Editing Tiglath-Pileser III (section)

== Background ==

=== Ancestry and rise to the throne ===
[[File:Tiglath-pileser III, an alabaster bas-relief from the king's central palace at Nimrud, Mesopotamia..JPG|thumb|upright=0.8|Tiglath-Pileser III, depicted in a royal chariot in one of the reliefs from the royal palace in [[Nimrud]]]]
There is not enough surviving evidence to conclude how Tiglath-Pileser III came to the throne{{Sfn|Zawadzki|1994|p=53}} and the nature of his accession is thus unclear and disputed.{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=36}} Several pieces of evidence indicate that he might have been a usurper. Pointing to this are the facts that there was a revolt in [[Nimrud]], the capital of the Assyrian Empire, in 746/745{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=36}}{{Sfn|Radner|2016|p=47}} and that numerous officials and governors were replaced after 745.{{Sfn|Radner|2012}} Ancient Assyrian sources give conflicting information in regards to Tiglath-Pileser's lineage. Tiglath-Pileser in inscriptions attributed his rise to the throne solely to divine selection, rather than the more typical practice of Assyrian kings ascribing their rise to both divine selection and his royal ancestry.{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=36}} The ''Assyrian King List'', an ancient Assyrian document listing the kings of Assyria, states that Tiglath-Pileser's father was his immediate predecessor [[Ashur-nirari V]]. Tiglath-Pileser in his own inscriptions claimed that he was the son of [[Adad-nirari III]], making him Ashur-nirari's brother.{{Sfn|Chen|2020|p=|pp=200–201}}

Assyriologists and other historians have overwhelmingly concluded that Tiglath-Pileser was a usurper.{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=36}}{{Sfn|Radner|2016|p=47}}{{Sfn|Brinkman|1968|p=406}}{{Sfn|Grayson|1981|p=73}}{{Sfn|Zawadzki|1994|p=54}} The Assyriologist Bradley J. Parker went as far as suggesting that he was not part of the previous royal dynasty at all,'''{{Sfn|Parker|2011|p=367}}''' but per the Assyriologist [[Karen Radner]], his claims of royal descent were probably true, meaning that while he did usurp the throne, he was a legitimate contender for it, having been victorious in an intra-dynastic civil war.{{Sfn|Radner|2016|p=47}} Tiglath-Pileser faced no known resistance or rebellions against his rule after taking the throne.{{Sfn|Radner|2016|p=47}}

If accepted as a royal dynast, uncertainties still exist in whether Tiglath-Pileser was the son of Adad-nirari or Ashur-nirari. The Assyriologists Fei Chen, Albert Kirk Grayson and Shiego Yamada consider it more likely that he was Adad-nirari's son,{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=36}}{{Sfn|Chen|2020|p=|pp=200–201}}{{Sfn|Yamada|2003|p=270}} with the Assyrian King List's identification of him as the son of Ashur-nirari possibly being a scribal error.{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=36}} The Assyriologist [[Paul Garelli]] considers this unlikely, given that 38 years separate the reign of Adad-nirari from that of Tiglath-Pileser, writing that the possibility of him being Ashur-nirari's son cannot be fully ruled out.{{Sfn|Garelli|1991|p=46}} 

The historian Tracy Davenport holds that "we may never know" whether Tiglath-Pileser was Ashur-nirari's son or brother.{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=41}} There are ways to explain Tiglath-Pileser's inscriptions proclaiming him as the son of Adad-nirari despite the 38 years between their two reigns. It is possible that "son" in this context meant "grandson", meaning that Tiglath-Pileser would have been the son of Ashur-nirari or another of Adad-nirari's sons, or that Tiglath-Pileser actually was Adad-nirari's son, but came to the throne when he was already relatively old, possibly aged about 50.{{Sfn|Yamada|Yamada|2017|p=390}}

