Chapter: 32 - Lizards

Šumma ālu’s chapter 32[1] collects omens on the behavior and characteristics of lizards. The current online edition differs significantly from that found in If a City 2 (p. 164–201).

One of the most interesting and challenging aspects of chapter 32 is that the available source tablets cannot be easily reconciled with one another and are likely based on differing source texts. Therefore, in the edition that follows, the texts that these tablets preserve are grouped into three versions, or recensions,[2] as was done in If a City 2. Each recension preserves differing—though there are overlaps—omens and omen sequences. They are named for the source tablet’s geographic find sites: Nineveh, Assur, and Sultantepe.

I was able to collate the tablets in the Nineveh recension at the British Museum in February 2020. This allowed me to clarify and correct sign readings and line counts as found in previous editions. The sequence of the omens, especially in the Nineveh recension, has been revised in light of the new readings and by placing previously unplaced omens. Additionally, a new join[3] was discovered between the reverse of K 03730+ and K 10792 (see also chapter 33 on geckos), confidently placing two previously unplaced lizard omens within chapter 32. Finally, the Assur recension now includes three instead of two tablets: the third tablet, VAT 09906, was published in KAL 1 (18, p. 75–77, p. 172–175).

Below we first present a description of the source tablets which were used to reconstruct chapter 32. We then move onto the content of the chapter’s omens—which behaviors and which characteristics of lizards are mentioned in the protases and what topics are common in the associated apodoses. The discussion concludes with an overview of the various symbolic associations attached to lizards both within and beyond the context of Šumma ālu.

Sources

Though a complete copy of Šumma ālu’s chapter 32 has not yet been found, the text is partially preserved on eleven mostly fragmentary, clay tablets.[4] Seven tablets originate from Nineveh and date to the seventh century BCE: K 02708+; two physically joining tablets K 03730+ and K 10792; K 06912+; as well as K 09057.1 and K 09057.2, which do not physically join but belong to the same originally four-column tablet; and Sm 0710+). Three tablets originate from Assur and date to the end of the second millennium (KAL 1, p. 4; KAL 1 13, p. 16–18): VAT 09793 (KAL 1 17), VAT 10167 (KAL 1 16), and VAT 09906 (KAL 1 18). Finally, one almost complete tablet originates from Sultantepe (The excavation number is SU 1952, 242, but the tablet is better known as STT 323, where it was first published.). Although the Sultantepe tablet, being Neo Assyrian, is contemporaneous with the tablets from Nineveh, the text it preserves bears a closer resemblance to the obverse of the Middle-Assyrian tablet VAT 10167 from Assur.

The above tablets are all texts that preserve omens taken directly from Šumma ālu. There are however additional ancient sources, or related texts, which can aid in reconstructing individual omens. For chapter 32, related texts fall into two relevant categories: ancient commentary texts and omens from other omen series.[5]

Among the numerous ancient commentary texts on Šumma ālu, two are relevant tablets to chapter 32. The first commentary text, BM 41586, actually provides commentary on Šumma ālu’s chapter 31 (scorpions), but its ending rubric partially preserves chapter 32’s incipit. This helps to reconstruct chapter 32’s opening omen (32.N.1). The second commentary text, K.1, on the other hand, comments on multiple chapters from Šumma ālu, including chapter 32. Although this K.1 has 28 lines relating to lizard omens, only a few lines can confidently be associated with known lizard omens from chapter 32. The unplaced lines may refer to omens no longer preserved and can be found at the Yale Cuneiform Commentaries Project (CCP 3.5.30a lines 44–70) website. Both commentary texts are discussed in the philological commentary to the relevant omens in our online edition.

The final related text is the Mesopotamian medical-diagnostic omen series Sakkikû (SA.GIG), which collects omens relating to the fate or cause of a patient’s illness. Sakkikû’s second chapter includes a number of animal omens,[6] four of which are lizard omens partially preserved on four clay tablets (Heeßel 2001, 32–33 omens 44–47). One of these omens helps to reconstruct 32.S.34.[7]

Due to the fragmentary state of the ancient sources preserving chapter 32 as well as the variations in the omen sequence preserved from one clay tablet to the next, it is difficult to reconstruct a single, standard sequence for chapter 32. Despite all the difficulties, however, the various tablets and sequences preserved on them provide a glimpse into the myriad of methods ancient scribes had at hand in creating omen lists and reflect the richness of ancient scholarship.

