158 Peter Dubovsk´ y suggested by M. Cogan, H. Tadmor and C.S. Ehrlich (14), but after the conquest of Transjordan. Since Transjordan was conquered during the first campaign “against Damascus” (13th palû), Gezer must have been conquered only at the end of Tiglath-pileser III’s campaign. Fifth, according to Ann 18 and 24 the destruction of Galilee preceded the Mitinti-Rubiktu episode in Ashqelon. Ann 18:8’-12’ suggests that Tiglath-pileser III also entered Ashqelon shortly afterwards. Thus, the settling of the Ashqelon problems can also be dated to the very end of the campaigns (see below). On the basis of this data I propose to divide the whole campaign into three phases: coast, Transjordan and epicenters (Damascus and Israel). a) First phase: coast (12th palû) According to the Eponym List, the first part of the campaign was directed against Philistia, i.e. against the Levantine coast (15). The biblical sources do not mention this part of Tiglath-pileser III’s campaign and it is also missing in the Assyrian annals. It is preserved only in Summ. 4, 8, and 9 (16). The center of the anti-Assyrian resistance in Philistia was Gaza under the rule of Hanunu (17). Tiglath-pileser III could attack Philistia in five possible ways, i.e. along five major routes: — along the coast, i.e. via S≥imirra-Tyre-Akzib-Akko-Dor- Ashqelon-Gaza; — along the Beqa’ valley and then moving towards the coast: Laba’u-Danabu-Mahalliba-Tyre-Akzib-Akko-Dor-Ashqelon-Gaza; — along the Beqa’ valley, avoiding Tyre, through Northern Galilee and then turning towards the coast, i.e. via Laba’u-Danabu-Akko-Dor- Ashqelon-Gaza; (14) EHRLICH, Philistines, 193; COGAN, II Kings, 180. (15) According to C.S. Ehrlich (see above) the anti-Assyrian character of the coalition developed only after the conquest of Philistia. However, it is necessary to note that whatever the primary goal of the Levantine coalition, the Assyrians considered it a hostile entity mingling with their political and economic interests. Moreover, the campaign against Philistia was also the military campaign and not a diplomatic mission. For these reasons, I prefer to take all three campaigns as part of one military operation aimed at re-establishing Assyrian control over the Levant. (16) For the synoptic reconstruction of the text see TADMOR, Inscriptions, 222-225. (17) COGAN, II Kings, 491-492.