PHILOLOGICAL COMMENTARY

The first verb of the apodosis, iḫarrub, which is preserved only by K 03726+, was left out by the previous edition (If a City 2, 286). It is written in smaller script than TUŠ-ab and slightly higher than the rest of the signs in this line. It may have been added secondarily by the scribe of K 03726+.

Note that If a City 2's incorrect reading of the sign traces on K 06315+ 21' seems to have been strongly influenced by the idea that the line duplicates K 03726+ iv 6 (If a City 2, 286, *38.79'). Upon collation, this arrangement could not be mantained. For K 03726+ iv 6, see now 38.71'.

K 06315+ 21' shows illegible traces of a few other signs following IGI.DU8, but a break running through the line makes them impossible to read. After this line, the upper portion of the tablet breaks off. The omen sequence continues on K 08099, which is joined to K 06315. A white filling material has been inserted inside the break by museum conservation to support the join between K 06315 and K 08099. A few broken signs are visible at the filling's lower end. If a City 2 interprets these signs as belonging to line 21'. Following a fresh inspection of the manuscript, however, it has become clear that that they represent the remains of another line, i.e., K 06315+ 23', while the white filling runs through K 06315+ 22', which is completely lost in the break. This lost line was not counted by If a City 2. K 06315+ 21'-23' can now be demonstrated to duplicate K 03726+ iii 43-47. As elsewhere on K 06315+, the omen triad is enclosed by two horizontal rulings. Our new interpretation of this section explains the difference between the line count in our edition of K 06315+ and that in If a City 2.

The section 38.63'-38.65' is unusual in that each creature is the subject of just a single omen. In each case, the ominous sign is that the animal 'is seen in a man's house'. It is also worth noting that, while the other creatures dealt with in this tablet are insects, those in this section - a type of gecko, a porcupine, and a salamander(?) - are significantly larger, as well as being less well attested in the textual record. Nonetheless, plausible explanations can be given for each animal as a pest, and so there is no major break with the theme of the chapter as a whole.

Of the three creatures  dealt with in this section, the ḫubibītu is probably the most straightforward. This creature has been discussed most recently by De Zorzi (2014, 385-386), concluding, similarly to Landsberger (1934, 116), that it is a kind of gecko. This is based on a series of lexical references equating the ḫubibītu with the pizallūru 'gecko' (for which animal, see chapter 33). On the face of it, this is puzzling, as the gecko is treated at length in chapter 33, and is not an obvious pest. Fortunately, a bilingual proverb offers an explanation (Akkadian Bilingual Proverb collection 2 §ii 13'', see Fechner 2020,469-470):

The interesting point for present purposes is that this demonstrates that the pizallūru was evidently considered a household pest. Just as the flea infests linen, and the sandfly infests reed mats, the gecko infests larders. Although chiefly insectivorous, some species of gecko eat fruit, for which they could conceivably have raided, or been thought to raid, storerooms. This is perhaps reflected in the Sumerian name for the pizallūru, MUŠ.DÍM.GURUN.NA (see 33.1-33.102), which might be literally understood as 'gecko of fruit'. Irrespective of the truth behind the belief, however, the proverb demonstrates that the pizallūru was thought to be a pest, and the lexical entries demonstrate that the ḫubibītu was a kind of pizallūru, and so the reason for its appearance here is explained.