PHILOLOGICAL COMMENTARY

The missing part of the apodosis is reconstructed following 38.36', 39', 41', 48', 68'.

Both this and the next line are left unplaced in If a City 2 (they are mentioned in note 63' on 278).

Judging by the space available, very little more than the name of the animal is lost from the beginning of the protases of these two omens. While it is possible that they represent a distinct thematic section otherwise not preserved, or belong to one of the previous sections of chapter 38 (i.e., the lallaru, nappillu, or ṣāṣiru omens), it appears that they follow the same format as omens 38.63'-38.65', each of which concerns a larger animal than those in the other omens of this chapter.  These animals were also grouped with the destructive insects in the lexical text Ura = ḫubullu 14 (see comment to 38.63'). As such, it is perhaps most likely that 38.61'-38.62' belong in the same section as these omens, presumably adding two further names of larger animals. Two plausible candidates are ajarillu 'porcupine' (see somment to 38.64') and muṣaʾʾirānu 'frog', as these are associated in Ura = ḫubullu 14 with the animals mentioned in 38.64'-38.65', but without duplicates this can be no more than supposition, and so it is impossible to restore the animal names here.

If this line of argument is correct, the rulings surrounding these omens do not mark them off as a distinct thematic section, but rather indicate that they have been moved relative to their position in the standard text (for the same usage of rulings on K 06315+, see 38.17'-38.18').  As such, it is possible that 38.61'-38.62' actually belong after 38.65', which would alter the numbering of omens 38.61'-38.65'. In any case, as it is essentially speculative without further information, the present edition simply follows the order of the omens as they appear on K 06315+.