’) protasis, as reconstructed from omens in the Assur and Sultantepe recensions, also features a lizard falling behind a man supports the idea of a sequence running from 32.N.29’ (K 02708+ i 7’) to 32.N.31’ (K 2708+ i 9’) is the fact that. Nevertheless, as K 02708+ i 9’ is the only complete protasis in our proposed sequence, we cannot exclude the possibility that the lizard falls somewhere else in relation to a man. 

• Collation shows that the final sign of K 02708+ i 7’ is visible, though very damaged, and is likely -šú, not -šu as suggested by If a City 2 (168, *32.29’).