[[File:Tell Ahmar, mural palacio rey Tiglatpileser audiencia sicglo VIII.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|A wall painting from [[Til Barsip]] depicting Tiglath-Pileser (sitting) holding court. The official closest to him to the right is his son [[Shalmaneser V]].{{Sfn|Radner|2012}}]]
The ''Eponym Chronicle'', a list of [[Eponym dating system|eponyms]], names for the years, typically taken from influential officials, of Assyria confirms there was a revolt in Nimrud the year before Tiglath-Pileser became king. According to the historian [[Stefan Zawadzki]], writing in 1994, the eponyms also provide insight into how the transition from Ashur-nirari to Tiglath-Pileser might have happened. That Tiglath-Pileser took the throne the year after the uprising was interpreted by Zawadzki, and others, as firmly indicating that he took the throne as the result of a ''[[Coup d'état|coup d'etat]]''. Zawadzki believes the Eponym Chronicle further suggests that the rebellion, while not necessarily led by Tiglath-Pileser himself, was started with his knowledge and consent. The chief piece of evidence Zawadzki presents for this is that the revolt of 746 began in Nimrud and the first official appointed as eponym holder by Tiglath-Pileser (in 744) was Bel-dan, the governor of Nimrud.{{Sfn|Zawadzki|1994|p=55}} 

Garelli believes the revolt in 746 was instigated by [[Shamshi-ilu]], a prominent official throughout the reigns of Tiglath-Pileser's predecessors, and that the uprising was crushed by Tiglath-Pileser after he legitimately inherited the throne.{{Sfn|Garelli|1991|p=48}} Zawadzki believes Shamshi-ilu may have revolted, as he is no longer recorded in Tiglath-Pileser's reign, but that the uprising in Nimrud was a separate revolt from Shamshu-ilu's supposed uprising and that Tiglath-Pileser or his supporters would have fought both Shamshu-ilu and Ashur-nirari.{{Sfn|Zawadzki|1994|p=55}}

In her 2016 PhD thesis, the historian Tracy Davenport advanced the theory that Tiglath-Pileser might have been entirely legitimate and that he could even have co-ruled with Ashur-nirari for some time. Supporting Garelli's idea that Tiglath-Pileser was not responsible for any rebellion and the idea that he was a member of the royal dynasty, Davenport examined the Eponym Chronicle. Notably, the eponyms for Tiglath-Pileser's early reign do not follow the traditional sequence used for Assyrian eponym holders. Typically, the king was eponym holder in his second regnal year, followed by important magnates and then provincial governors.{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=|pp=37–41}}

If Tiglath-Pileser became king in 745, the eponym holder of his second regnal year was Bel-dan, not the king himself, who was the eponym holder in 743, his third regnal year. This could be explained by Tiglath-Pileser not having become the sole ruler of Assyria until 744. There are some strange features of the Eponym Chronicle that suggest that Ashur-nirari ruled until 744, together with Tiglath-Pileser 745–744. There are two horizonal lines in this part of the list, one beneath 746, possibly marking Tiglath-Pileser's rise to the throne, and one beneath 744, possibly marking Ashur-nirari's death.{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=|pp=37–41}} 

It is unlikely that the second line is an error, since it occurs right after a note that records the end of Ashur-nirari's reign and its length. Both the Eponym Chronicle and the Assyrian King List gives Ashur-nirari a reign length of 10 years, only possible if he ruled until 744, and not 745. If Ashur-nirari did rule until 744, it is unlikely that there was a civil war, since Tiglath-Pileser is recorded to have gone on campaigns against Assyria's foreign enemies in this time, not possible if he was simultaneously involved in internal conflict.{{Sfn|Davenport|2016|p=|pp=37–41}}

=== Name ===
[[File:Phull and Theglathphalasar.png|thumb|upright=0.8|Kings ''Phull'' and ''Theglathphalasar'' in the 1493 [[Nuremberg Chronicle]], which confuses Tiglath-Pileser and Pulu as two different kings]]
Assyria was known for centuries primarily through its appearances in the [[Hebrew Bible]]. Mesopotamian rulers mentioned in the Bible are thus known today by the Biblical forms of their names.{{Sfn|Radner|2012}} The modern name Tiglath-Pileser therefore derives from the Hebrew version of the name,{{Sfn|Jacobs|Price|1906|p=145}} which is a corrupted form of the original form, Tukultī-apil-Ešarra.{{Sfn|Radner|2012}}''{{Sfn|Yamada|Yamada|2017|p=391}}{{Sfn|Jacobs|Price|1906|p=145}}'' Presumably a [[regnal name]], adopted upon his accession to the throne,{{Sfn|Radner|2012}} Tukultī-apil-Ešarra means "my trust belongs to the son of Ešarra." The Ešarra was a temple dedicated to the god [[Ninurta]] (who was thus the "son of Ešarra"). By the time of Tiglath-Pileser's reign, Ninurta was viewed as the son of the Assyrian national deity [[Ashur (god)|Ashur]].{{Sfn|Radner|2012}}

