Tiglath-pileser III’s Campaigns in 734-732 B.C. 159 — along the road leading through Israelite hills to Gezer and Gaza; — along the desert route, i.e. via Iabrudu-Hatarikka-Damascus- Northern Galilee-Akko-Dor-Ashqelon-Gaza. For the following reasons the most plausible possibility seems to be the first of ones given above. During these campaigns Tiglath- pileser III attacked Kaπpuna which is located only a few kilometers from the coast. Summ. 8:4 also mentions the conquest of the city “in the midst of the sea”, most likely referring to Arwad or Tyre located on the Mediterranean coast (18). Moreover, in his campaign in 738 B.C. Tiglath-pileser III set up his officials in S≥imirra, Usnu and Siannu, all of them located along the Mediterranean coast, which could serve as a starting point for the next campaign. Thus, the campaign took place along the coastal region of Syria and Lebanon (19). The Assyrian records also mention the capture of Tyre (Summ. 9:r.5- 8). It stands to reason to coordinate these events: the conquest of (18) For a review of different opinions and their evaluation see N. NA’AMAN, “Tiglath-Pileser III’s Campaigns against Tyre and Israel (734-732 B.C.E.)”, TA 22 (1995) 269-271; S.A. IRVINE, Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis (Atlanta, Ga. 1990) 48-50. (19) Since the fifth variant would require confronting Damascus as the first that contradicts the Eponym list, this variant should be excluded. The fourth possibility must also be excluded because Gezer was captured at the end of the campaign. The variant of the third route — avoiding Tyre — would mean attacking Northern Galilee first. This contradicts Ann 18, 23 and 24 according to which Galilee was captured in the 13th-14th palû (see below), i.e. in the second phase of the campaign. The most plausible possibility seems to be that the Assyrians attacked Tyre first and then moved southwards (route one or two). Even though, route number one is the most plausible solution, the second variant is also possible. The reconstruction of the first part of the campaign indicates that Tiglath-pileser III before attacking Tyre captured and pillaged Mahalliba together with other large cities (Summ. 9:r.6). This indicates that the Tyrian region was attacked from the east (variant two) and not from the north as would be logical if the campaign had been led along the Lebanese coast (variant one). N. Na’aman suggests that Mahalliba is situated along the coastal road leading from Byblos to Gaza; see NA’AMAN, “Tiglath- Pileser III”, 270. However, Mahalliba is identified with modern Mahalib situated about 30 km east-east-north of Tyre and the coastal road leads through coastal cities (Sidon-Sarepta-Tyre); see S. PARPOLA – M. PORTER, The Helsinki Atlas of the near East in the Neo-Assyrian Period (Helsinki 2001) 22. Thus, there are two possible explanations. Either Tiglath-pileser III attacked Tyre from the north-east using the Beqa’ valley route, or he moved from the north along the coastal road and before attacking Tyre herself, he plundered the environs of Tyre, including Mahalliba. Since during his campaigns against the Levant he conquered Kaπpuna and “the city in the midst of sea” (see below), the most reasonable suggestion is possibility number one; see NA’AMAN, “Tiglath-Pileser III”, 274.