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 Melid, Gurgum and Kummuh13. The Assyrians besiege the city of Arpad following the victory in the battle fought in the land of Kummuh. The city fell after three years and the kingdom of Arpad became an Assyrian province.
Following the fall of Arpad in 740, most western kingdoms, including the kingdom of Israel, presumably surrendered to Assyria. We have two documents dating to the time of Tiglath-pileser III in which the name of Menahem ‘of Samaria’ is mentioned; both documents contain the names of the western kings who gave tribute to the king of Assyria14. In the stele from Iran, Menahem is mentioned before Ethbaal of Tyre (III A, line 6·= Tadmor, Inscriptions, 106-107-the following: list A), whereas in the other inscription Menahem is mentioned before Hiram of Tyre (Tadmor, Inscriptions, Ann. 13*: 11·= Ann. 27: 2; the following: list B). The Tyrian king’s name is not specifically mentioned in the Layard manuscript, but Smith apparently filled in this name according to an additional copy of the inscription he possessed, so his reading should not be rejected15. The various names of kings of Tyre indicate that list A preceded list B for two reasons: (1) Hiram, king of Tyre, is specifically mentioned in connection with Rezin’s revolt and Tiglath-pileser III’s campaigns to the west in 734-732: ‘[Hi]ram of Tyre, who plotted together with Reizn [...]’ (Tadmor, Inscriptions, Summ. 9: rev.·5'). (2) summary inscription 7 (rev.·16') specifically indicates that Matan reigned after Hiram. The order in which the Tyrian kings appear at that time is Ethbaal, Hiram, and Matan16. Tadmor correctly argued that the names of western kings who gave tribute to Assyria in 738-737 appear in list B17. In 739 the Assyrian army marched to the Upper Tigris (Ulluba) so it is reasonable to assume that list A is actually the list of those who brought offerings to Assyria in 740, the year in which the Assyrians conquered Arpad18.
The list of tribute paid to Assyria in the stele from Iran mentions Israel, Damascus, Tyre, and the Arabs amongst others. Nevertheless, two main groups are missing from the list: (1) The kingdoms located south of Damascus and Israel, which include Judah, the Transjordan kingdoms and the Philistine kingdoms. (2) Northwestern Syrian kingdoms, mainly Hamath and Unqi and also the Phoenician cities located south of Unqi and west of Hamath, including Usnu, Zimarra, Arqa, Siannu and Kashpuna. Unqi is mentioned explicitly as one of the kingdoms revolting against Assyria; the other kingdoms did not surrender, and this was taken by the Assyrians as a hostile act, which demanded a response.
The passage 2 Kgs 15,19-20, which depicts the arrival of the Assyrian king in Israel and the offerings of Menahem, apparently refers to the subjection of Menahem in 740. It appears that Menahem’s reign was unpopular and a bond with Assyria was meant to strengthen the new dynasty in Israel. Indeed, the money owed to Assyria was not paid out of the