Recensions, or the multiple versions of chapter 32

Complicating the reconstruction of chapter 32 is the fact that the eleven fragmentary clay tablets preserving lizard omens differ from one another in terms of not only which omens they preserve, but also in terms of the sequence in which omens are presented. As mentioned above, because the text preserved on clay tablets originating from one geographical site more closely resemble one another in terms of content and omen sequences than the texts preserved on tablets originating from the other sites, this online edition follows If a City 2 and splits chapter 32’s omens into three textual recensions[8] based on the source tablet’s or tablets’ geographical origin: Nineveh, Assur, and Sultantepe.

The current edition’s naming conventions for omens indicates not only to which chapter of Šumma ālu the omen belongs, but, in the case of the lizard omens, also to which recension. An example of an omen name in chapter 32 is 32.N.15. The first number, 32, indicates the omen is from the 32nd chapter in Šumma ālu. The letter corresponds to one of the three recensions: N for Nineveh, A for Assur, and S for Sultantepe. The final number indicates the omen’s sequence within each respective recension. In the example, 32.N.15 is the 15th omen in the Nineveh recension. The omen 32.S.52 is the 52nd omen in the Sultantepe recension and so forth. Just as in other chapters of this edition, an apostrophe, for example 32.A.73’, indicates that there is a gap in the omen sequence. There are special cases within the Nineveh and Assur recensions which necessitate different naming conventions. These are discussed below in the relevant recensions.

Despite the differences between the three recensions, many overlaps exist. Identical or extremely similar omens might be preserved in multiple recensions. Occasionally sequences of omens are preserved in multiple recensions. Connections and similarities between the recensions have been noted within the philological commentary.

Nineveh All of the manuscripts in the Nineveh recension are Neo-Assyrian (first millennium BCE) tablets associated with Assurbanipal’s library. I was able to collate all of the Nineveh tablets in February 2020 in the British Museum.

All of the tablets from Nineveh preserve similar and often identical omens, with the occasional added or elided omen when comparing one tablet to the other. A few of the tablets, however, show significant differences in the sequencing of omens. We follow the sequence on K 02708+ for the Nineveh recension.

The differences between the individual Nineveh tablets highlight some additional methods scribes used to organize omen sequences. For this reason, the omens preserved on the following tablets have not only been included as part of each omen’s score in the main Nineveh sequence, but the entirety of the texts preserved on each tablet has also been presented as a separate edition: the reverse of K 03730+, the non-physical join K 09057.1 (+) K 09057.2, and Sm 0710+. Omens in these separate editions, have a separate naming convention discussed under each tablet below.

K 02708+ is a four-column tablet which preserves 35 omens, making it the second-largest collection of lizard omens among the Nineveh tablets. Nevertheless, the tablet is incomplete. Both the top and bottom edges are broken away as is much of the reverse. Columns i and ii contain 19 and 10 omens, respectively. Column iii is missing, and column iv only preserves a few partial protases.

This online edition follows If a City 2 and uses the omen sequence persevered on K 02708+, starting with the 23nd Nineveh omen, or 32.N.23’, as the standard sequence for the Nineveh recension. The beginning of K 02708+ is missing, but the next largest Nineveh tablet, K 03730+ (see below), preserves the chapter’s incipit along with a further 21 omens, forming the first 22 omens in the Nineveh recension. There is a gap of unknown size—though the gap is likely small, around five to ten omens—between 32.N.22 (corresponds to line K 03730+ 21) and 32.N.23’ (corresponds to line K 02708+ i 1’). The omens preserved on K 2708+ (32.N.23’–31’, none of which are preserved on K 03730+) are much too fragmentary to be certain, but they do bear some similarities to omens in the Assur recension (32.A.8–12; 32.A.19–21). K 03730+ (line 22) rejoins the sequence on K 02708+ (line i 10’) in 32.N.32’, which also happens to have the same protasis as 32.A.30.

The obverse of K 03730+ is generally well-preserved and has 41 omens. A piece is missing from the tablet’s upper-right quadrant, and the obverse breaks off after 43 lines. The tablet’s upper-edge is partially preserved as is chapter 32’s incipit. While the obverse consists entirely of lizard omens and is in a relatively good state of preservation, the reverse is almost completely broken away, and the remaining lines can be placed in both chapter 32 and chapter 33 (geckos). The first 10 lines of K 03730+’s reverse preserve only the last few signs of each line, but are likely lizard omens continued from the obverse of the manuscript. During the visit to the British Museum in February 2020, De Zorzi joined the reverse of K 03730+ with K 10792. The smaller tablet K 10792 was first published by If a City 2 (p. 202–22 Ex(6)) as an excerpt text in chapter 33 (geckos). The first six lines of K 10792 were previously unplaced and thought to be possible lizard omens (If a City 2, p. 205 n. 17’). After the join, only lines K 10792 1’ and 2’ can be placed in chapter 32 (lizards). Lines K 10792 3’–6’, meanwhile, have now been shown to be part of chapter 33 (geckos).

