The previously unpublished fragments BM 41481 and BM 41635 belong both to the British Museum’s 81-6-25 consignment of tablets, which is reported to stem mostly from Babylon. Both fragments are in all likelihood part of the same tablet, although they do not join physically. The big and neat script of the fragments is reminiscent of the very late Egibatila commentaries, most importantly of the Šumma Ālu commentary CCP 3.5.31, BM 41586 (81-6-25,201), which belongs to the same consignment.1 Scribes from the Egibatila family are responsible for some of the latest literary tablets, among them the latest datable commentary yet discovered, CCP 3.8.2.B (dated to 103 BCE).

The exact identity of the text commented upon in these fragments cannot be established. However, it seems clear that the base text is of divinatory nature. This is suggested first by several lines of the commentary that appear to contain apodoses (o 1, 7-8, 10, 23′, and 28′). Secondly, several parallels can be found between the quotations from the base text in the present commentary and several omen texts, among them the teratological series Šumma Izbu (o 1?), the astrological series Enūma Anu Enlil (o 28′), and the series of terrestrial omens Šumma Ālu (o 21′).

The technical term ana is used to specify from which lemma a certain word derives: for instance, the rare word sugû, “famine” (a loanword from Sumerian su.gu₇) is said to derive “from (the verb) sagû” (ana sagê), which means “to cause trouble” (o 21′, see also o 27′). The term šanîš, “alternatively,” which usually introduces alternative explanations to the same explananda, appears in r 2′. An interesting explanation appears in line o 10: according to it, the sign aš, when read /aš/, would mean “with” (itti). The rarity of the equation of aš with itti (which is attested only here) suggests that it represents an ad hoc attempt to explain a difficult use of the preposition ina, “in, with” (which is usually written simply with the sign aš) in the base text. Rather than assuming that the text is corrupt, as a modern philologist would do, the exegete prefers to interpret that the sign aš is a logogram for itti, far-fetched though it may be.

• 1. The script is also very similar to one of the other two known commentaries from the 81-6-25 consignment, CCP 7.2.u51 (BM 41637). It is, however, different from that of the Alamdimmû commentary CCP 3.7.2.K