In some non-contemporary sources, such as the [[Canon of Kings]], the [[Babylonian King List]], the [[Bible]] and the works of later [[Babylonia|Babylonian]] and [[Greco-Roman world|Greco-Roman]] historians, Tiglath-Pileser is recorded under the name Pulu (''Pūlu'', [[File:Assyrian cuneiform U1204D MesZL 580.svg|32px]][[File:Assyrian cuneiform U12073 MesZL 813 or U121FB MesZL 812 or U121FC MesZL 814.svg|26px]]),{{Sfn|Frame|1992|pp=303–304}}{{Sfn|Bertin|1891|p=49}} the etymology of which is uncertain.{{Sfn|Yamada|Yamada|2017|p=388}} Though sometimes interpreted as a second regnal name, there are no contemporary Assyrian or Babylonian sources that refer to Tiglath-Pileser by this name and there is no evidence that it was ever used officially.{{Sfn|Frame|1992|pp=303–304}} No evidence exists of any Assyrian king ever using more than one regnal name in their lifetime.{{Sfn|Frame|1992|p=194}}

In 2007, the [[İncirli, Pazarcık|Incirli]] Trilingual inscription<ref>[https://www.hittitemonuments.com/incirli/ (2018) İncirli Stele.] hittitemonuments.com</ref> was published that gave contemporary confirmation that Pul (Pulu) and Tiglath-Pileser III were the same individual. Only the [[Phoenician language]] part of the inscription has been published so far because of the monument’s poor state of preservation. Still, the identification of Tiglath-Pileser III as Pul is reasonably sure because this phrase is repeated more than once in the text.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Kaufman|first=Steve |title=The Phoenician Inscription of the Incirli Trilingual: A Tentative Reconstruction and Translation |journal=MAARAV |volume=14 |issue=2 |year=2007 |pages=7–26 |doi=10.1086/MAR200714202 |s2cid=257837087 |url=https://www.academia.edu/41060049 }}</ref> The Phoenician spelling of this name is ''Puwal''.
{{quote|Tiglath-pileser III is also referred to as Puˀ/wal [Puwal] with an intervocalic glide, spelled {{lang|he|פאל}} quite clearly in at least one place (and probably the others) in contrast to biblical פול, vocalized Pûl. If it were pronounced according to the latter then one would expect {{lang|he|פל}} in the Phoenician orthography."<ref>[https://balshanut.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/kaufman-stephen-a-the-phoenician-inscription-of-the-incirli-trilingual-a-tentative-reconstruction-and-translation-maarav-1422007-7-26/ (2009) Short version of the Incirli Trilingual text.] balshanut.wordpress.com</ref>}}

The Phoenician inscription is narrated in the first person by king [[:de:Awariku|Awariku]] (''Awarikku'', ''Warika'', ''Urikki'') of [[Quwê]], who is known from other ancient inscriptions. His [[stele]] was erected to mark the land gifted to Awariku by Tiglath-Pileser III. He is also known as the King of the [[Danaans]], or the "Danunean king". He also describes himself as 'the King of the dynasty of [[Mopsos]]'.

Some Assyriologists, such as Eckart Frahm and [[Paul-Alain Beaulieu]], have speculated that Pulu was Tiglath-Pileser's original name before he became king and assumed his regnal name{{Sfn|Frahm|2017|p=176}}{{Sfn|Beaulieu|2018|p=197}} or perhaps a nickname.{{Sfn|Beaulieu|2018|p=197}}

According to [[Gerard Gertoux]], Tiglath-Pileser III was the son of Adad-nīrārī III and used the name Pulu as a young [[co-regent]] under previous kings. When he won the kingship of Babylon, for the last two years of his life, this again became his official name in Babylon. Gertoux explains the derivation of this name as a [[hypocoristic]] use of the word ''aplu'' “the heir”.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://hal.science/hal-03207471v2/document}}</ref>