Starting with line K 03730+ r 11’, K 10792 lies atop K 03730+’s reverse, near the larger manuscript’s right-hand side. Both K 03730+ r 12’ and K 10792 2’ preserve part of the same ruling that demarcates the transition between lizard and gecko omens. Lines K 03730+ r 11’–12’ align with lines K 10792 1’–2’; though they are fragmentary. From line K 03730+ r 13’ (aligns with K 10792 3’) until the tablet’s bottom edge (partially preserved), the omens are taken from chapter 33 on geckos. The remains of the lizard omens on the reverse of K 03730+ are so fragmentary that they cannot be placed. Therefore, the reverse of K 03730+ has been presented separately in this edition. To reflect this, a different convention is used to refer to the individual omens. The omen names begin with 32.N as all of the other Nineveh tablets in chapter 32. As the omens are not placed, their name is followed not by their order in the sequence, but instead the tablet’s sigla and the line number the omen is found on. For example, 32.N K 03730 r.2’ can be found on second line on the reverse of K 03730+.

K 06912+ is a smaller excerpt text with 21 lines preserving 11 lizard omens on the obverse.[9] Part of the obverse’s top edge has been preserved, but all the other edges are missing as is much of the reverse. The reverse has 10 lines with 9 omens. During collation, it was noted that If a City 2 omits the extremely fragmentary first line of the reverse, which results in differences between this edition’s line count and that in If a City 2.

Though they do not physically join together, fragments K 09057.1 and K 09057.2 (museum numbers K.9057 and K.12180+) are two pieces of the same tablet: originally a four-column Neo-Assyrian excerpt text. Lizard omens are clearly preserved in column i, lines K 09057.2 i 1’–13’. Note that during collation, it was revealed that the fragmentary line K 09057.2 i 1’ had been omitted in If a City 2’s (p. 164–201) edition of chapter 32. It has been included here, resulting in different line counts between the current online edition and that in If a City 2. Due to the positioning of K 9057.1 and K 09057.2, in relation to each other, the traces of apodoses visible on K 9057.1 i 1’–8’ are also likely to have been lizard omens and have, therefore, been presented in the current edition. None of these traces were included in If a City 2’s edition of chapter 32. The rest of column i on K 09057.2 and the remaining three columns on fragments K 9057.1 and K 09057.2 collect omens from chapters 33–36 (geckos and skinks, mongooses, and small rodents) (see If a City 2, p. 164, Ex(4)).

When omens on K 9057.1 (+) K 09057.2 or are close parallels to omens preserved on other Nineveh tablets, these have been included in the scores of the main Nineveh omen sequence. The omen sequence preserved on K 9057.1 (+) K 09057.2 reflects unique methods of organizing omens and differs from the sequence on other manuscripts.[10] To preserve this unique sequence, the omen sequence on K 9057.1 (+) K 09057.2 has also been presented separately in this online edition. These omens are named 32.N followed by the tablet sigla, column, and line number. For example, 32.N K 0957.1 i 1’ is the omen found on K 9057.1 i 1’, and 32.N K 0957.2 i 7’ is the omen preserved on K 09057.2 i 7’.

The final Nineveh tablet is Sm 0710+. It preserves just under 20 lizard omens on the obverse. The reverse is completely broken away as are the top and bottom edges. Part of the right-hand edge is preserved. Although the left-hand edge is missing, the protases of a few omens are almost complete, which makes it possible to estimate how many signs are missing. Several of the omens preserved on Sm 0710+ show parallels to omens preserved on other Nineveh tablets and have been included in the relevant omen scores, but similar to K 9057.1 (+) K 09057.2, the sequence of the omens on Sm 0710+ is different. Therefore, the omen sequence on Sm 0710+ has also been presented separately in this online edition. These omens are named 32.N followed by the tablet sigla and line number. For example, 32.N Sm 0710+ 1’.

Assur The three manuscripts from Assur are all Middle-Assyrian (second millennium BCE) tablets, and as such they preserve an earlier version of the lizard omens than the Neo-Assyrian tablets from Nineveh. The current edition’s readings of these tablets largely follow Heeßel’s recent edition (KAL 1 16-18, p. 67–77) with a few exceptions.

Two of the tablets, VAT 09793 and VAT 10167, duplicate the same text. The larger tablet, VAT 10167, is almost complete and preserves, partially or in whole, 134 lizard omens. A small part of the tablet’s top edge is preserved. The bottom edge is entirely broken away, creating a gap in the omen sequence after 32.A.72. The smaller tablet, VAT 09793, only preserves 18 lizard omens—all of which are also preserved on the reverse of VAT 10167.

