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 with his postdoctoral research undertaken at Berlin and Munich.
Chapter 1 is the introduction, outlining Mesopotamian king lists as a textual genre and presenting the “exemplars” of the ScKL, with the archaeological contexts of their discovery, their textual content, and the history of publication, collations, and studies.
Chapter 2 is the main body of the work, 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 (=Weidner, AfO 3 [1926], pp. 70f.) and A.118 (=KAV 182), and the personal collations of the present author on the other fragments” (p. 27), thus dealing with the deterioration of the tablets. The excavation photos of the five fragments in the collection of the Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin (KAV 9–13), are given in plates (pp. 239–43). Although the volume provides a new edition of the ScKL “exemplars”, occasionally, the transliteration does not precisely represent what is seen on the excavation photos, and the copies of Weidner and Schroeder; it is erroneous in some cases. The following modifications should be noted:
A.117 (pp. 31–99) i 8′: read ŠÚ as logogram (for kidin; see Heeßel, NABU 2002 [Sept.], pp. 60f.); i 21′: read [maš-šur-ERIN.DÁ]Ḫ (the last sign is not ri, as stated in commentary [p. 52]); iii 21: read [mlu]ḫ (as noted in commentary); iv 21: read [x x x x]-⸢TI.LA(?)-su⸣ ša 11(=LÚ) dAG NIR-su “[tablet of(?) …].., whose trust is Nabû” (cf. Hunger, AOAT 2, p. 179 under tukultu). Chen proposes innovative hypothetical restorations on the severely damaged col. ii, which differ from Weidner's copy (AfO 3, p. 70) and Grayson's edition (RlA 6, pp. 118f.), but his epigraphic comments on what he saw on the excavation photo are minimal. It would be useful if the photo was shared with the reader.
KAV 10 (pp. 99–104) i 2′: read K]AL-an; i 5′: read [maš-šu]r-SAG-i-ši; i 6′: read [mtuk]ul-ti-; i 8′: read [maš-šur-E]N-ka-li(for la); ii 3′: read mdPA-GU[B-apli]; ii 4′: read mdMAŠ-NÍG.DU-PA[B]
KAV 13 (pp. 104–106) line 1′: read [m]⸢dMAŠ-A⸣ -[…]
KAV 9 (pp. 106–110) line 2′: read ⸢mšu⸣-[…]
KAV 11 (pp. 110–13) line 1′: read [m]d⸢BE-PAB-ir m⸣a[š-
KAV 12 (pp. 113–15) line 6′: read [m]⸢d⸣[MAŠ]-⸢A⸣-[é-kur]
A.118 (pp. 115–24) 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-aḫa-iddina] (as noted in commentary); iv 4′: read mdPA-NUMUN-GIŠ(not SI); iv 9′: read [… ša] dAG tul-lat-su (cf. above, A117, iv 21); iv 10′, read [… b]al-til ki; iv 11′: read [ša itabbalu Šamaš litbal]-šu 13(=U) “[one who takes it away, may Šamaš take] him [away]” (see Hunger, AOAT 2, pp. 177f. under tabālu; cf. Grayson, RlA 6, p. 125, note VI 8–11).
Chapter 3 deals with the ScKL format. 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 primarily based on the chief “exemplar”, A. 117. However, it should be noted that the “exemplars” are not really those representing the same fixed text but several similar texts. Regarding 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 deduced 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 “scholar” 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, the number of kings, the period originally covered by the text, and other issues. Chen suggests that A.117 and A.118 date to the reigns of Assurbanipal and Aššur-etil-ilani, respectively, with whom the texts end. The colophon of A.118 reveals that the text originally started with Erišum of Assur and Sumu-la-El 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”, as the number of generations that elapsed between these rulers in Assyria and Babylonia was five/six and four, respectively. This implies that the Assyrian scribes did not attempt to calculate the precise 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, although Chen does not state this explicitly.
In chapter 5, regarding 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 the first systematic study of the ScKL, a welcome addition to the study of Mesopotamian chronographic sources.