=== Assyria before Tiglath-Pileser ===
{{See also|History of the Assyrians}}
Assyria first rose as a prominent state under the [[Middle Assyrian Empire]] in the 14th century BC, previously only having been a city-state centered on the city of [[Assur]].{{Sfn|Düring|2020|p=43}} From the 12th century BC onwards, the Middle Assyrian Empire entered into a period of decline, becoming increasingly restricted to just the Assyrian heartland itself.{{sfn|Düring|2020|p=46}} Though the decline was at times halted by energetic warrior-kings, reconquests were not lasting until the time of [[Ashur-dan II]] ({{reign}}934–912&nbsp;BC), who campaigned in the northeast and northwest.{{sfn|Frahm|2017|p=167}} The accession of Ashur-dan's son [[Adad-nirari II]] ({{reign}}911–891&nbsp;BC) traditionally marks the beginning of the [[Neo-Assyrian Empire]].{{sfn|Merrill|Rooker|Grisanti|2011|p=30}} 

Under the early Neo-Assyrian kings, there was a gradual reconquest of former Assyrian lands.{{Sfn|Frahm|2017|p=167}} The success of this project was an extraordinary achievement given that the kings essentially had to rebuild the Assyrian Empire from scratch.{{Sfn|Düring|2020|p=144}} Under [[Ashurnasirpal II]] ({{reign}}883–859&nbsp;BC) the Neo-Assyrian Empire rose to become the dominant political power in the [[ancient Near East]].{{Sfn|Frahm|2017|pp=167, 169}} Ashurnasirpal's son [[Shalmaneser III]] ({{reign}}859–824&nbsp;BC) further expanded Assyrian territory but his enlarged domain proved difficult to stabilize and his last few years initiated a renewed period of stagnation and decline, marked by both external and internal conflict.{{Sfn|Frahm|2017|p=172}}

[[File:Sarduri II.jpg|thumb|[[Sarduri II]] of [[Urartu]], a prominent adversary of Assyria]]
The most important problems facing Shalmaneser late in his reign were the rise of the kingdom of [[Urartu]] in the north and the increasing political authority and influence of the "magnates", a set of influential Assyrian courtiers and officials.{{Sfn|Frahm|2017|p=172}} The rise of Urartu threatened Assyrian hegemony since submission to Urartu was viewed by many vassal states as a realistic alternative to Assyria.{{Sfn|Radner|2012}} The Urartian administration, culture, writing system and religion closely followed those of Assyria. The Urartian kings were also autocrats highly similar to the Assyrian kings. The imperialist expansionism undertaken by the kings of both Urartu and Assyria led to frequent military clashes between the two, despite being separated by the [[Taurus Mountains]].{{Sfn|Frahm|2017|pp=170–171}} 

For a brief time, the Urartian army equalled that of Assyria;{{Sfn|Radner|2012}} though the Assyrians scored many victories against Urartu, notably plundering Urartu's heartland late in Shalmaneser's reign,{{Sfn|Frahm|2017|p=171}} the Urartians scored victories of their own. In 754, the Urartian king [[Sarduri II]] defeated the Assyrian army under Ashur-nirari V at [[Arpad, Syria|Arpad]], an event that may have led to the Assyrian army not campaigning for several years.{{Sfn|Radner|2012}} The Assyrian kings were unable to deal with external threats since the magnates had gradually become the dominant political actors and central authority had become very weak.{{Sfn|Frahm|2017|p=173}} 

The reigns of Tiglath-Pileser's three predecessors [[Shalmaneser IV]] ({{reign}}783–773&nbsp;BC), [[Ashur-dan III]] ({{reign}}773–755&nbsp;BC) and Ashur-nirari V was the low point of Assyrian royal power. In Shalmaneser IV's reign, the ''[[turtanu]]'' (commander-in-chief) [[Shamshi-ilu]] was bold enough to credit military victories to himself rather than the king.{{Sfn|Frahm|2017|p=175}} Ashur-nirari V appears to have been relatively idle as a ruler. He campaigned only three times, staying in Assyria throughout the majority of his reign, and he is not known to have conducted any building projects.{{Sfn|Grayson|1982|p=|pp=277–278}}