Hand copies of these two Assur tablets can be found in KAR 2 (Ebeling 1923). VAT 10167 is KAR 382 (p. 333–38) and VAT 09793 is KAR 393 (p. 357). Additionally, there is a photograph of VAT 10167 available on CDLI (P282620). Note, we follow KAL 1 (16, p. 13) in determining the reverse and obverse of VAT 10167. This differs from the tablet’s presentation in KAR, on CDLI, and in If a City 2 (p. 172–83; p. 194–201).

Much of VAT 10167’s obverse and the Sultantepe tablet, SU 1952, 242 (STT 323), show remarkable similarities in both the omens they preserve and their sequence. Both manuscripts however also preserve omens not found on the other. Although the philological comments to each omen do draw attention to similarities and parallels between the recensions, it can be helpful to examine the Assur and Sultantepe recensions together. See also the discussion under ‘Structure’, which specifically compares the two recensions. While there are some parallels between the Assur omens and those preserved on the Nineveh tablets, they are less frequent.

The third manuscript from Assur, VAT 09906, is a six-column tablet, of which only column ii is well-preserved (KAL 1 18, p. 13). As the beginning of VAT 09906 is broken away and the remaining preserved omens all use a ditto sign MIN to indicate the animal referred to in the protases, the animal in the omens on VAT 09906 is no longer explicitly named. Nevertheless, KAL 1 (18, p. 13) notes, a few of the omens show similarities to lizard omens found on the other Assur tablets. For example, 32.A VAT 09906 v 12' appears to be the same omen as 32.A.50:

32.A VAT 09906 v 12'

˹DIŠ˺ ˹MIN˺ (EME.DIR) ina UGU NA DU.DU U₄.MEŠ-šu GÍD.DA.MEŠ <<ana>> INIM SIG₅ GAR-š[ú]
If ditto (= a lizard) repeatedly walks about on a man — his days will be long; a good message will be established for hi[m].

32.A.50

DIŠ EME.DIR ina UGU NA DU.DU-ak U₄.MEŠ-šú GÍD.DA.MEŠ INIM SIG₅-tì GAR-šu
If a lizard repeatedly walks about on a man — his days will be long; a good message will be established for him.

Because of these overlaps and similarities, we follow KAL 1 (18, p. 13) and place VAT 09906 in chapter 32. The tablet was first published and edited in KAL 1 and therefore not included in If a City 2. Hand copies of VAT 09906 are in KAL 1 (18, p. 172–75), but only columns ii through v are transliterated and translated because columns i and vi are very fragmentary. Nevertheless, in this online edition, we have included attempted transliterations from both column i and vi based on the hand copies in KAL 1.

Sultantepe The Sultantepe tablet known as STT 323 (excavation number: SU 1952, 242) is a largely intact one-column tablet with parts of all four edges preserved. Unfortunately photographs of the tablet are not available. Readings were done from the hand copy prepared in the mid-20th century (Gurney and Hulin 1964, STT 323). This is the only manuscript from chapter 32 to preserve a colophon, which reveals the omens were copied from a large tablet (DUB.GAL.LI) from Babylon. One omen, 32.S.60, however, shows that there may have been West Semitic influences on the orthography. See the philological commentary at 32.S.60 on šá-li-mu. As noted above, the Sultantepe tablet and the obverse of the Assur tablet VAT 10167 are remarkedly similar in content and sequence. See also the discussion below under ‘Structure’ which compares the Assur and Sultantepe recensions for examples.

Structure

The most distinguishing feature of chapter 32’s structure is its three recensions. The protases of the omens from all three recensions exhibit thematic similarities. For example, all three include omens about lizards falling onto a man or a man’s body parts such as hands and feet or onto an item of furniture. Lizards are also seen or found dead in beer and water in all three recensions. Lizards make noise or hiss in both the Nineveh and Assur recensions. And all three recensions feature omens in which lizards reproduce in and around the home.

Nevertheless, the protases of each recensions’ omens do exhibit thematic preferences. For example, although protases involving the color of animals are common in several chapters of Šumma ālu (Hirvonen 2016), lizards are only described by their coloring in the Nineveh recension. For example:

32.N.43’

DIŠ EME.ŠID BABBAR ina É NA GÁL-ši BIR-aḫ É
If there is a white lizard in a man’s house — dispersal of the house.

Lizards are perhaps one of the animal kingdom’s best-known examples of autotomy—the ability to break off an appendage—and regeneration. Yet, there is only one omen that refers to a lizard without a tail:

32.N.12

DIŠ EME.ŠID šá KUN NU TUK-ú I[GI]-ir DAM NA DUMU.MEŠ ma-’a-du-ti Ù.TU-ma NINDA ana KA-šú NU GAR-an
If a lizard without a tail [is s]een — the man’s wife will bear (so) many children that there won’t be any bread in his mouth.

