PHILOLOGICAL COMMENTARY

• The word na-pu-ul-tu₄ raises a number of difficulties:
  1. As suggested by If a City 2 (170, n. 46’), napultu may be a variant of nuppultu, which is only attested in two places, both lizard omens: 32.A.64 (nu-pùl-tu) and 32.S.69 (nu­-up-pu-ul-tu₄). We translate all three of the omens’ protases as ‘crushed’.
  2. The word nuppultu may be a feminine adjective derived from the verb napālu ‘to dig out, to gouge out eyes’ or ‘to tear down, to demolish’ and modifying ṣurīrittu. This would give the adjective a meaning such as ‘blind’ or ‘damaged’. See CAD N/1, 275 s.v. napālu A 3. See also AHw II, 804 s.v. nuppulu ‘blind; one-eyed’, which references all three lizard omens (32.N.46’, 32.A.64, and 32.S.69).

Along these lines, If a City 2 (171, 32.46’) translates na-pu-ul-tu₄ in the above omen as ‘damaged’. If a City 2 (183, *32.125’) uses the same translation for nu-pùl-tu (32.A.64) in the Assur omen. The Sultantepe omen (nu-up-pu-ul-tu₄) is however left untranslated (189, 32.69).

1. 3. Another possibility is that the verb napālu translates in the D stem nuppulu as ‘to kick up (dust)’ or ‘to turn upside down’. See CAD N/1, 275 s.v. napālu A 4 for attestations from omens with dogs and pigs. The verb, however, appears to require an object. Further, the idea of kicking up dust may be giving a small lizard within the context of Šumma ālu too much agency. Compare as well 32.A.99’, in which a lizard, described using another problematic verb written iš-lu-ú, may also be tossing up dirt.
   4. On the other hand, the bilabials p and b are often interchangeable readings of the same sign, resulting in the alternate normalization nabultu, which the commentary text K 1 (CCP 3.5.30 - Ālu 30-32 (“27-30”)) equates with mittu ‘dead’. K 1 r. 11-12, as emended by the CCP, read as follows:[1]

This juxtaposition of nabultu and mittu leads the AHw II to list nabultu as a hapax legomenon[2] meaning ‘corpse’, based on the Hebrew nĕḇēlā נְבֵלָה ‘carcass, corpse’, and for the CAD N/1, 328 s.v. napultu to translate the above omen as “If a dead lizard […]”.

In a note on the commentary text K 1, If a City 2 (170-171, n. 46’) suggests—and the Cuneiform Commentaries Project (CCP 3.5.30 - Ālu 30-32 (“27-30”), n. 11) agrees—that the equation with mittu may have developed from an ancient scribe misreading the text on VAT 10167 (32.A.64— nu-pùl-tu), or a similarly written text, as NU bal-ṭú ‘not alive’. Nötscher’s (1929, 186 KAR 382+393 Rs. 64) edition of VAT 10167 (32.A.64) also reads the line so, translating the signs as ‘no (longer) living' "nicht (mehr) lebende". See also CAD B, 68 s.v. balṭu where 32.A.64 is read NU ba-al-ṭú and translated as ‘sick’. Compare, however, 32.A.54, where a dead lizard is described as such with the expected mi-it-tu₄.

We follow KAL 1 (74, n. 64) and reject Nötscher’s reading since the variant spelling on SU 1952, 242 r. 31 (32.S.69— nu-up-pu-ul-tu₄) does not sustain it. If a City 2 suggests that the original misreading (NU bal-tú instead of nu-pùl-tu) was carried forward in the commentary texts despite the incongruous variant spelling on the Sultantepe manuscript.

1. 5. Finally, as the third radical is an l directly preceding the t of the feminine form, it may have originally been a sibilant. Using this reasoning, the CAD proposes that both napultu and nuppultu may be derivations of napāṣu ‘to crush, to smash, to smite’ in the D stem. See CAD N/1, 328 s.v. napultu and CAD N/1, 287 s.v. napāṣu A 7.

The most recent edition of the Assur omens, KAL 1 (16-17, 72, Vs. 64), translates nu-pùl-tu in 32.A.64 as ‘trampled’

[Wenn eine] zertretene [Eidech]se auf der Hausschwelle eines Mannes gesehen wird: Dieses Haus wird … […].

As the suggestion in If a City 2 of an ancient misreading is plausible (comment 4), interpreting napultu as a feminine adjective based on the verbs napālu ‘to blind’ (comment 1) or napāṣu ‘to crush’ (comment 5) seems the most appropriate way forward. It is difficult to imagine how one would determine if a lizard is blind. We therefore follow KAL 1 and the CAD’s proposal of an adjective based on napāṣu and suggest the tentative translation ‘crushed’.

• In line K 03730+ 31, the scribe has placed a mark often used as a Glossenkeil in between DÙ-eš and e­-ne-­eš. Collation shows the signs are written tightly together, but they do not appear much smaller or interlinear as one would expect in the case of a Glossenkeil introducing commentary. If a City 2 (193, 32.46’) interprets the three signs following the mark as a phonetic explanation for DÙ­-eš ‘construction’ and therefore reads e-ne-eš as e-pi₅-eš. As the reading ­pi₅ for the sign NE, however, would be unusual for this period, we read the preferred -ne in its place. This permits the reading enēš ‘dilapidation of’, from the verb enēšu ‘to become weak’, for the section following the Glossenkeil-type mark. In our interpretation, the mark creates an alternate, either-or, apodosis ‘either construction of the house or dilapidation of the house’ instead of a gloss to explain the word ‘construction’. See CAD E, 167 s.v. enēšu 1c for ‘dilapidation of the house’.

• Collation of K 03730+ 31 shows that the sign read as ku by If a City 2 (193, 32.46’, Ex(1)) is likely incorrect.

Traces on the manuscript show two sets of two parallel wedges, similar to the beginning of the sign UG, but these are attached to something like a broken KU. We leave the sign uninterpreted as ˹x˺. Collation also allows the reading of three further signs before the second damaged section of the line: ina ˹É˺^? ˹NA˺^?. These were left uninterpreted as a single sign x in If a City 2.