Gershon Galil, «A New Look at the Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III», Vol. 81 (2000) 511-520
The first part of the article re-examines the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, mainly Summary inscriptions 4, 9, 10 and Ann. 18, 23, 24. The author proposes a new reading to line 6 of Summ. 4 by adding a verb (abil or aks$ud) at the end of this line, and separating lines 5-6 from lines 7-8. In the author’s opinion Ann. 18 and 24 are indeed parallel versions depicting the events of 732, yet, Ann. 18 describes the conquest of Galilee, while Ann. 24 deals with the conquest of Damascus. The second part of the article examines the relations between Assyria and the West in the days of Tiglath-pileser III in light of the new proposals offered in the first part of the article.
of [Bit-Humria (or on the border of Moab)]. This pattern refers to the kingdom of Damascus, but also includes territories of more than one kingdom extending from the southern border of the kingdom of Hamath to southern Israel (including the kingdom of Damascus). The Assyrian Royal Inscriptions adduce many examples of this territorial pattern.
According to my new proposal, Kashpuna indicates the northwestern point of the occupied area: Qanite faces east whereas the Gilead and Abel- Shit[t[i mark the central and south area. ‘Gilead’ probably refers to Ramoth-gilead (for the abbreviation of Ramoth-gilead to Gilead compare Abel-Shittim to shortened Shittim). Abel Shittim indicates the southern point of the described area, which is located at the tip of the Israelite kingdom (or of Moab). Note that the reading ‘Abel- Shit[t[i) is problematic. Other readings can be suggested; and the scribe may have made a mistake and it should be read as Abelim. Moreover, Smith was obviously reluctant to read the signs following a-bil in a clear-cut manner. However, additional signs were reconstructed in Smith’s initial proposal (ibid., table LI). Was this due to a clarification of the proposed reading, or was it merely an educated guess by Smith, based on the indistinct remains of the name?
A different territorial pattern is presented in summary inscriptions 9–10. This pattern is partially similar to that mentioned in summary inscription 4, where it defines the borders of the kingdom of Damascus: ‘I annexed to Assyria the wide [land of Bit]-Hazaili, in its entirely from [Mount Leb]anon as far as the city of Gilea[d, ..., ... on the bor]der of Bit Humria’. This territorial pattern is different from the one in summary inscription 4, and the one should not be completed according to the other. In fact, the only toponym common to both patterns is ‘Gilead’ (which was preserved almost entirely in summary inscription 10, whereas in summary inscription 9 it was partially preserved and therefore its completion is uncertain). It is reasonable to assume that the letters s$a patti were included in both these patterns, however all the other definitions differ:
(1) In summary inscriptions 9–10 Mount Lebanon; in summary
inscription 4 Kashpuna.
(2) In summary inscriptions 9–10 the toponym ‘Gilead’ comes after the letters adi whereas in summary inscription 4 ‘Qanite’ is probably mentioned after those letters.
(3) A general pattern of the occupied area can be seen in summary inscription 4 (including several kingdoms), whereas in summary inscriptions 9–10 only a territorial pattern of the kingdom of Damascus is seen.
(4) In summary inscriptions 9–10 the kingdom of Israel is specifically mentioned (‘the land of Omri’), whereas in summary inscription 4 it is unclear whether to complete ‘the house of Omri’ or ‘Moab’.
(5) In summary inscription 4 Abel-shit[t[i (or Abel-X) is mentioned as a city situated on the outskirts of Beth-Omri or Moab. However, the name of the city mentioned in summary inscriptions 9–10, which was on the confines of Israel, was not preserved, and for the time being it is impossible to complete its name. One can think of names of various cities located along the Israel-Aram border, such as those mentioned in 2 Kgs 15,29.
The precise meaning of the term ‘Gilead’ in summary inscriptions 9–10 is vague. If we were to accept the identification as the city of Ramoth-gilead, we