Lizards with multiple tails,[11] however, appear in all three recensions. For example:

32.N.15

DIŠ EME.ŠID BABBAR šá 2 KUN.MEŠ-[šú …] x É BI ÚKU-in
If a white lizard with two tails […] … — that house will become poor.

VAT 09906 v 8’–11’ (Assur)

[DIŠ MIN (EME.DIR) šá] 2 KUN.MEŠ-šá ina É NA IGI.DU₈ KUN-[sa]^? x x x ma ina i-x x šú x x [u]š­te­ṣi^? x […]

šum₄-ma GAZ-ma il-te-qú [(x)] GIZKIM SIG₅ IGI x [(x)]
šum₄-ma GAZ-ma NU il-te-qú GIZKIM ḪUL IGI x [(x)]

[If ditto (= a lizard) with] two tails is seen in a man’s house, [its]^? tail … and from his^? … escapes^? … […].
If he kills (it) and one takes (it) […] — he will have a good sign … […].

If he kills (it), but no one takes (it) — he will have a bad sign ... […].

32.S.64

DIŠ EME.ŠID šá 2 KUN.MEŠ-šá ana UGU NA ŠUB-ut NA BI KI.GUB-šu IGI
If a lizard with two tails falls onto a man — that man will find his position.

The vast majority of chapter 32’s omens feature a lizard as the subject of the protasis. The Assur recension, however, also has a section of omens (32.A.89’ through 32.A.95’) in which a man, not a lizard, is the subject. For example:  

32.A.89’ 

DIŠ NA ina SILA ina DU-šú EME.DIR Ù.TU IGI.DU₈ NÍG.ŠU KALA.GA EN-el
If a man, while walking in the street, sees a lizard giving birth — he will claim the property of an important person.

Mesopotamian divination often reflects an interest in binary pairings (Guinan 1996, 6–8). Omen pairs in which the protases are identical except for opposing binary elements form a common organizational component in chapter 32. Spatial pairings of body parts are particularly common. For example:

32.S.12

DIŠ EME.[ŠID] ana UGU ŠU NA ZAG [ŠUB]-ut [NÍ]G.TUK [TUK-ši NÍG.TUK-šú GU₇]
If a liza[rd fa]lls onto a man’s right hand — [he will acquire ri]ches; [he will consume his riches].

32.S.13

DIŠ EME.[ŠID] ana UGU ŠU NA GÙB [ŠU]B-ut ina KÙ.BABBAR DUMU.MUNUS.MEŠ-šú É [DÙ-uš]
If a liz[ard fa]lls onto a man’s left hand — [he will build] a house with his daughters’ money.

32.A.19

[DIŠ EM]E.DIR a-na UGU ^gišGU.ZA NA ŠUB-ut KA×MI EN.NU.UN [u₄-me]
[If a liz]ard falls onto a man’s stool — an eclipse during the [day]watch (will occur).

32.A.22

[DIŠ] EME.DIR a-na UGU ^gišGU.ZA NA E₁₁ is-sa-la-[a’]
[If] a lizard climbs onto a man’s stool — he will be chronically i[ll].

32.A.101’

DIŠ EME.DIR MIN (kit-pu-lu-ma) ana ÚR NA KU₄.MEŠ-ma NU DU₈.MEŠ-ma […] x […] x DAB-bat
If ditto (= entwined) lizards crawl into a man’s lap and do not separate and […] … […] … will seize […].

32.A.102’

DIŠ EME.DIR MIN (kit-pu-lu-ma ana ÚR NA) KU₄.MEŠ-ma DU₈.MEŠ-ma EGI[R …] DAB-bat
If (= entwined) lizards crawl ditto (= into a man’s lap) and separate and beh[ind …] will seize.

Binary pairs can even be combined into longer sequences of inter-related omens such as in the sequence 32.S.12 through 32.S.16.

As mentioned above in the discussion on each recension’s sources, the obverse of the Assur tablet VAT 10167 and the entirety of the Sultantepe tablet SU 1952, 242 (STT 323) are very similar in terms of content and omen sequencing. The following table will serve as an example of the similarities and differences between the two recensions. In the tablet and the explanation that follows, omens are distinguished by a color. Each color is used once in each recension and indicates two corresponding omens. While most of the omens of the same color are not exact duplicates of the omen in the other recension, the similarities are undeniable.

