This monograph is a full investigation of the Synchronistic King List (ScKL), which is represented by seven fragments of tablets originating from Assur that recorded the names of Assyrian and Babylonian kings from the eighteenth to the seventh century bc synchronically in parallel columns (Grayson, RlA 6, pp. 116–25, King Lists 12–17). The work is based on the author's PhD dissertation (Peking University, 2014), which has since been revised using his postdoctoral research undertaken at Berlin and Munich.
Chapter 1 is the introduction outlining Mesopotamian king lists as a textual genre, and presents the “exemplars” of the ScKL, with the archaeological contexts of their discovery, along with their textual contents, and the history of publications, collations, and studies.
Chapter 2 is the main chapter, in which all the “exemplars” are presented with transliterations, translations, and commentary. The latter is composed of philological notes on each line and the scrutiny of relevant historical sources to confirm or refute the chronological contemporality of Assyrian and Babylonian kings given in the parallel columns. The edition is based on “the copies of Weidner and Schroeder, the collations of Kraus, Brinkman and Grayson, the excavation photos of A.117 and A.118, and the personal collations of the present author on the other fragments” (p. 27), thus dealing with the tablets’ deterioration. The excavation photos of the five fragments exhibited by the Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin (KAV 9–13) are given in plates (pp. 239–43). Though the volume provides a new edition of the ScKL “exemplars”, the transliteration occasionally does not precisely represent what is seen on the excavation photos as well as the copies of Weidner and Schroeder and is erroneous on a few points. The following modifications should be noted:
A.117 i 8′: read ŠÚ as logogram (for kidin); i 21′: read [maš-šur-ERIN.DÁ]Ḫ (not ri, as stated in the commentary); iii 7: the author states in the commentary, “The second was restored as ‘PA’ by Schroeder, but ‘ZUM’ by Weidner”, though Schroeder's copy should read ⸢ši-rík(=ZUM)⸣; iii 21: read [mlu]ḫ (as noted in commentary); col. iv 21: read [.....] x DUB? ša 11(=LÚ) dAG-NIR-su Chen proposes innovative restorations on the severely damaged col. ii, which differs from Weidner's copy (AfO 3, p. 70) and Grayson's edition (RlA 6, pp. 118f.), yet adds few epigraphical comments on what he saw on the excavation photo. It would be useful if the photo were presented to share with the reader.
KAV 10 i 2′: read K]AL-an; i 5′: read [maš-šu]r-SAG-i-ši; i 6′: read [mtuk]ul-; i 8′: read -ka-li (-li is better than -la); ii 3′: read mdPA-GU[B-.
KAV 13 line 1′: read ⸢mdMAŠ-A(?)⸣ -[…].
KAV 9 line 2′: read š[u-…] (rightly noted in commentary)
KAV 11 line 1′: read ⸢BE-PAB-ir m⸣a[š-; line 4: read ma[š-šur-uballiṭ]
KAV 12 line 6′: read [m]d[MAŠ]-⸢A⸣-[…]
A.118 (=KAV 182) iii 7′: read mdMAŠ-[NÍG.D]U-PAB; iii 8′: read mdA-É-⸢PAP-SUM⸣-na (as noted in commentary); iii 14′: read ⸢mdba⸣-[ba-aha-iddina] (as noted in commentary); iv 4′: read mdPA-NUMUN-GIŠ(not SI); iv 10′, read [… b]al-; iv 11: read …] U (as noted in commentary).
Chapter 3 deals with the format of the ScKL. Chen concludes that it is impossible to provide a reasonable explanation for the formal difference between all the ScKL exemplars, since most of the fragments are too small. Thus, his analysis is made based primarily on the chief exemplar, A. 117. However, the “exemplars” are not really those representing one and the same fixed text, but several similar texts. In regard to A.117, Chen notes two rules adopted by the scribes: (1) not to list one king repeatedly in two or more units separated from each other by horizontal lines; and (2) not to produce the corresponding pairs in the style of “more to more” (i.e. several kings of one land set opposite several kings of another) in a single unit. Subsequently, he deduces three “standards” by which the scribes drew the lines: (i) to list the pairs of kings from the distant past whose synchronizations cannot be confirmed by available sources into separate units in the style of “one to one” and pack all the subsequent kings from the two lands together into one unit (in the category of “one to more” or “more to one”) that ends immediately preceding the confirmed pair of contemporary kings which follows; (ii) to draw a dividing line under the name of an ummânu, so that no king would be listed directly under an ummânu in the same unit; and (iii) to draw lines under the pairs of kings who were contemporaries during the greater part of their reigns.
Chapter 4 considers the date of composition, as well as the number of kings and the time period originally covered by the text, along with some other issues. Chen suggests that A.117 and A.118 date to the reigns of Assurbanipal and Assur-etil-ilani, respectively, with whom the texts end. The colophon of A.118 reveals that the text originally started with Erišum of Assur and Sumulael of Babylon. In this connection, he proposes that “the synchronization between Hammurabi and Šamši-Adad I, as well as Išme-Dagan I, would have made it possible for the scribe to regard Sumu-la-El to have been the contemporary of Erishum I”, since the number of generations lapsed between these rulers in Assyria and Babylonia were five/six and four, respectively. This is acceptable if we assume that the Assyrian scribes did not dare attempt to calculate the timespans to prove their non-contemporaneity (r. 1894–1881 vs. r. 1974–1935) upon the supposedly available sources of the eponym lists, the Assyrian King List, and the Babylonian King List A.
In chapter 5, with reference to the purpose of the composition, the author suggests that the ScKL was composed as propaganda to support Assurbanipal's Babylonian policy by declaring that the “separation” policy concerning the thrones of Assyria and Babylonia, as planned by Esarhaddon, was still being maintained by Assurbanipal.
The book culminates with a conclusion, appendices, bibliography, plates, and index. It represents a systematic study of the ScKL, and Chen's penetrating analysis of the texts should be highly regarded.