Assur recension		Sultantepe recension
32.A.3 [DIŠ EME.DIR a-na UGU NA] ŠUB-ut SÙḪ ni-zíq-tu4		32.S.2 [DIŠ EME.ŠID ana] UGU NA ŠUB-ut SÙḪ! ni-ziq-[tu4]
32.A.4 [DIŠ EME.DIR a-na … NA] ŠUB-ut mim-mu-šu ZÁḪ		32.S.3 [DIŠ] E[ME.ŠID ana U]GU bu-di [NA] ŠUB-ma […]
32.A.5 [DIŠ EME.DIR a-na IGI NA] ŠUB-ut UGU EN INIM-šu GUB-az		32.S.4 [DIŠ] EME.ŠID ana IGI NA Š[UB]-ut KUR­ad EN INIM-[šu]
32.A.6 [DIŠ EME.DIR a-na … NA] ŠUB-ut KUR-ad Á.ÁŠ
32.A.7 [DIŠ EME.DIR a-na … NA] ŠUB-ut EN INIM-šu KUR-ad		32.S.5 [DIŠ] EME.ŠID ana IGI NA Š[UB]-ut UGU EN INIM-šú GUB-a[z]
32.A.8 [DIŠ EME.DIR a-na EGIR? N]A ŠUB-ut a-na di-ni-šu i-ger-ru-šu
32.A.9 [DIŠ EME.DIR a-na EGIR NA ŠUB-u]t-ma it-tap-pi-iṣ ḪUL IGI-mar		32.S.6 [DIŠ] EME.ŠID ana [EGI]R NA ŠUB-ut-ma [TAG]­su pí-is-lat ḪUL IGI-[mar]
32.A.10 [DIŠ EME.DIR a-na EGIR NA] ŠUB-ut-ma TAG KALAG.GA-su pí-is-la-at ḪUL IGI-mar		32.S.7 [DIŠ] EME.ŠID ana [EGI]R NA ŠUB-ut-ma [it]­ta-pí-iṣ MUNUS.ḪUL IGI-[mar]
Sequence continues: 32.A.11 through 32.A.16		Sequence continues: 32.S.8 through 32.S.13

Firstly the two sequences are offset by at least one omen. This is not unusual when comparing the two recensions. The Assur sequence begins on 32.A.3 and the Sultantepe sequence on 32.S.2. The preceding omens are simply too fragmentary to comment on.

Secondly, while corresponding omens are generally in similar places within the two omen sequences, occasionally individual omens will be transposed within their respective recensions. For example, 32.A.9, in which a lizard falls behind a man and flops about, precedes 32.A.10, in which the lizard also falls behind a man, but touches him instead of flopping. In the Sultantepe recension, however, the lizard first touches the man it falls behind, 32.S.6, and then falls behind a man and flops about repeatedly, 32.S.7.

Though the above sequences have multiple omens transposed, not all sequences do. For example, the omens in 32.A.11 through 32.A.16 follow the same sequence, without any transposition, as the omens in 32.S.8 through 32.S.13.

Another difference between omens in the two recensions can be orthographic. Orthographic differences are common around the use of phonetic complements, the use of NA versus LÚ for ‘man’. The apodosis also commonly differ in whether they begin by stating NA/LÚ BI ‘that man’ or É BI ‘that house’ or not at the beginning of the apodosis. Sometimes omens only differ slightly in terms of orthography such as ni-zíq-tu₄ and ni-ziq-tu₄ in 32.A.3 and 32.S.2, respectively. Other times the differences are greater, but the omens can still be said to be similar, such as 32.A.7 and 32.S.4. The apodoses of the two omens use the same signs, but the order is reversed. Though the change results in slightly different translations, the essential meaning of overcoming a legal adversary remains the same in both apodoses.

Not every omen on the obverse of VAT 10167 or on the Sultantepe tablet has a corresponding omen in the other recension. When comparing the two sequences above, it appears as if 32.A.6 and 32.A.8 are interpolations as they do not have corresponding omens in the Sultantepe recension. Within the Assur recension’s sequence, however, both omens are well placed. The KUR-ad in 32.A.6’s apodosis is picked up in the apodosis of 32.A.7, and the semantic reference of a legal adversary in 32.A.7’s apodosis obviously triggers the topic of lawsuits in 32.A.8. It is not, however, just the Assur recension that preserves additional omens. Further down in the Sultantepe sequence, starting with 32.S.60, there is a sequence of omens about lizards with two tails. None of these omens correspond to any omen in the Assur sequence.[12] A few of them, however, do have overlaps with omens in the Nineveh recension.

Finally, there are omens like 32.A.4 and 32.S.3. They are within similar sequences in their respective recensions and may even correspond to each other, but their fragmentary state and the signs they do preserve make reconciling them difficult.

The lizards of chapter 32

The lizards of chapter 32 most commonly appear within the house, but there are also a section of omens in which a man encounters a lizard while walking in the street (32.A.89’–95’). Mostly the lizards move within a person’s spatial awareness: climbing upward; falling onto humans or their belongings; circling humans or their body parts (32.A.84’ If a lizard encircles a man’s neck); crawling into, onto or under spaces and things (32.A.42 If a lizard crawls into a bread box and lies down. They make noise and call out (32.N.47’ If a lizard calls out all day in a man’s house) or they hiss (32.N.37’ If a lizard hisses …). Lizards also give birth[13] (32.S.70–72 and 74–76). Lizards occasionally walk about on people (32.N.63’ [If a lizard wa]lks^? about on a pregnant woman) or household furnishings (32.N.40’ Variant B If a lizard walk about on top of a man’s bed). Despite all this activity, it is noteworthy that after falling, one of the most common verbs is the passive IGI-mar or IGI.DU₈ ‘is/are seen’. This verb is often used in protases in which a lizard’s characteristics are the subject. For example, the protasis of 32.N.5 reads “[If] a white [li]zard with two tail[s] is seen in a man’s house”. Other protases use the verb to refer to where a presumably dead lizard is seen (32.N.49’ If a lizard is seen in either water or beer). Although the lizards of chapter 32 are very much in motion, the agency the text gives them is limited.

Chapter 32 almost always writes the word ‘lizard’ using the equivalent logograms EME.DIR or EME.ŠID[14]—the former, as already noted by Landsberger (1934, 114),[15] is more common in Assyrian texts, even outside the context of Šumma ālu. In line with this, all of the manuscripts in our corpus from Assur and Sultantepe use EME.DIR while all of the Nineveh manuscripts, except for K 2708+, use EME.ŠID. Less commonly in chapter 32, the word for lizard is written syllabically and always using the feminine ṣu-ri-ri-it-tu₄. For example, see 32.N.3.

The logograms EME.DIR and EME.ŠID correspond to the Akkadian ṣurāru. The Sumerian etymology is, however, unknown[16] and the Akkadian for ‘lizard’ is problematic (CAD Ṣ, 255b s.v. ṣurāru A):
 

(1) The grammatical gender of lizards in Akkadian appears to have been flexible. Both male and female forms are used in correspondence to the same logograms. Further, there are multiple attested forms of the word. Masculine forms include ṣurāru, ṣurīrû, and ṣurārû, and the feminine attested forms are ṣurīrītu and ṣurīrittu. Within chapter 32, the grammatical gender can differ from one omen to the next, even when preserved on the same manuscript (see for example K 03730+ in 32.N.1), with no obvious difference in meaning.

(2) The plural of lizards is rarely never indicated with the expected plural marker MEŠ. In fact, the CAD Ṣ (255b s.v. ṣurāru A) states that there are no known attestations of EME.DIR.MEŠ or EME.ŠID.MEŠ. On the other hand, If a City 2 (p. 176 omens 33’–55’) reads or reconstructs several omens with EME.DIR.MEŠ (32.A.105’–127’ in this online edition). For these omens, we follow the readings in KAL 1 (p. 70–71 Rs. 35’–59’), which do not include the plural marker. In collating the Nineveh tablets, the following two attestations of a plural marker added to a logogram for lizards were found:

32.N.37’ Variant C (K 06912+)
[DIŠ E]ME.ŠID.MEŠ ina KI.[NÁ NA^? …]
[If li]zards […] in [a man’s^?] sleeping [place …]
 

32.N.Sm 0710+ 15’ (32.N.41’ Variant B)
[DIŠ E]ME.ŠID.MEŠ DAB.DAB-ta-ma ana UGU ˹NA˺ ŠUB.MEŠ NA BI KI DU-ku ḪA.LA G[U₇]
[If] entangled [li]zards fall onto a man — that man: wherever he goes will con[sume] a share.
 

In most instances, EME.DIR and EME.ŠID can refer to both a singular lizard and to multiple lizards. The CAD Ṣ (255b s.v. ṣurāru A) suggests ṣurārû may be a collective noun for lizards, which would make the plural marker MEŠ unnecessary. Often the only indication that EME.DIR or EME.ŠID should be read as a plural is the context. Plural usage can sometimes be gleaned from verb forms, but as omens tend to use logograms instead of syllabic spellings, which would make plural verb forms explicit, this is limited in its usefulness.

In this edition, the masculine singular ṣurāru is used for the logograms EME.ŠID and EME.DIR unless a feminine form is indicated through personal pronouns, adjectives, or syllabic spelling. As the few syllabic spellings fit with the spelling ṣurīrittu, and not ṣurīrītu, the former has been used when a feminine form is indicated. Where a plural is indicated, the collective ṣurārû has been used. If a feminine form is indicated for the plural, ṣurīrātu has been used.

Interpretation

The Mesopotamians were not alone in ascribing ominous characteristics to lizards.[17] The ancient Greeks ascribed mantic properties to the small reptile (σαῦρος), and it can be often found on statues of diviners (Bouché-Leclerq 1879, 1 147). Just as in Mesopotamia, lizards were also used in ancient Greek magical incantations (Hünemörder 2006). Certain lizards were worshiped in the ancient Egyptian city of Fayûm and some even mummified (Hopfner 1913, 136). Lizards (lacerta) are even mentioned in Cicero’s De Divinatione 2.62.29 (Falconer, LCL 1923, 440–41)—just as indicated in Šumma ālu, lizards in one’s home appears to have been a commonplace occurrence in ancient Rome as well.

The netherworld’s spatial location under the earth and a lizard’s quick movement in and out from between rocks or cracks in walls, meant that lizards were a chthonic symbol in the Greek Archaic period and were associated with malevolent powers. A lizard could thus be used as an apotropaic device (Hurwit 2006, 130) and is often depicted on amulets against the evil eye (Nock 1972, 272). And although lizards have been hunted as game since at least the Neolithic period (Munro 2003, 53), the reptile is listed among the unclean animals in Leviticus 11 29-30.

It is likely that the lizard inspired such feelings due to its quick, scurrying movements, the sloughing of its skin just as snakes do, and the ability of many species to lose and regenerate their tails. In fact, Aelian in his De Natura Animalium 2.23 (Scholfield, LCL 1958, 122-23) implies some Greeks believed that a lizard cut in half, would not only be able to survive but would be able to rejoin the halves and lead a normal life; though, it would bare a scar from its ordeal (also mentioned in Nock 1972, 274).

The omens of chapter 32 seem to share some of this uneasy feeling about lizards. Many of the omens are associated with negative apodoses. There is a small, but observable association between lizards, illness, and death within the omens. For example, 32.N.35’ reads “If a lizard climbs onto the bed of a sick man — that sick man’s illness will leave him.”, 32.A.81’ reads “if a lizard crawls into a man’s lap — his wife will die and mour[ning …]”, and 32.S.38 reads “[If a lizard] falls [into the fi]re [in a brazier] and burns up – (a person doomed to) death will die.” This is perhaps not surprising as lizard body parts feature in Mesopotamian medicinal recipes,[18] and as mentioned above, there are lizard omens among the medical-diagnostic series Sakkikû.

Chapter 32 is also one of the few chapters in Šumma ālu to not only include omens that mention women, but to feature women within the protasis (Muller 2016, 431). The connection between women and lizards is unclear, but may be an association between the uncanniness of lizards and other small crawling creatures with women. The connection is, however, reflected in the use of lizards in reproductive medicine. The cuneiform tablet BAM 3 246: 1–5 partially preserves an abortifacient recipe that calls for a lizard to be crushed and added to beer and drunk by the pregnant woman (Biggs 2000, 11), and BAM 3 248 IV 13 has a recipe to ease labor that includes a lizard (Stol 2000, 55 note 46).

The apodoses in Šumma ālu are often repetitive and limited in topics. Nevertheless, even a quick glance at the lizard omens reveals an unusually large number of omens relating to opponents or adversaries. Often these take the form of overcoming one’s legal adversary or simply being involved in a court case. These apodoses are often linked to protases about lizards falling in front of a man (for example, 32.A.5’). If lizards are connected symbolically to one’s adversary, the metaphor of the lizard falling in front of the man, likely at his feet, is obvious. What is less obvious is why a normally skittish and usually harmless animal is connected to an adversary at all.

One consideration may be the lizard’s connection to death and rebirth (due to its skin sloughing, its ability to regenerate its tail, and its tendency to scurry into dark crevices), which may give it martial connotations. Lizards are often present in Greek art foreboding violence or death (Hurwit 2006, 124–28). Another clue can be found in other divinatory texts. As pointed out by Nougayrol (1972, 144 n. 1), there is a link in divinatory texts between the king Sargon, famous for his military campaigns, and lizards. Why this should be is unclear.[19] Omens in various extispicy omens,[20] such as in the series Šumma tīrānū ‘If the coils (of the colon)’, if an organ is said to look like a lizard, the apodosis is listed as being gišTUKUL LUGAL.GI.NA ‘the Weapon of Sargon’. This connection, which would have been known to scribes, may account for the high number of adversary apodoses among the lizard omens. Further, fights between male lizards are common and may result in one combatant ripping the tail off of the other, loss in status for the loser, or even death (Vitt and Caldwell 2014, 271).